What is the challenge - what are we demanding of each other and ourselves when we commit to resolving or transforming conflict?

Very often I meet people who underestimate the difficulty in dealing with the complexity of the conflicts they are dealing with.  They expect that their relatively good communication skills will see them through most if not all conflict situations and when it doesn't they tend to conclude that there must be something wrong with the other party or even themselves.  In truth, resolving or transforming the conflict presents a level of challenge beyond their understanding and resources - it is a 'big ask' to expect people to deal with such complexity without help or preparation.

Many problems of friction and conflict are what we might call technical challenges - that is to say they are difficulties that can be resolved by the appropriate authorities (parent, boss, arbitrator) applying current know-how to analyse the conflict, and taking action.  Little or minor change is required of antagonists in dealing with these kinds of problems.  However, many conflict situations - often the more protracted and difficult ones - entail adaptive challenges; they require the problem holders (those in conflict) to learn new ways and make adaptive changes of a more fundamental kind in order to resolve or transform the conflict.  Such changes may be stressful, highly challenging and may be resisted.  Not recognising the need for an adaptive response or trying to deal with adaptive challenges with a technical response, will usually result in ineffective or unsustainable outcomes to friction and conflict.  So how do we recognise the need for an adaptive response?

Adaptive challenges require changes in hearts and minds - sometimes beliefs, attitudes, practices and value priorities.  We can recognise the need for an adaptive response by the failure of numerous attempts to apply current know-how to resolve the conflict.  Indeed, continuing friction and conflict is usually indicative of the need for an adaptive rather than a technical response.  Crises are also often indicative of the need for adaptive responses that have gone unrecognised, been ignored or postponed.  It is tempting to respond to crises in a short-term manner using technical responses to contain the conflict and restore equilibrium and thus miss the opportunity to address the need for adaptive change.  To address the adaptive challenge we need to focus at least as much on the opportunity for adaptive change as on the danger posed.  The pressure from within us and from others during conflict is to go for the technical rather than the adaptive response, as it is less disturbing and disruptive.

Secondly we need to be able to gain perspective when we are embroiled in conflict so we can make better choices as to how to engage and respond. The metaphor of the balcony and the dance floor can help us here: When we are in the midst of conflict we are on the dance floor and our attention is taken up with the immediacy of the dancing experience (conflicting interaction), with our partner, going with the music, and responding to the constraints and reactions of other dancers.  Getting on the balcony gives us a more distant perspective.  Looking down from above, we can observe many different dancers, reflect on the interaction between the band and dancers, the patterns of reaction to different music played, the full and empty spaces on the dance-floor, the ebb and flow of energy and participation.  To remain on the balcony would be to miss out on the experience and vitality of the dance. To remain on the dance floor is to lose out on the big-picture perspective. 

When in conflict we need to be able to continually switch between the balcony and the dance floor.  It is too easy to get swept up in the action and the intensity of the atmosphere in the midst of conflict.  It is only by having both perspectives that we can begin to recognise the difference between the technical and adaptive challenges.  Getting onto the balcony points to the mental activity of standing back from the fray, of mindfulness and reflection in the midst of the action - and does not come naturally.  It is about creating a pause, a distance in time and space from the whirl of interaction that accompanies friction and conflict.  Resolution may be experienced on the dance floor but the balcony perspective is needed to bring it about.  Getting on the balcony at key moments is a rather more difficult discipline than it may first appear.  However, if we stay on the balcony for too long and we may appear aloof and be unable to engage and take the action needed to deal with the conflict.

Thirdly, adaptive responses require a far greater degree of self-awareness and self-management on the part of protagonists if they are to be successful than do technical ones.  Self-awareness is like being on the balcony of one's inner dance floor and being able to witness the ebb and flow of one's emotions and energetic states, thoughts, beliefs, perceptions and so on.  The ability to have a sense of one's identities and self-concept, to be aware of the values and beliefs one holds, of one's strengths and vulnerabilities, and so on, is important, because different aspects of one's being are activated, threatened, marginalized in a way that hinders or helps the adaptive response.  Such self-awareness is the foundation of making better and more constructive choices when dealing with conflict.

In particular, adaptive approaches require that we are aware of our inner conflicts and able to contain the stress and suffering that it generates without acting it out in appropriately or trying to make others responsible for the suffering generated by these dilemmas, e.g. conflicting needs, desires or values which we often experience.  The ability to contain, resolve or transform such intra-personal conflict it both a sign of mature development and indicative of one's openness to influence and change required by the adaptive response.

Fourthly, adaptive responses require that we sharpen our ways of perceiving our environment and deepening our ways of listening to others both when we are on the dance floor and when on the balcony.  By becoming a skilled observer we can get to know where others are coming from, what is important to them as well as contextual factors in the conflict.  However people, including ourselves, may not always be able to articulate clearly what matters to them or may be unconsciously defensive so we often need to look below the surface, hear the unspoken feeling or 'read between the lines'.  It is not uncommon to respond to or take action on the basis of what is articulated and explicit only to find that it does not resolve the conflict. 

Research tells us that much conflict is hidden, especially the generative factors, and raising awareness of the underlying factors in conflict is an essential part of an adaptive response. By inquiring beyond the obvious, we may come to perceptions of underlying patterns or to interpretations of what is happening that are more beneficial than taking what is seen and heard at face value.  These can then be tested for validity and usefulness.

Fifthly, we must also realise that such deeper understanding or alternative interpretation of the conflict may challenge accepted views, may be disturbing and so the insight or interpretation may be resisted.  Surfacing such awareness and understanding is not in everybody's interest and may be experienced as challenging or threatening by some or all concerned.  The processes of awareness raising and adapting go hand in hand.  If the pace is too fast, defensive and self-protective behaviour sets in; if it is too slow we may fail to adapt at all as in the tale of cooking the frog.  Slowly heat the water and the frog fails to recognise the need to act but drop the frog in hot water and it recognises the need to act.

This challenge is intimately related to how we use our power.  We can use power to increase or reduce the pressure for adaptive change.  We can use it to undermine or strengthen the other; to further our self-interest or inquire into the best solution for all.  Positive use of our power requires mindfulness and compassion focused on the impact of our thought and action on others and ourselves.

We need to pace the adaptive challenge at a rate that allows the adapting to take place rather than pushing it so hard that is simply overwhelms or raises defences.  We need to realise that the resistance - our own and others - is often indicative of the difficulty being encountered in undertaking the changes required by the adaptive challenge.  Resistance may be against awareness or the significance of that awareness or a reluctance to undertake the action required to implement the adaptive response.

Sixthly, we need to create a 'holding environment',  a container or relationship that is robust enough to withstand the heat generated by the conflict surfaced.   Generally when conflict is surfaced there is a danger, often accompanied by the experience of relationship breakdown, which makes it far more difficult for the conflict to be resolved constructively or the adaptive response to be achieved.  The sacrifice or ending of the relationship can be a way of avoiding the adaptive challenge.  The first and most important requirement for the meeting of an adaptive challenge therefore is the creation and maintenance of the holding environment or the containing relationship capable of withstanding the heat of conflict.

Holding environments can mean different things to different people and take different forms in different circumstances.  For some it will be the presence of a mediator and adherence to the ground-rules agreed, for others it will take the form of a working contract, or an off-site workshop or neutral meeting ground, for others it will mean following the processes and conventions of conflict resolution or transformation methods such as Process Work or Dialogue.  Whatever the form it will need to be monitored and maintained so that it provides a holding environment that is trusted and robust enough to withstand the heat long enough for the adaptive work to be completed.

Finally, the adaptive response requires that one is open to being influenced, vulnerable to fundamental change and willing to suffer the losses and gains that may accrue in favour the greater good.  For this to work, one must be able to see and or have a part in creating a future that is worth the investment, the commitment and the suffering that may be required to achieve it.  This stance is in stark contrast to the more common stance people often take when in conflict, i.e. of blaming the other, seeing them as the ones who should change, and using one's power to force such a change or at least defending one's own position.  "After all if it is their fault why should I suffer!"

It is easy to get attached to and focus on what is breaking down or what one is losing and not enough on what is breaking through and why it is worth taking on or enduring the stresses of the adaptive challenge.  The importance of having a shared or jointly created and compelling vision of the future to motivate and enable antagonists tackle the adaptive challenge and bear the stress and strain entailed in such a commitment must not be underestimated.  I would say such shared vision of a positive future is essential element of successful adaptive responses.