Conflict

How to Mediate in a Dispute

October 11, 2021 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

In mediation, the parties in disagreement work out a mutually acceptable solution with the help of a neutral, third party mediator.

If you’ve been called to serve as a go-between in a dispute, here’s what you can do to help promote mutual understanding and resolution:

Set ground rules. Agree on how much time you’ll give to the mediation meeting. Keep the meeting close-ended. If there’re more than two parties, each with different views of a dispute, engage more than one mediator.
Have each party prepare a brief summary of their positions before the mediation and send them to you, and, ideally, to each other. The brief can explain positions, rationale, and motivation. The brief can also contain each party’s summary understanding of the opposing party’s arguments and counterarguments.
Insist that the each party have a clear understanding of their underlying intentions. What’s their best understanding of the basic objectives? What do they want to achieve? What’s rigid? What’s flexible? What are they willing to bargain?
At the start of the mediation meeting, remind each party that mediation is a voluntary process. Your role is to help the parties reach an agreement, not to reach an agreement for them. Say, “Nothing lasting will happen unless each of you participates in the solution. Any agreement you’re able to reach must be your own.”
Announce that your intention is to foster the interaction by helping each party understand one another’s perspectives and expectations. Encourage them to consider a wide range of solutions and to shun false dilemmas (“either-or” approach.) Push them to understand the other party’s underlying interests, not just their stated positions.
Outline how they’ll work together during the process. Get them to agree that they’ll deal with matters in a non-confrontational way and be open-minded about what the other wants.
Let each party make a preliminary presentation without interruption from the other parties. Then, encourage each party to respond directly to the other’s opening statements.
If the communications break down completely, restart the mediation process by separating the parties and talking to each party separately. Go between the two rooms to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each position and to exchange offers. Continue the interchange until you’ve helped define an agreeable compromise.
When you’re talking to each party separately during a break down in the discussions, help each party hear the views of the other and identify areas of common ground for a resolution. After independent caucuses, if possible, bring the parties back together to negotiate directly.
Don’t stop each party from venting their frustrations, but try to keep them under control. If there’s rambling, gently pull the conversation back. Refocus on what needs to be achieved. Encourage them to remain open to persuasion.
Even with a well thought-out approach, some disagreements turn ugly. Re-focus the dialogue on the future. Remind the parties that they can’t fight over something that’s already happened, but they can set a course for going forward.
If the parties come to a resolution, draft the terms of a binding agreement and have both parties review it and sign it. Make sure the parties own the resolution, because they’re the ones who’ll live with the consequences.
If the parties don’t reach an agreement, help them decide whether it’d be helpful to meet again later, use a different mediator, or try other ways to resolve the issues.

These books are most helpful in negotiations, either when you’re the mediator or one of the parties in conflict: Roger Fisher et al’s Getting to Yes (1991, 2011; my summary) and Kerry Patterson et al’s Crucial Conversations (2011.)

Can’t Ban Political Talk at Work

September 2, 2021 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

When politics and social issues are increasingly divisive, workplaces find it challenging to forbid political conversation entirely from the workplace. In April, project management software company Basecamp faced uproar when trying to ban politics at work. Co-founder Jason Fried announced that Basecamp would no longer tolerate discussions around political or social issues “where the work happens,”

Today’s social and political waters are especially choppy. Sensitivities are at 11, and every discussion remotely related to politics, advocacy, or society at large quickly spins away from pleasant. You shouldn’t have to wonder if staying out of it means you’re complicit, or wading into it means you’re a target. These are difficult enough waters to navigate in life, but significantly more so at work. It’s become too much. It’s a major distraction. It saps our energy and redirects our dialog towards dark places.

Basecamp’s ban was meant to prevent distraction and souring of work relationships, but the mandate swiftly backfired. Twenty out of some 60 employees threatened to quit.

Banning Political Discussions Isn’t That Simple

I think banning political talk is a lazy way for leadership to not deal with issues like racism, misogyny, stereotyping, and contempt that may be festering among employees.

Often, when people say they want more political discussion in the workplace, they actually mean that they want more political discussion about viewpoints they want others to conform to. Workplaces with lots of political discussions are ones where most of the staff has identical socio-political leanings. Employees with divergent political leanings tend to be reticent and stay out of such talks.

It’s neither productive nor possible to not talk about politics and society at work. Companies can’t tell employees to not bring their real selves to work. People are opinionated about politics, and everyone has views and tries to defend them. Besides, politics isn’t a neatly self-contained issue that doesn’t overlap with anything else. When an employee’s attitudes aren’t in line with the company’s—or even the majority’s—attitudes, “put up or shut up” policies end up more damaging than the bickering or backlash they are intended to avoid.

Group settings are better when divergent opinions are known. An inclusive workforce must be able to embrace a diverse range of views. Conversations will come up anyway, and instead of banning these conversations and encouraging employees to take them outside of work, employers must institute protocols for airing and understanding opposing opinions and dealing with offensive behavior.

Idea for Impact: Canceling conversations about the significant issues of the day simply silences those with unpopular attitudes instead of encouraging a culture of growth.

Consensus is Dangerous

August 30, 2021 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Management books tout the importance of harmony, cohesion, and alignment with company values and practices. Comforting though they are, such goals often carry with them the assumption that unanimity is always helpful.

Indeed, like-mindedness has its benefits, viz. high morale, a sense of identity, and a vision’s execution. But an unchallenged majority can “bend reality.” Toeing the line can delude everyone into having faith in opinions that’re not true or beneficial.

I’ve talked previously about how humans have a tendency to create, maintain, and guard cliques. Life-minded groups recruit, socialize, and reward consensus while reproving dissent (consider Scientology.) People are recruited to fit with the organization, and they become even more socialized into the culture.

Influence-by-majority belief narrows the cognitive map

For the sake of consensus, people can overlook the confutation from their own senses and blindly follow the majority, whether right or wrong. In the bestselling Outliers: The Story of Success (2008,) pop sociologist Malcolm Gladwell calls attention to the cultural predisposition to maintain silence and not rock the boat:

Korean Air had more plane crashes than almost any other airline in the world for a period at the end of the 1990s. When we think of airline crashes, we think, Oh, they must have had old planes. They must have had badly trained pilots. No. What they were struggling with was a cultural legacy, that Korean culture is hierarchical. You are obliged to be deferential toward your elders and superiors in a way that would be unimaginable in the U.S.

Uniformity of thought and esprit de corps can act together to make people amenable and taciturn when they see a problem or a better option.

Idea for Impact: Making sure everyone’s on the same page can produce harmony—of the cult-like variety. Encourage dissent and counterevidence in decision-making.

Mindfulness Can Disengage You from Others

August 28, 2021 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

This BBC article warns that mindfulness has a way of stirring people to think of themselves in more independent—not interdependent—terms:

A recent study suggests that, in some contexts, practicing mindfulness really can exaggerate some people’s selfish tendencies. With their increased inward focus, they seem to forget about others and are less willing to help those in need.

To counteract these effects, experts suggest other mindfulness techniques such as “loving-kindness meditation” (deliberately thinking about our sense of connection with others) and “mindful listening” (paying particular attention to another’s descriptions of emotional situations.)

Mindfulness is an expansive nonjudgmental awareness of one’s experiences. While mindfulness may help you get a deeper understanding of yourself and comprehend “you” and “your mind stuff” deeper, it takes deep listening, sensitivity, and empathy to learn about “others” and “you and others.” As you tune more into yourself, you should become more able to tune into others.

The original practice and philosophy of mindfulness meditation actually consist of many of these other features mentioned in the BBC article. Somehow, those notions have gotten lost in the monetization and industrialization of mindfulness in the West.

The #1 Reason Why Employees Don’t Speak Up

August 5, 2021 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Notwithstanding management’s well-intended open-door policies, employees avoid voicing concerns when they don’t feel safe doing so. They think it’s more harmless to “duck and cover” than to speak up and help the organization.

Employees don’t want to jeopardize their jobs. They don’t want to be labeled troublemakers and alienate themselves from co-workers and supervisors. In some cases, employees’ fears may not be of immediate retaliation but instead a deferred reckoning that could upset their careers years down the line.

The self-preservation motive is so dominant that the perceived risks of speaking up are very personal and immediate to employees. In contrast, the potential benefits to the organization from sharing concerns seem distant and abstract.

Consequently employees often instinctively play it safe by keeping quiet. Often, they rationalize their implied compliance by saying that the concerns are none of their business—and wishing that somebody else would speak up.

Idea for Impact: The freedom to raise questions, concerns, and ideas is at the heart of an open organizational culture. Unless employees are convinced that they’ll be supported to do the right thing, they could hesitate to speak up and help remedy problems before they can blow up.

Entitlement and Anger Go Together

July 15, 2021 By Nagesh Belludi 1 Comment

Exaggerated entitlement could possibly explain what’s driving the recent surge of abusive or violent incidents on flights in America.

We live in a time where everyone seems hypervigilant to the point where even a slight snub can be taken as an act of deliberate aggression—either reactively or without provocation. People want to assert themselves, and every little social interaction seems to turn quickly into a battleground of entitlement.

Self-Protective Efforts Heighten Entitlement

To make things worse, air travel sits at the confluence of so many things involving so many people (and circumstances) where each “participant” has little direct control over what’s happening to them and others around. Political polarization and mask mandates seem to have intensified these anxieties too. Moreover, the FAA’s zero-tolerance policy toward disturbances and the threat of massive fines are unlikely to disincentivize passengers and staff in the heat of the moment.

When people feel entitled, they’re not just frustrated when others fail to acknowledge and entertain—even listen to—their presumed superior rights. People feel deceived and wronged. They feel victimized, get angry, and exude hostility. Worse, they feel even more justified in their demands and thus assume an even stronger sense of entitlement as compensation.

Idea for Impact: Entitlement and Responsibility are Inextricably Linked

Underlying this kind of anger process is a lack of separation of rights from responsibility. No professional, social, or domestic environment can remain stable and peaceful without everyone respecting the fact that rights and responsibilities are inseparable.

Nobody is entitled to compassion or fair treatment without acting on the responsibility to give it to others. If you don’t care about how others feel, you can’t demand that they care about how you feel. It’s a formula for disaster in human interactions.

The Problem of Living Inside Echo Chambers

June 14, 2021 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Psychologists use the term realistic ignorance to explain the human tendency to believe that we’re normal—that the way we see and do things is entirely representative of everybody else.

Realistic ignorance is intensified by our natural desire to associate with people similar to ourselves.

Social media algorithms make this worse—they reinforce our attitudes but not change them. They steer us to the type of stuff we already know and like. They make it easy for us to form our own echo chambers, packed with people who share the same views. This causes confirmation bias. Tribal allegiances form flawed ideas and viewpoints about what is typical for organizations and communities.

Idea for Impact: Seek out and engage thoughtful folks who don’t think like you. Discuss, debate, and improve your reasoned understanding of one another and of the crucial issues. Your goal should be to enhance your own awareness of the counterarguments in contentious matters, not win over anyone.

Ask for Forgiveness, Not Permission

April 20, 2021 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

A long time ago, I heard the managerial maxim, “you will move as fast as you can make decisions.” Amen to that.

That complements the mantra “’tis better to seek forgiveness than to ask permission”—that’s the oft-repeated rallying cry of entrepreneurial thinking.

You need to know when you shouldn’t—and can’t—wait for someone else’s approval to do the things you need to do to succeed. Every time you ask for buy-in, approval, or agreement, you’ll slow yourself down.

Depending on what’s at stake, you’ve got to know when moving forward does need consent. As with everything, you want to know your manager, team, partner, or spouse, how they operate, and their expectations for the group effort. If something’s an important-enough decision with high stakes, they’ll want to be in the loop.

Idea for Impact: Live speed. Where possible, don’t let dilly-dallying for permission endanger your decision-making success. It’s not about taking advantage of situations but about knowing when to push the boundaries. Where possible, aggressively move forward on your own and “get it done.”

Witty Comebacks and Smart Responses for Nosy People

March 25, 2021 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

When somebody asks an invasive question that makes you feel offended, you’re never obligated to respond. Consider these smart responses.

A curious cousin: “I like your car/purse/home. How much did it cost?” Smart response: “Perhaps a tad more than I expected, but I like to pamper myself once in a while.”
Your inquisitive uncle: “How much do you make at this new job?” Smart response: “I do OK” or “I’d like to make more.”
Your snoopy coworker: “What was your doctor’s appointment for?” or “I heard you called in sick yesterday?” Smart response: “I’m just fine. Thanks for asking.”
The chatty visitor: “You’ve accomplished so much for your age! What are you? 30?” Smart response: “Still young at heart” or “I’m aging fast just thinking about it.”
A sneaky partier trying to estimate your age: “When did you graduate from high school?”Smart response: “When I heard Lucille Ball remark that a “man who correctly guesses a woman’s age may be smart, but he’s not very bright.””
A zealous coworker who can’t stop talking about God: “What do you do on Sunday mornings?” Smart response: “I do non-work things.”
An office busy body suggests a date: “Do you think you could ask her out? I know she’s single.” Smart response: “I don’t know. I’d have to think about mixing work and relationships .”
A prying friend: “When are you getting married?” or “Are you guys trying for a baby?” Smart response: “I’m kinda private and would rather not talk about this.”
A wanna-be Judge Judy wants to solve your parents’ problems: “When are you going to move out of your parents? When will you get a real job?”Smart response: “When my parents start talking to me about it directly.”
An intrusive colleague who’s just learned you’re getting married: “Are you going to invite the deputy manager?” Smart response: “It’s up to me and my fiance.” You could add, “Actually, we’re having a small wedding. Just family and a few close friends.”
A nosy new neighbor: “What heritage are you? I mean, are you mixed race?” Smart response: “Good question. I’d like to remain mysterious.”
A perky lady in your yoga class: “You look great, how much do you weigh?” or “Have you lost weight this summer?” Smart response: “I don’t know—each time I step on the scale, it reads, PERFECT.”
A snooping friend asks you to share a secret: “What were you and Sally nattering about?” Smart response: “Can you keep a secret?” and when your friend says “yes,” sneer and say, “So can I!”

You can try to redirect the attention or leave the conversation by saying: “Let me refill my drink.” But some people just don’t get a deflection.

Responding snappishly but firmly will imply that that the issue is not open for further conversation. “Why do you need to know that about me?” or “Why do you ask?”

If somebody continues to badger you, assert, “it’s personal and I won’t discuss it. Please stop asking.” Be as concise as possible. You shouldn’t feel compelled to give an explanation or justify your unwillingness to talk about sensitive matters.

Idea for Impact: Don’t Feel Rude about Quelling Impolite Boundary-Violators

Most meddlesome people often lack self-awareness. Others may just be making friendly conversation and may not realize that they’re being tactless and prying. Yet others tend to over-share the personal and inappropriate details of their lives and assume it’s OK to expect you to too. We live in a “do ask, do tell” society.

Often, though, people just assume enough rapport to be able to ask delicate questions. Spending some time with friends and coworkers creates a false sense of affability and trust that really isn’t there. We’ve all made that mistake!

Leadership is Being Visible at Times of Crises

February 25, 2021 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

It’s terrible optics for an elected official to leave his constituency while it’s in the midst of a crisis.

In a grave slip-up for an ambitious politician, Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s giving a lame excuse initially for his Cancún joint made him look insensitive. He was expected to stay and endure alongside his constituents, who were suffering from Texas’s recent freezing temperatures and blackouts.

Of course, Cruz didn’t do anything that hurt anybody, apart from drawing police resources away to shepherd him through the airport. Cruz’s argument—sensible in its own way—was that all he could do was be in regular communication with state and local officials who’re spearheading the crisis response. After all, Cruz has no formal power in the state administration.

As a comparison, King George and the Queen Mother declined to leave London as bombs shattered their city during World War II. As an expression of concern, and commitment to the Allied cause, they even visited sites destroyed during The Blitz of 1940.

Idea for Impact: Leadership means serving as an anchor during crisis times and being available, connected, and accessible during a crisis. Leaders can’t do everything, and they need to delegate responsibilities. However, entrustment should not entail emotional detachment.

« Previous Page

Conflict

Wondering what to read next?

Banning Political Discussions Isn’t That Simple

Wondering what to read next?

Influence-by-majority belief narrows the cognitive map

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?

Self-Protective Efforts Heighten Entitlement

Idea for Impact: Entitlement and Responsibility are Inextricably Linked

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?

Idea for Impact: Don’t Feel Rude about Quelling Impolite Boundary-Violators

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?