dougnoll’s posthaven

Peacemaking addresses these problems and gets to the heart of the conflict without fear of escalation. When people agree to follow some simple ground rules, with or without an intermediary, they move into an empowering and special relationship. This relationship requires a commitment to be constructive, to actively listen, and to be empathically accurate.

Conflict escalates when this temporary special relationship is not formed. How many times have you heard voices become angry or louder as an argument ensued? The conflict is escalating because neither person believes that he or she is being heard. The easiest - but least effective – way to be heard is to raise one’s voice. However, then the other person doesn’t feel heard and raises his voice in response, and so on. Sometimes out of sheer frustration violence erupts. Peacemaking stops this escalation by committing each person, for a few moments, to be in a positive, rather than a negative, relationship with another.

  Peacemaking also works because it changes personal orientations from a competitive and hostile attitude to a cooperative and constructive attitude. The attitude shift does not change immediately. However, as people work through the peacemaking process, they begin to understand each other's perspectives and, in that context, re-evaluate their own positions. Often times, this re-evaluation and recognition provides the basis for transforming the conflict.

On an emotional level, peacemaking works because it allows for mutual recognition of injustices or wrongs. In many conflicts, each person feels violated by the other. Peacemaking allows both parties to recognize not only that they have been victimized, but that the other person also may have a sense of victimization. Similarly, peacemaking allows parties to acknowledge there has been a wrong or a violation. The Japanese take this to an extreme. Even when one party is clearly wrong and the other is clearly right, the party in the right will attempt to find some reason to offer apology so as to make the reconciliation process mutual.

On a practical level, peacemaking allows for a discussion of how to make things right. While people are in that special temporary relationship, they can identify how the wrongs, whether mutual or not, caused harm, and what they think is necessary to remedy the harm. Sometimes making things right is as simple as an apology. Other times, making things right is substantially more complex. However, if the parties have committed to the peacemaking process, they have agreed the only acceptable solution will be one that satisfies everybody's interests. 

Peacemaking permits movement into the future. Having recognized wrongs and discussed how to make things right, the parties find that the trust-building process begins with affirmations of future conduct. Many times the parties in conflict agree to support each other in ways that did not previously exist. The conflict thus becomes an event for strengthening relationships and providing for cooperative benefits that did not previously exist. Sometimes discussing future intentions uncovers a need for outside support, training, or other assistance. Without this discussion, these needs would go unmet, providing the seeds for conflict on another day.

When people can come together in hostility and anger, acknowledge injustices, whether mutual or not, decide how to make things right, and discuss their future needs and intentions, they engage in a process of moral growth. They learn to confront their fear, anxiety, and frustration. They learn to listen and to be empathic. They learn to recognize and acknowledge the other's perspective. They become empowered with their own ability to make decisions constructively and cooperatively. They begin to look to the future and rebuild trust. 

Douglas E. Noll, Lawyer to Peacemaker

Creator of Negotiation Mastery for the Legal Pro

California Lawyer Magazine, California Attorney of the Year 2012

One useful way to look at conflict is in terms of power, rights, and interests. Framing the conflict as a power struggle, an assertion of rights, or a satisfaction of interests can dramatically affect the process and the outcome. If you are analyzing a conflict, identifying how the parties see the conflict in terms of power, rights, and interests can lead to transformative solutions not otherwise apparent.

            Power is the ability to have one's way against the wishes of another. A very simple example of power is the power of voting. Whether the votes are cast for political office or organizational positions, the voters have the power to choose. People do not like to be coerced by power. Consequently, resolving conflicts by imposition of will seldom leads to peace. However, there are many situations when resolving a conflict by power is appropriate. For example, I do not want a negotiation in the hospital emergency room when I'm suffering from a cardiac arrest. Similarly, in other emergency situations a clear command structure more likely assures safety and security.

            Rights enforcement is the ability to have a third party decide that one may act against the wishes of another. The threat of rights enforcement can be similar to power and used for negotiation purposes.  Rights enforcement is commonly conducted through the judicial system, but other systems, such as arbitration or grievance procedures may also be utilized. Rights enforcement usually involves a process of naming, blaming and claiming.  When a person's rights have been violated, the violator is usually identifiable. This is naming. Blaming occurs when a causal link is established between the violator and the injury. Claiming follows blaming, usually constituting a demand for redress. Rights enforcement is appropriate when one party of a conflict has systematically oppressed another party. Rights enforcement is also appropriate when one party refuses to acknowledge an injustice or injury. However, rights enforcement leads to more conflict when it is the conflict resolution method of choice. People conditioned to name, blame and claim are less likely to seek peaceful and cooperative resolution of conflict.

            Interests are the things that people wish to have satisfied. Interests are the foundations for positions in negotiations. For example, if in an automobile injury case the plaintiff demands $50,000.00, the plaintiff has stated a position. The interests underlying that position may include compensation for pain and suffering, lost wages, medical expenses, and general aggravation from dealing with the accident. In addition, there may be non-monetary injustices that must be acknowledged and reconciled. Identifying and acknowledging interests often leads to more creative solutions. Furthermore, when conflicts are defined in terms of interests rather than power or rights, people tend to cooperate rather than compete. Satisfying an interest is emotionally easier to accept than compelling action through power or seeking third-party assistance, such as litigation or arbitration.

            If you are analyzing a conflict as a manager, ask yourself if any of the parties are attempting to assert power over the others. Perhaps two people are in a power struggle against one another, seeking to determine who will be dominant in the relationship. Instead of defining the conflict in terms of power, ask the parties to identify the injustices each has suffered and the interests each wishes satisfied. Find out if the parties can work cooperatively to satisfy all of the interests between them. By reframing the conflict as interest-based rather than power-based, you can move the parties from competitive hostility to cooperative teamwork.

            Power, rights, and interests are ways of a looking at and resolving conflict. Whenever possible, seek interest-based resolutions, then rights enforcement, and finally, if all else fails, use a power-based process. 

Douglas E. Noll, Lawyer to Peacemaker

Creator of Negotiation Mastery for the Legal Pro

California Lawyer Magazine, California Attorney of the Year 2012