I see many conflicts created when people frame a problem as a matter of irreconcilable opposites. These same people, assisted by skillful exploration, are able to shift their perspectives to see the differences merely as tensions to be managed. Shifting our perspectives from opposites to complements is a powerful way to resolve differences and unite for common good.

Here’s an example. I was recently called into a situation in which a group of lawyers were claiming that they were being overly and unduly managed. They wanted freedom and autonomy, claiming that their professional reputations were at stake. They did not want their superiors to have the ability to overrule their decisions. The supervisors saw these lawyers as renegades who were not sensitive to how the decisions they were making affected the organization as a whole. They wanted final review rights on all work.

These two groups had created a strong “us-them” culture with autonomy and accountability seen as irreconcilable differences. When we examined the two perspectives, however, they were able to reframe the dilemma as a tension between independence and interdependence. They realized that each side had the same objectives. The supervisors realized that they had to give the lawyers some freedom and autonomy but also build in accountability mechanisms to ensure the organization’s ultimate success.

Once the two groups saw the problem as a tension to be managed and not a set of opposites with no bridge, they were able to move into finding mechanisms that would satisfy each group.

Another wonderful example is a mediation I did in a racially charged situation. When I administered the Myers-Briggs indicator, the parties at first saw they were “opposites” on most of the scales. Then I shifted them to look at the differences as a continuum of strengths. Each aspect had its benefits, and using both temperaments made them stronger. Once they embraced the notion that this was not an either-or choice but a “we can have both,” they were able to begin respecting the others’ attributes and use them not as wedges, but as supports.

The next time you find yourself looking at a situation and seeing it as a collision of opposites, look for:

1. The underlying unifying goal. What does each party want??
2. Play out the opposites until you see the other side of it. For example: too much autonomy leads to…, too little autonomy leads to…; too much control leads to…, too little control leads to…. The extreme of the poles is usually what is scaring one of the parties.
3. Play out the upside of each pole. What is the benefit of each pole?
4. Then ask “how do we get the benefits and manage the downsides?” This is the shift to seeing the opposites as a tension to be managed, not a choice between one or the other.
5. Finally, ask “what do we need to do to get the best of both?”

Recently I was working with two colleagues, Joe and Daniel. They had been friendly and had worked well together for close to two years, but their relationship had suddenly turned sour and was affecting the entire office. Their boss called me to ask if I might help.

I embarked on a fairly typical process to help the two parties work this out, starting with individual conversations.

Daniel claimed that all was fine and there was no need to get in a room and talk.

Joe said that Daniel was temperamental and had frequent outbursts, but that he had come to live with it. Joe also said that he wanted to talk about Daniel’s performance—and went on to cite numerous incidents of work not being done as instructed. Joe readily admitted, however, his tendency to have high standards and to get upset when things were not done exactly the way he wanted them done.

I was not at all sure how the mediation would go, as Daniel was so reluctant to get in a room with Joe. The meeting started slowly with them both tentatively acknowledging the value of working this out and articulating each other’s strengths. As they got closer to talking about “the problem” they started arguing in great detail about each step of their standard operating procedure (SOP).

In the midst of the debate, Joe said, “I told Daniel to own his work.” This was an accusation that Daniel was somehow responsible for the errors because he was not talking responsibility.

I asked Daniel if he recalled Joe telling him “to own” his work. Daniel said, “Yes.” I then asked Daniel what owning his work meant to him. His response was to do his work the way he thought it should be done even if it varied from the SOP.

Next I asked Joe what “owning” his own work meant. Joe replied, “Doing the work the way I said it should be done.”

Ah, a small word—“own”—but a huge difference in interpretations!!

In that moment they saw their problem. Though they both heard the same word, they had sent and received very different messages. Neither actually cared about the SOPs, but they both cared about getting the work done efficiently and effectively. They were colliding, if you will, over who got to decide how the work got done on a number of occasions. Joe thought he had permission to do things his way, and Daniel thought Joe was to do it precisely the way Daniel wanted it done.

Now you might think that the decision on who makes the call about process was the issue, but it was not. They easily cleared that up. The ultimate problem was that Daniel often gave vague instructions when telling Joe how he wanted it done. The words we use count. This was their biggest learning—that when they discuss work togther they have to be sure they are communicating well. They agreed to simply restate their understandings when they finished planning so that they both could agree to what was decided.

This is not an unusual problem. It happens in two-way conversations and it happens in meetings. People assume they all have the same information because they all heard the same words. Not always true! Here are a few tips:

1. At the end of every conversation or decision, someone in the room should be asked to restate the conclusion. This allows everyone to hear the message once again. If there are just two of you, you both should say what you heard. Be careful to be as specific as possible.

2. Use a flip chart and make a point of writing the decisions, agreements and next steps. A visual will help people notice if they have misunderstood.

3. At the conclusion of a meeting when there have been several conversations, always review the major points, decisions and next steps.

4. When summarizing or giving directions, paint a picture. Describe exactly what it would look like if it were done as agreed. Be as concrete and specific as possible.

As per the study mentioned earlier, many employees attribute most of the conflict they experience to personality clashes and egos. This attribution is echoed in my experience as an organizational development consultant, mediator, and coach. Unlike a study, my work has allowed me to delve deep into situational conflicts and explore the dynamics at work. What I’ve learned is that most conflict is not caused by personality differences, but as a result of:

1. Misaligned or misunderstood goals (working at cross purposes)
2. Unclear roles
3. Unclear processes or procedures

In my 34 years of working in and with organizations, never have I seen personalities as the root problem. Someone’s behavior may be troublesome, and people often ascribe behavior to a personality problem—but this may or may not be true.

Moving from observing behavior to analyzing someone’s personality is dangerous, inappropriate and beyond most of our skill sets. Furthermore, we have almost no control over someone’s personality, so the endeavor to label it as problematic puts us in a no-win situation.

Rather than look at personalities, we need to look at the situation. As a mediator and consultant, I start to dig deeper when people say that the problem is “the other person’s personality.” I ask them to go back to observable behaviors: “What is happening in concrete, specific terms?”

I often ask people to laboriously detail events and processes. 99% of the time, people discover that it is not the other person’s personality that’s the problem but rather a misunderstanding, confusion, or a difference of opinion about goals, expectations, roles, or processes. These are easier to remedy (though not always) and much less likely to be emotionally loaded.

It behooves us, as managers, to not only resolve conflict but to prevent it. Each of us—whether we are leaders, managers or co-workers—can help. Here’s how:

1. Increase time spent on start-up processes. When a new project begins or a new hire is on boarded, spend the upfront time to be clear about the job, including goals, expectations, roles, authority level, decision making, reporting lines, communication requirements, and troubleshooting processes. Be meticulous about the start-up process. It’s a big investment of time, often resisted by busy managers, but it’s well worth it if it increases trust and productivity, speeds the learning curve and prevents problems later. And it will!
2. Deal with problems quickly. As soon as a problem surfaces, long before it becomes a conflict, deal with it. It should be managed quickly. The earlier you intervene the easier it will be to straighten out.
3. Keep your eye on the facts. Do not start analyzing or attributing motivation. Assume good intentions if anything. Delve into the situation, asking questions to discover people’s understanding of the goals, of their roles and the role of others, and review work processes. Get details and keep it objective. Focus on the problems and dynamics, not the people.
4. Get people together. Listening to one side or the other sets up triangulation. Bring the parties together and help THEM talk this out. Guide them, help them communicate well. With all parties in the room you have more details and more perspectives, and people are held responsibility for what they are saying. Co-workers need to learn how to talk through issues together. (You can use Step 3 as your guide for topics.)
5. Take ownership. We all have a part in any situation in which we are involved. Look for your contribution and be willing to do something about it. If you are a manger don’t back off from saying what you want or stating that a decision is yours to make. Sometimes employees are clashing because you have not been clear or decisive. Step up and ask others to do the same.

1. Being honest with myself gives me a more accurate understanding of who I am and how I contribute to my relationships, for better or worse. I then have more ability to choose what behaviors to use in the future.

2. Sharing my own “shortcomings” often gives others permission to be imperfect as well, and not feel bad about it. Sharing our imperfections is a beautiful way to love others and ourselves in a more holistic way. Making our imperfections “bad” or trying to hide them makes it impossible to grow and learn.

3. Sharing how I may have contributed to an issue clears the way for the other people involved to see their own contributions, rather than focusing on what I did.

I had a wonderful experience with this recently. I was facilitating a difficult conversation in which two participants were exhibiting behaviors that were negatively impacting the dialogue and the other participants. I began tightening my facilitation by asking people to stop interrupting and inviting non-speakers into the conversation.

After the meeting, a few participants thanked me for helping keep the conversation on track. One participant, however, was mad! I made an appointment with him to talk further about the meeting.

Using the Reboot method, I opened out conversation with a common goal and asked how he thought things went at the meting. He started slowly but eventually talked about how I had “shut him down.” I quickly acknowledged both his emotional reaction and that I had indeed done the things he had described.

“Yes”, I said,” I can see you are upset and you are correct that I asked you to stop talking and to listen for a while.”

He was visibly surprised and seemed to loose his incentive to continue telling me about my behavior. The air, if you will, came out of the tire. I was then free to ask him about his own behavior.

By skillfully questioning him about what he did and his intentions, he was then able to see and admit that his own behavior had indeed had a negative impact on the rest of the room. Because I had felt free to take ownership of my part, he felt safer and freer to admit his own.

My ability to take ownership created the space for him to look at himself. Had I not owned my part, he might have needed to continue to focus on me rather than himself.

The next time you find yourself in a conflict with someone, ask yourself what you did to contribute—or what the other person might say was your contribution. Examine it closely and take ownership of whatever is true, then be willing to admit it openly. You might be very surprised at the results.

I, of course, would love to hear what you learn from trying this technique. Please share your thoughts or experiences with “owning” your part in a conflict in the comment below.

My parents live in an assisted living facility and I have recently been unhappy with the way the facility handled a few medical incidents. The truth is, I was mad!! Really mad. I requested a meeting with the relevant staff at the facility. One of my brothers, who happens to be a physician, flew in to town to attend the meeting with me.

Following the Reboot! preparation template, my brother and I spent some time getting ready for the meeting. We thought through:

• What had happened (the facts of each incident)
• Questions we had (information we needed)
• The issues we wanted resolved
• What we wanted to see happen as a result of our discussions
• What we each have done that might have contributed to any problems

We began the meeting by sharing our topics and mutual goals. We proceeded to address the easy issues. As we entered the hot topic of how the staff had handled or mishandled some situations, the medical administrator started expounding in a firm, rapid-fire manner. It felt both aggressive and defensive. I sat there watching her behavior and my own reaction. I was frustrated. I wanted to fight back and argue. Mostly I wanted to “win” the argument.

While I pondered that, I let the medical administrator continue talking about all the steps she and her staff had taken in each of the incidents. This not only gave me breathing room, but it let her get her pent-up emotions out. (Allowing the other person in your conversation to let off steam inevitably brings the tension down. It’s like letting air out of a balloon.)

At a point when she took a breath, I simply asked, “So in your professional opinion, as you review these incidents, how well do your staff’s responses measure up to your standards?” She paused. I think she had expected a backlash from me and was taken aback by a respectful question. She then outlined what she would have done differently and what others might have done differently in each of the incidents.

In the end, she assessed her own behavior and that of her staff in a very fair manner. She made MY point. I never had to point anything out, because she knew it all along. The key had been to invite her to discover it herself. That’s because questions invite others to explore an issue for themselves—and self-discovery is the most powerful form of learning.

When facing situations in which I want another person to learn something, I find it helpful to think about what I want to say and then ask myself how to turn my statement into a question. The question needs to be:

1. Open ended: This means a question that can’t be answered with a “yes” or “no.” Think of starting your question with “how” or “what,” as these naturally require explanations.
2. Respectful: Make sure you pose the question in a way that invites the person to step up and open up.
3. Curious: Invite the person to explore, not defend.

Try it, the next time you find yourself wanting to tell someone something or to advise. Just ask yourself, how do I turn my statement into a question? It may take some time and definitely some practice, but it will be well worth it. You will find that you reach the same destination with fewer struggles and have built a better relationship with the other person. What more could you ask for?

As always, I’d love to hear your thoughts as well as your ideas on turning statements into questions.

The past weeks have been filled with examples of public outbursts, from Joe Wilson calling President Obama a liar to Serena Williams verbally attacking a line judge and Kanye West grabbing the microphone at the MTV Video Music Awards. There was even a march on Washington, a so-called “Tea Party” that included a sign saying “Bury Obamacare with Kennedy.”

Our nation and the world have a vast array of problems that need to be addressed. We need our greatest minds and our hearts involved in deep, inclusive and thoughtful conversations. But these behaviors incite and inflame rather than invite discourse and learning. They focus attention on the outburst rather than the issues at hand.

And these recent examples are but a few high-profile cases. What about our everyday interactions? How many times a day do you see incidents of rudeness? It might be on the road, in a restaurant or shop, in your workplace or in your home. We each see it, and many of us condemn it—but many of us are also guilty of ignoring it.

The question this provokes for me is, how many of us pay attention to our own actions when we are guilty of behavior that irritates, annoys or frustrates another? It is indeed the time for us to ask whether we are contributing to this growing phenomenon. And if we are, how can we alter our behavior? How can we express our views in a way that allows our messages to be heard and in a way that invites thoughtful discourse?

A challenge: Try observing your own behavior this week. How are you treating others? What messages are you sending? Are they the messages you really want to send? Are you encouraging dialogue or inflaming situations?

As always, I invite your comments.

• Summarizing: Recapping the conversation. “This is where I think you are…”
• Normalizing: Describing the situation as a normal part of the process. “This is exactly where you should be…, all groups go through this…”
• Gatekeeping: Maintaining a balanced conversation. Helping reluctant participants to get heard and reducing the airtime of “over-talkers.” “We haven’t heard from a few people in the room yet—I’d like to ask them if they have something to add.”
• Acknowledging: Recognizing a contribution or effort. “Thank you for offering that comment”, or “I understand how hard that must have been for you.”
• Giving context and locating the conversation: Stating the overall goal and how a conversation fits into the bigger picture. “Remember that we are discussing X; this conversation is connected in this way…”
• Paraphrasing and connecting: Repeating back what was said in your own words and helping the participants link what they are saying to the conversation at hand. “Is this what you mean? How does that relate to this conversation—or is it another topic?”
• Questioning: Actively exploring or asking questions to assist the group or an individual in contributing effectively. “Can anyone summarize where we are? Is this conversation important?”
• Interrupting and reiterating ground rules: Interceding to ask someone to abide by the agreed-upon rules of conduct. “Excuse me; I believe we agreed to one topic at a time” or XYZ…
• Naming the topic, the behavior: Simply stating what you are seeing or hearing. “Here is what I see happening…”
• Theming / taking a meta-view: Summarizing a series of related comments and finding a common theme, then tying the theme to the overall conversation. “Here is how what we are talking about relates to a bigger issue…”
• Locating lost threads: Noticing what topics or comments have been lost or ignored. “A minute ago you were discussing XYZ; are you done with that conversation?”

A week went by and I called him. With some surprise in his voice he told me that he had seen number of things that he had not seen before. He talked about how well this person handled a meeting, how she created a working paper that was very thorough. He also had seen her ask some really good questions, and so much more. Overall, he was surprised by what he had observed and now was reluctant to fire her. He admitted to becoming so focused on the negative that he had become blind to her strengths and contributions. His decision ultimately was to continue observing her over a longer period of time to ensure a balanced viewpoint.

This dynamic happens to us all. There is a saying, “We are what we see.” We create our lives through what we choose to see. It’s easy to go out every day and “see” rudeness or other negative behaviors, especially if that’s what we are looking for. That’s one of the ways we create our world view – that things are really bad in our society. But what if we decided to look for the good in the world – kind gestures, heroic acts, simple but polite kindnesses – would we begin to see good in our world? Would we change our world view? And if we change our world view, I believe we would be happier, which in turn, if my guess is correct, would make us more inclined to act accordingly.

Try it for a week and see what happens. Commit to looking for all the kind gestures or for all the good news. See what happens and notice the effect on you. I’d love to hear what you learn.

Here are some of the findings:

• 85% of employees at all levels experience conflict to some degree
• In the U.S., 36% of employees report dealing with conflict always or
  frequently
• U.S. employees, on average, spend 2.8 hours per week dealing with
  conflict‹which adds up to 385 million working days per year
• In the U.S., time spent on conflict costs $359 billion in paid hours in 2008
• 27% of employees report that they have been in a workplace
  disagreement that led to personal insults or attacks; 25% have seen conflict
  result in sickness or absence
• Almost half (48%) of employees in the nonprofit sector reported being involved in a conflict that led to sickness or absence

There is no doubt from this study and many others that conflict is endemic, and that it costs individuals and our organizations. It is seen at all levels and in all types of organizations. And unmanaged conflict has a real, negative impact on our health and our productivity.

So what’s the good news?

The study also revealed that:

• Training is the biggest driver of quality outcomes from conflict
• 95% of people receiving training said it helped them
• 76% said they had seen conflict lead to a positive result
• 41% said that conflict led to a better understanding of others
• 29% found that conflict led to a better solution to a problem
• 27% said training made them more comfortable and/or confident about
  dealing with conflict
• 81% of U.S. workers reported seeing positive results from well-managed conflict
• 27% of the workers surveyed reported feeling good about the conflict as they felt the issue had been well aired and dealt with
• 62% of the respondents felt conflict was everyone’s responsibility

What does this tell us?

Conflict is inevitable, but it can be healthy. Well managed, it can lead to more productive workplaces and healthier relationships. Armed with the right tools, people are willing and able to step into difficult conversations and come out stronger.

Because the study makes the case that training is a major contributor to supporting good conversations, it¹s important to start finding ways to build your skills and the skills of your coworkers. Here are some ideas:

• Look for a dispute resolution or mediation center in your area and ask if they offer any training programs
• Review management and business literature. Two excellent books are Crucial Conversations and Difficult Conversations.
• Look at your local community college and other continuing education programs for short courses
• Ask your employer to bring in a workshop
• Search the Web. There are some great resources out there.

• National Institute for Advanced Conflict Resolution
• Center for Dispute Settlement
• Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR)
• National Association for Community Mediation (NAFCM)
• American Bar Association Section on Dispute Resolution
• The Conflict Resolution Information Source
• Ask your professional association for recommendations
• For a fast, practical read, pick up: Reboot! Your Working
  Relationships.