Ideas and resources for people who lead in settings of conflict and want to do so transformatively: "designated leaders", trainers, consultants, and anyone who seeks constructive responses in situations of conflict.
In this time of World Cup fever, I recall another season not long past in South Africa. In 1991, as a trainer living in Cape Town, I was invited to lead a workshop on conflict resolution for the Pan Africanist Congress. The group's hair-raising motto: "One Settler, One Bullet." Not sure whether "settler" also included me, I nevertheless accepted, on the strength of friendship with a regional leader of the PAC whose invitation I trusted. After a tense first thirty minutes during which I was grilled on my political views, all of us relaxed and I was impressed with the eagerness of the group to learn the skills of table negotiation.
The South African transition took wing in hundreds of such workshops, because trainers and participants swallowed hard and said yes to opportunities to engage people who seemed frightening.
Having survived many such workshops and seen the results, I am alarmed by a recent ruling of the US Supreme Court regarding the U.S. PATRIOT Act. This Act makes it illegal to give support of any kind to groups listed by the US government as terrorist groups, even if the support is designed to end violence. Potential penalty: 15 years in prison. Challenged by a variety of organizations whose combined years of experience in peacebuilding well exceed the age of the USA, the Act was nevertheless upheld by the US high court.
For several weeks I've labored nights and weekends to add to my online conflict style inventory a function requested by several consultants.I originally designed the site so users take a short quiz about their responses to conflict and immediately thereafter are presented with their scores.They also get detailed suggestions based on their scores, and access to an in-depth tutorial.
But I soon discovered some consultants weren't happy with my setup.They don't want clients reading results of the inventory on their own.They want them ushered off-site upon completion of the questions, and scores emailed to the consultant for discussion later.There've been enough requests for this that , with an uneasy conscience, we've designed and implemented this as an option.
Why my reservations?One of the biggest and hardest steps out of human bondage is claiming inner authority.It is only a few hundred years since kings and priests had final say on everything, claiming not only to be all-powerful, but also all-knowing.For large parts of Christendom, there was no access even to God except through special intermediaries. "Modernity" challenges this, teaching us to think for ourselves and claim powers to do, say, and be things most people could barely imagine a handful of generations ago.
In the Style Matters conflict style inventory we advocate respect for all five styles of responding to conflict. Each style is necessary for successful living. The question is not "what is the best conflict style?" but rather when and when not to use each conflict style.
Truth is, most of the styles are pretty easy to use. But there is one that is challenging to master, whose skills can bring great rewards to anyone who works on them: the Cooperating style.
The resources available online for peacebuilding and conflict resolution training these days amaze me.
From Craig Zelizer's magnificent collection of resources at internationalpeaceandconflict.org I learn today of a new manual of training materials available at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/51/42244502.pdf. For trainers working in international settings, it is a well-organized set of modules for introducing groups to conflict analysis, the interaction of development and peacebuilding, etc. A number of interesting simulations with detailed instructions are included.
Trauma healing is a critical cutting edge for the field of conflict resolution that remains only poorly explored. Peter F. Kellermann's book, Sociodrama and Collective Trauma, (Kingsley Publishers, 2007) is one good resource.
But I want to add something to Kellerman's model. He lays out (p148) five stages of postwar healing and reconciliation: 1. Emotional expression 2. Intrapsychic (representational) reconciliation 3. Intergroup (reciprocal) reconciliation 4. Community reconciliation. 5. Peace-making ritual.
In South Africa in the early 1990s I encountered the Pan-Africanist Congress, a black empowerment group perhaps best known for its associations with Steve Biko. Biko and the PAC basically said that the first thing oppressed people need to do is reclaim themselves, their shattered self-esteem and identity, and that this is accomplished through empowerment strategies. Only then are they ready to enter into partnerships and enter into dialogue with former oppressors.
I think this is true in many circumstances of social devastation. Before people are ready to "encounter the enemy", do dialogue with bitter opponents, or in Kellerman's case, begin emotional expression of trauma or hatred, it is often necessary to do preliminary strengthening, around topics that are not contentious or deeply painful.
There are many ways to do this - such as celebration of individual or communal accomplishments, telling of stories that establish narratives of meaning; use of art, music, and dance; education and training, etc.
One tool in the latter category is conflict resolution workshops. In learning basic skills for resolving differences, people are empowered to address realities in their lives that are painful and discouraging. Conflict resolution training not only equips people with skills they will need to effectively encounter their opposites when they are ready, it is one of numerous effective strategies available for laying the inner foundations necessary before people are able to reach out and across to encounter others. In my view, it is important for models of dialogue and reconciliation to take this need into account and guide agents of healing in planning for this preliminary work.
Trainers working in situations of conflict often aim for a lot more than learning. We also hope to create a space where people can dialogue and build relationships. Conflict resolution training is a wonderful arena to accomplish this. Trainers are teaching important skills and assisting a new dynamic between participants, simultaneously.
Space for relationship building does not grow by itself. It is constructed, piece by piece, through hard work. One of the many tools trainers use is ground rules, usually set in the beginning of a workshop. A couple of months ago I enjoyed watching an old colleague of mine, Chris Spies of Cape Town, lead a workshop for politicians during a time of tension. In a brief set of comments after people had introduced themselves, Spies proposed these ground rules and made a few comments on each:
Informality. People are asked to speak as individuals, not as reps of parties or ministers of government. This also means that everyone will be treated as equals.
Courtesy.
Respect.
Authenticity. This means being true to ourselves and speaking up if we are upset about something. It also includes speaking in our native language if that helps. He asked for translaters to volunteer if needed.
Interactive. No speeches! Spies also pointed out that this is designed to be a learning space, not a teaching space, which means people have to participate and take responsibility for their own learning.
On time.
Spies added a few additional comments, suggesting that things will go best if participants seek for:
Open mind. He noted that politicians often tend to take positions and stiffen if challenged, and he invited the group to seek to relax and open their minds.
Open heart. It helps if everyone accepts others for who they are.
Open will. It helps if people are willing to commit to new things they have not done before.
I've used various approaches to ground rules, including having people propose these in small grounds and report them out to the large group. Spies' approach seemed to be the right one for this setting. It was a highly successful workshop that brought high process from participants at the end.
What are your favorite approaches to and lists for ground rules?
After twenty-five years of leading workshops on conflict resolution, I still never get bored, and I continue to view this topic as one of the most rewarding ones for expanding personal and institutional capacities in good times and bad.
1) There is an enormous amount of pent-up, personal energy in this topic. Everyone has conflict, so no one gets bored in a well-designed and delivered workshop! 2) People bring to work and institutional relationships their own hidden ancient patterns and expectations about how to deal with conflict that profoundly influence present dynamics, and thus function better when they've brought these unconscious patterns into the open; 3) The results, while not magical, are immediate and concrete.
A growing number of trainers recognize the usefulness of conflict resolution as a topic and are leading workshops in this area for their organizations and networks. What to include?
The Spectrum is my favorite warm-up in workshops. The version below is presented as an opener to a workshop on conflict styles, but it adapts easily to any topic on which there are differing ideas, and it never fails to engage people so long as you keep it moving. Time required: 5-20 minutes depending on how you conduct it.
Mark (with a chair or book, etc.) a spot at one place in the room and announce that it represents "Move away from conflict". Mark a second spot some distance away "Move towards conflict". Point out that one of the interesting things about human beings is that we have differing instinctive responses to conflict, and we can easily observe this. Walk to each spot and say a few sentences about it. E.g:
In every group there are people who instinctively get more active when there is conflict, who move towards raised voices when they hear them, and are likely to offer opinions of their own. In every group there are also people who instinctively do the opposite. They withdraw or step back when there is conflict. They want to keep a distance when the words are flying. And in every group there are people who are somewhere between these two responses. Think about yourself for a few seconds, then everyone get up and place yourself anywhere you choose on this spectrum.
The opening minutes of any workshop are key. People are checking things out and form expectations that influence all that follows. Good workshop leaders know this and are well-prepared. They've chosen a venue and seating that is comfortable, flexible, not too big, not too small. They've worked out a clear teaching outline. They've prepared comments to welcome people and introduce the topic.
But how much to say in those formative opening comments?
