Peak Performance https://www.peakpd.com/ Wed, 03 Dec 2025 05:53:59 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0 https://www.peakpd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/favicon-100x100.png Peak Performance https://www.peakpd.com/ 32 32 False Conflict https://www.peakpd.com/false-conflict/ Mon, 24 Apr 2023 11:41:49 +0000 https://www.peakpd.com/?p=1984 By Allan Parker, edited by Andrew Heys. Click icon to download False Conflict article or read below. About the author and this article . . . Allan Parker is one of Australia’s leading facilitators and trainers. Allan has an excellent record of success with groups in dispute and has facilitated long lasting agreements to many deeply entrenched […]

The post False Conflict appeared first on Peak Performance.

]]>
False Conflict

By Allan Parker, edited by Andrew Heys.

False Conflict PDF Download icon

Click icon to download False Conflict article or read below.

About the author and this article . . .

Allan Parker is one of Australia’s leading facilitators and trainers. Allan has an excellent record of success with groups in dispute and has facilitated long lasting agreements to many deeply entrenched organisational, multi-party and large community and organisational disputes. Allan’s approach, however, differs from many other conventional dispute settlement approaches.

Andrew Heys is a consultant, researcher and academic with a faculty position at Macquarie Graduate School of Management (MGSM). Andrew has extensive experience in management education and consulting and has worked as a consultant in Australia, Asia and India. Prior to joining MGSM, Andrew was with a Sydney-based corporate communication firm, he has also worked with Peak Performance as a writer, trainer and mediator. In the mid-1990’s Andrew was on faculty at The Centre for Conflict Resolution, Macquarie University; an institution which awarded the first postgraduate degrees for conflict resolution in Australia. Andrew’s research is published in management journals, business magazines and conference papers. He is a frequent commentator on business issues in the Australian media.

In this article Allan outlines some of the central aspects of what he calls his ‘agreement focussed’ approach. One of the most startling revelations of his work is the observation that work teams, which are seemingly locked in dispute, are actually dealing with the manifest elements of what may be termed ‘false’ conflict, that is the parties are not in dispute over substantive issues or fundamental human needs.

This type of situation is described in Allan’s approach as ‘category one’ conflict. When this phenomenon occurs, parties can be locked into a cycle of escalation and entrenchment and the original source of the conflict may become clouded and distorted. When these disputes are effectively analysed, it is often revealed that such conflicts are the result of little more than poor planning or inadequate group formation.

Such situations can often be exacerbated by attempts to intervene that overemphasise the points of difference, or disagreement, and ignore the often larger areas of agreement. Initially focussing groups on their points of agreement has been the key to Allan’s success in many group disputes.

He discusses his approach here. The article is in 6 sections entitled:

  • An agreement focused approach
  • Categories of conflict
  • Recognising conflict
  • Getting the most from teams
  • When a team gets off track
  • Facilitated conflict resolution

An agreement focussed approach

Case study: A project team has been created by the senior management of a multi-national company. Following both internal and external recruitment, the team has been given the brief, to develop a strategy to improve on and capture a newly emerging market. A senior manager has been assigned to lead the project and keep it on schedule. The team has also been told that they are operating on a tight time schedule and that delivery of the service to the marketplace in a timely manner is essential. With little or no work on the formation of the group, the task is launched into. Whilst the group’s work requires close coordination, it is also very creative, requiring the individual members to have a degree of autonomy. For this reason some of the group chose at times to work from home.

Initial examples of the team’s work have been productive but below expectations. One member of the group has a very different view on the means to effectively complete the project. Whilst his approach is quite different, there are signs that this member’s ideas are quite innovative, and the way they are expressed is often quite abrupt. Also this team member does not have much time for team meetings, nor does he like to be told how to work or to engage in peer review, and he also particularly likes to work from home.

There is a small but growing number of the team who are starting to view this member as a distraction to the overall work of the group. They have therefore begun to ostracise him. The project leader is concerned that the team’s unity is fracturing, however she cannot help but be impressed with the quality of the work from the “difficult” employee.

As the time for completion approaches, it is increasingly clear that the project is behind schedule and squabbles among the team members have become more common and more personal. Consequently, the team is now focussing large amounts of their energy on the latest escapade of “the problem person”, the “inadequacies” of the manager and the impossibility of delivering the project on time. The project leader believes her worst nightmares are coming true. She is considering engaging an external consultant to resolve the dispute with the “difficult” employee and the team.

Categories of conflict

This scenario is a typical example of what is a common phenomenon, what I term ‘false’ or ‘category one’ conflict. Category one conflict is far more common than one might assume, particularly in organisational contexts.

The term category one conflict refers to conflict within groups who are operating in the absence of agreed norms, an agreed purpose or outcomes. Groups that are locked into performing their task without these basic group management stages in place, naturally experience difficulties. One cannot say, however, that they are experiencing conflict because they have not negotiated the way that they will work. The effects arising from category one conflict are quite similar to other group difficulties, however, the causes and approach differ markedly.

‘Category two’ conflict, is a more serious category of difficulties. Category two describes a situation in which the group simply does not have agreed norms and behaviour codes and is experiencing related conflict.

‘Category three’ is the most severe of the three categories and operates where the group does in fact have established norms, it has a purpose and or agree outcomes, but is still in conflict.

Effectively approaching groups in dysfunction is often dependent upon being able to recognise the difference between each of these categories and effectively matching a strategy or approach to the gradient of the group’s difficulty.

While groups in situations resembling this scenario will often define their relationship as being conflicted, clarification often suggests otherwise. In my personal experience conflicts, which occur in organisational settings, frequently display characteristics of false conflict. In fact I would estimate this to be true in approximately 90% of all group disputes in which I have been involved in the past 10 years.

How can one identify when group conflict shows characteristics that signal the conflict may be false?

Firstly, one can identify some of the common precursors of false conflict. False conflict can often occur in groups where all members of the team or group have not physically come together as one, to meet, negotiate and plan their working relationship; where a purpose for operating is not clearly defined, articulated or agreed; where a common or mutually beneficial outcome has not been established and in groups where the guidelines, boundaries and roles have not been established or agreed upon.

Recognising conflict

A common signal of false conflict is when the group members put more of their time, conversation and attention on the problems, negative issues and dysfunction, than on the desired outcomes, possible options and alternatives. Indeed, in this setting a common pattern of behaviour is not only focussing on the undesired, it is also a propensity to validate and rationalise the undesired. Relating back to the creative work team scenario, the team members might be heard to say “this situation is typical of creative teams working on a tight schedule – management should have known this would occur”. They are validating and reinforcing the undesired state rather than attempting to move to a more desired state.

False conflict often occurs due to the absence of some fundamental group management steps which Tuckman (1965) refers to as forming and norming i.e. setting purpose, mutual outcomes and behaviour codes. Surprising as it may seem, the failure to undertake this work is often at the core of many group disputes. These situations can be highly emotional and potentially stressful, however, if carefully managed, such dilemmas are often readily negotiable. Given some careful analysis, and often pre-negotiation meetings with individuals, what may have seemed to be a substantial conflict may no longer exist and certainly may not require third party intervention.

Whilst often such disputes seem insurmountable many are, in fact, examples of disputes in which the parties have a large amount of agreement in place; they simply have not recognised it exists. To accomplish the effective management of groups in conflict is undoubtedly challenging, and requires specific skills, and a well-developed understanding of the functioning of groups. For this reason entering into these disputes with a conventional conflict intervention model could serve to highlight the negatives and exacerbate existing difficulties. A group focussed approach is much more likely to put the manifest disputes into their proper perspective. It will allow the group to revisit and renew their goals, its dynamics and functions.

Getting the most from teams

Increasingly one sees organisations moving toward team-based approaches. Greater levels of decision-making power are being divested to project or work teams from the senior levels. The growing empowerment of communities has also meant greater demands by stakeholders to participate in decisions that affect them.

Many large organisations also rely much more on outsourcing and on the use of consultants than ever before. Such consultants are often engaged to add value to the work of teams, assess and improve processes, and assist change. Again there is a move towards flexible work practices, innovation, consensus and participation. The content of many tertiary management courses also reflect and support these trends. Their focus is on the importance of teams, strategy, visions and values, flexibility and participation.

Within this context, senior managers demand more innovative and imaginative employees. Yet this is just a part of the equation; to achieve success according to these core principles, two things needs to occur. Firstly, the organisation needs to recruit people who can function in this environment; secondly, the management of these teams must be committed to creating the conditions within the organisation where positive results can occur. Thus, the team must be given enough room to perform, to be monitored, guided, given feedback and appropriate direction when needed. This role, along with strategic development and leadership, is essential for success in the environment of modern management.

Getting the most from teams working in this environment requires effective group management to result in the group working productively. Such work can result in constructive planning and communication of the expectations of the team’s goals, its norms (or rules), behaviour codes, indicators of success, key roles and areas of accountability. All too frequently inadequate attention is placed on these issues; a failure which often sets teams up for premature or even unnecessary conflict. If group norms are not clearly established, teams can get into personal antagonisms and disputes. These result from the absence of group fundamentals and the team can find itself completely off track, with no sense of what has gone wrong, or how to fix it.

When jobs are on the line, and accountabilities are being more closely attended to, it can be tempting for managers to revert to type and become highly directive. Conversely, they may seek to engage a mediator to settle the internal conflicts between individuals within the team. Neither approach is addressing the real issue. What can a third party, consultant or manager do when a group or team gets off track?

When a team gets off track

It is useful is such case to take what may be termed a ‘group-centred’ agreement approach. When one is faced with a multi-party or group dispute, often the best place to focus is on the big picture of the group, its functions, roles, core values and the strategic plan in place. It is important for an external facilitator not to get bogged down in the “he said, she said”, details of group disputes. Of course, one needs to be aware of existing or important interpersonal disputes; the parties themselves like to be able to discuss such issues with an external party. Also the information provided is often illustrative of structural or group issues. However the interpersonal disputes, in many instances, must be dealt with professionally and in their proper perspective. Such issues should not be allowed to dominate the attention of the group, nor of the facilitator.

An important step for groups in conflict is to review where the group is at in terms of its development. There is a range of models one can use. Discussing the stages of group development through the use of an illustrative model, for example, such as Tuckman’s, is a useful way for groups to begin to reflect on a their norms and functions. Within this broader discussion of the group, personal conflicts, which may have been caused by structures, may appear less severe and more negotiable to individual parties.

The agreement focussed approach begins with an assessment of the amount of agreement that exists within the group. An important place to start is by asking the group what they agree upon. Do they, for example, agree that they want to have a rewarding workplace? Do they all want the outcomes of the team to be positive and address the needs of the entire group? Do all the group have the desire to provide a well respected product or service? These are ‘high chunk’ questions that elicit agreement. Such questions can help a group to become more focussed upon the large amount of agreement that exists within their team.

This simple technique can prove to be extraordinarily powerful in putting disputes into perspective. Later on, in working the group, it will be necessary to “chunk down” your questions to the specifics of what form agreements will take, such as new group norms and codes of conduct. This, however, must take place once agreement is developed and noted. One needs to note that the approach is to move toward specifics, not start at them, as is often the case.

The amount of agreement that exists may also be unconscious. The group may, for example, be in agreement on a range of issues such as: the fact that they want to continue to work together; the process they have decided to follow in moving their working relationship forward; and they are likely to all agree on the desirability of achieving the stated outcomes of the group. Often in group conflict the focus is so much on what’s wrong, the problems or the points of dispute. This means the perspective that we do have many points of agreement gets overlooked.

Facilitated conflict resolution

As an external facilitator one is often challenged by time. An important priority, therefore, is to attune the participants to the amount of agreement that already exists. This approach is not simply a ‘trick’ designed to gloss over the disputes; it is an approach that is often unexpected and invariably puts the disputed issues into perspective.

My experience is that making the extent of the agreement explicit has had the effect of refocussing the group on the reasons why they are working together. It starts the process of refocussing the team on a positive note. It creates recognition that, in many cases, the dispute exists or originates out of the fact that mutually beneficial outcomes are not clearly defined, understood, owned or agreed upon. Also many group disputes arise out of the need for, or ambiguity of, group norms i.e. policy, behaviour codes and role clarification.

Most intervention approaches do not start at this general or macro level. Rather, they go initially to the point of greatest disagreement. Traditional alternative dispute resolution (ADR) approaches, when applied in groups, can miss the mark. Such approaches will often assume that the parties have an ongoing relationship without exploring the elements of the relationship or the shared values underlying the relationship. Practitioners often begin by asking the parties to define the conflict from their individual perspective in terms of their interests and/or needs. The third party then encourages some venting, perhaps mutual understanding and, perhaps, some expressions of contrition.

The process then moves to the development of mutually beneficial and mutually generated options for resolution of the problem, rather than achievement of the outcome, and thence to an implementation strategy. In a group context, this approach often falls flat, because the parties begin to define their relationship in terms of their differences rather than in terms of what they share i.e. what they already agree upon. The traditional approach, applied in groups, can inadvertently encourage parties to see their relationship as dominated by difference and dispute. In many cases, however, the extent of agreement actually far outweighs the disputation.

Starting from the points of greatest agreement is an approach that helps to build momentum and focus the group on its purpose. The approach helps members of the group put their interpersonal disputes into perspective. Naturally, there are instances where additional work needs to be done, outside of the context of group work, to assist individual members to work through their own interpersonal disputes. Such a group focussed approach can also reveal other workplace issues such as occupational health and safety issues or instances of discrimination or even harassment which may need to be dealt with more formally and away from the group setting.

This approach may also reveal that the group itself needs to review structures, its rules, norms and expectations of each other. Such self reflection on the part of the group may not be encouraged with individually focussed approaches. My philosophy, when asked to work with a group in conflict, is to first look at the group and then reflect upon individual issues and disputes. Starting from the point of greatest agreement encourages a positive approach to this exercise; it often reveals that the disputes are less entrenched than they have appeared and has been useful in getting teams back to work and refocussed on their goals.

The post False Conflict appeared first on Peak Performance.

]]> Oscar Trimboli: Deep Listening: Impact Beyond Words. https://www.peakpd.com/oscar-trimboli-deep-listening-impact-beyond-words/ Mon, 24 Apr 2023 10:46:42 +0000 https://www.peakpd.com/?p=1936 Oscar Trimboli: Deep Listening: Impact Beyond Words. Episode 37 – Deep Listening with Allan Parker Transcription

The post Oscar Trimboli: Deep Listening: Impact Beyond Words. appeared first on Peak Performance.

]]>
Oscar Trimboli: Deep Listening

Oscar Trimboli: Deep Listening: Impact Beyond Words.

Episode 37 – Deep Listening with Allan Parker

Transcription

The post Oscar Trimboli: Deep Listening: Impact Beyond Words. appeared first on Peak Performance.

]]> ABC Melbourne Interview Kremlin School of Negotiation https://www.peakpd.com/abc-melbourne-interview-kremlin-school-of-negotiation/ Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:48:41 +0000 https://www.peakpd.com/?p=1918 ABC Interview ABC Melbourne Interview. The Kremlin School of Negotiation. Transcription An interview with two International negotiators, that takes a look at the book The Kremlin School of Negotiation firstly and then an exploration of what are the key elements, attributes and leavers required to create highly productive negotiations that have an enduring positive effect.

The post ABC Melbourne Interview Kremlin School of Negotiation appeared first on Peak Performance.

]]>
ABC-Melbourne-Interview

ABC Interview

ABC Melbourne Interview. The Kremlin School of Negotiation.

Transcription

An interview with two International negotiators, that takes a look at the book The Kremlin School of Negotiation firstly and then an exploration of what are the key elements, attributes and leavers required to create highly productive negotiations that have an enduring positive effect.

The post ABC Melbourne Interview Kremlin School of Negotiation appeared first on Peak Performance.

]]> ABC Interview with Jacquie Mackay https://www.peakpd.com/abc-interview-with-jacquie-mackay/ Fri, 21 Apr 2023 14:09:46 +0000 https://www.peakpd.com/?p=1717 ABC Interview with Jacquie Mackay Breakfast Presenter at ABC Caprcornia on their Breakfast Program. Transcription

The post ABC Interview with Jacquie Mackay appeared first on Peak Performance.

]]>
ABC Interview with Jacquie Mackay

ABC Interview with Jacquie Mackay

Breakfast Presenter at ABC Caprcornia on their Breakfast Program.

Transcription

The post ABC Interview with Jacquie Mackay appeared first on Peak Performance.

]]> Preventing Conflict – Triple S Alignment https://www.peakpd.com/preventing-conflict-triple-s-alignment/ Fri, 21 Apr 2023 11:00:13 +0000 https://www.peakpd.com/?p=1636 Preventing Conflict – Triple S Alignment Coming Soon …

The post Preventing Conflict – Triple S Alignment appeared first on Peak Performance.

]]>
Preventing Conflict – Triple S Alignment

Preventing Conflict – Triple S Alignment Coming Soon …

The post Preventing Conflict – Triple S Alignment appeared first on Peak Performance.

]]> Agreement Focused Structure https://www.peakpd.com/agreement-focused-structure/ Fri, 21 Apr 2023 10:32:05 +0000 https://www.peakpd.com/?p=1623 Agreement focused structure Coming Soon …

The post Agreement Focused Structure appeared first on Peak Performance.

]]>
Agreement Focused Structure

Agreement focused structure Coming Soon …

The post Agreement Focused Structure appeared first on Peak Performance.

]]> A World In Need Of Peace https://www.peakpd.com/a-world-in-need-of-peace/ Fri, 21 Apr 2023 08:57:17 +0000 https://www.peakpd.com/?p=1572 An Addition to Dispute Management A talk by Allan Parker, Peak Performance Development, at Australian National Mediation Conference 2002 (MODIFIED AND EDITED FOR PRINT 2007)  Click icon to download Global Peace Strategy article or read below. A Strategy for every individual, family, community and government. May I commence by setting a number of frames of reference […]

The post A World In Need Of Peace appeared first on Peak Performance.

]]>
articles_peace_icon

An Addition to Dispute Management
A talk by Allan Parker, Peak Performance Development, at Australian National Mediation Conference 2002 (MODIFIED AND EDITED FOR PRINT 2007)

False Conflict PDF Download icon

 Click icon to download Global Peace Strategy article or read below.

A Strategy for every individual, family, community and government.

May I commence by setting a number of frames of reference for this talk. I’m going to put forward a number of provocative, radical and somewhat ambitious propositions. Some of these may sound to you, the recipient, harsh or even critical. Some will seem outrageous and others over ambitious. Some of them may even lead you to think that I am denigrating the efforts and contribution of various people, including you.

Allow me to state clearly from the outset that, whilst I will be asking many questions about what we are doing in our respective worlds, my intention is to explore what we can do, in addition to what we are currently doing, not instead of.

Given that I know almost none of you at a personal level, I certainly do not direct any comments to or at you personally. However, many of my questions and comments may hit home or resonate with you. I ask that you be the decision maker, in that instance, as to whether what I say is applicable to you.

I am seriously concerned about the current state of the world in which we live. I am seriously concerned at some of what we are doing and more so about what we are not doing.

This presentation is an attempt to acknowledge, question, assess and explore some of the untapped potential that may be available to us individually and collectively.

As one lone individual I can no longer sit back and simply accept what is happening in our world as the way the world needs to be.

Domestically, nationally and internationally war is a daily phenomenon in our lives; the Balkans, East Timor, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Colombia, Israel, Tibet, Taiwan; (the devastation in Africa – added since 2002) the war against (on) terrorism, Houses of Parliament in question time, corporate boardrooms and annual general meetings, hostile corporate acquisitions, industrial disputations, world economic summits and their protesters, family property and custody disputes, and we can’t forget domestic violence.

Technologically and scientifically we have made some amazing progress. A list of examples could go on for pages. The very fact that we can now send an email from a hand-held computer via a mobile telephone from a taxi is just one instance of the extraordinary things we can do. (This was the case at the time of giving this talk. Now of course it is one device). That we can perform microsurgery on an unborn child to reduce fluid in the lung cavity, weeks before birth, is yet another example.

However, have we advanced to the same extent in how we think and behave? Have we advanced to that same extent in how we treat each other? Have we advanced in how we manage our relationships?

I suspect that, when we consider the amount of war we have happening on our planet at this very instant, if we consider the human rights violations, the corporate corruption, the rate of family break down, the number of people who will die on our planet in this day alone from starvation, whilst more than 80% of the world’s income is received by one fifth of the world’s population, and that teenage suicide continues to escalate; we can hardly turn our heads away from those factors and say we are doing well in our development as a race.

Could we say that the above variables are all indicators that we have some extraordinary opportunities in front of us, as a nation, as a professional body, as individuals and as member of the human race?

It is so easy for those of us whose lives do not come into direct contact with such things, to consider that it is someone else’s responsibility or someone else’s fault or it is for someone other than me to do something about. So easy for us, the privileged, external observer who only gets exposed to such atrocities when we choose to because we can decide when we turn on the television. We also decide when we’ve had enough and want to turn it off. The people on the other side of that TV screen do not have the same opportunity to turn it off.

It all seems daunting doesn’t it? Well it probably is, but pretending that it doesn’t impact on me, or that there is nothing that I can do, is not going to change anything and I put it to you that change is required.

Today, at the risk of over simplification, I’d like to cite one pattern only (perhaps of many) that I observe, and ask how we might address it.

I’d also like your permission to offer some suggestions.

The pattern I put to you is that we as a society, a nation and as a profession put more attention on the undesired state than the desired state.

Over simplified? Perhaps.

Consider the following:

How often does our media report good news in the same proportion as bad?

How often do we focus on the negative, the problem, rather than the positive or the possibility?

Internationally, how much do we spend on war compared to peace?

How many countries have defence budgets? And how many have peace budgets?

How much of our time in dispute resolving do we, as professionals, give to the point of disagreement and/or conflict compared to how much time we give to the points of agreement, the mutual needs, the options?

How often does someone yell obscenities at you from their car, compared with how often they express gratitude?

And in the work place how often do you hear what you did wrong compared to how well you did?

How often do you criticise your children, husband, wife or partner compared to how often you acknowledge what they do well?

How often do we yell at them?

How often can you watch politicians yelling abuse and ridiculing each other across the Houses of Parliament?

How often do we see leading sporting identities demonstrating that violence is an acceptable mode of behaviour?

How often do those same identities, political and sporting heroes, realise that they are the role models for the next generation? And do those same people realise, whether they like it or not, that others are likely to replicate their behaviours?

How often do CNN and others report war, graphically and repeatedly, compared to events supporting peace?

I put it to you that our society gives more time and attention to the undesired state than the desired state.

I put it to you that war is an undesired state. Be it in the Houses of Parliament, be it in the corporate boardroom, be it in your home, be it in your car, be it your hero on the football field, it’s undesired.

War in its international sense is not only undesired, it’s unacceptable.

The fact that a government declares war does not change the fact that people will die. And they do.

The fact that these same decision makers sit safely, often thousands of miles from where a missile or bomb will land, where blood will spill or where someone’s child is dying, removes them from the reality of the decision. That distance may remove them form the reality, but it does not make the decision humane.

How long are we, as a race, the human race, going to continue to condone, endorse and consider acceptable the taking of any human life?

I put it to government officials and politicians, that as of today, WAR be labelled PETOL – “politically endorsed taking of life” – and we start the process required to abolish the practise NOW.

Human life is precious and we need to treat it as such, no matter what nationality, what religion, what gender, age, intellect, what socio-economic background.

Peace is the desired state and it’s time we gave it serious attention.

Perhaps it’s time for a change?

The evidence, I think, is compelling.

Perhaps it’s time for a Global (for all) Peace Strategy. (Not international, global; for all. And not the war or anti-war or anti-terrorist strategies that currently pervade).

Does it not amaze you that there isn’t a global peace strategy!? One strategy for all of us, for the human race. Doesn’t that strike you as odd?

Yes, there are many very important contributions happening that I don’t wish to diminish, such as the work of thousands of people through the United Nations, the work of many organizations such as the Red Cross, World Vision and the Salvation Army; their huge efforts address many of the troubled bits, but there is not one organization, nor one strategy to address the whole.

Much of this work is to do with ceasefire, maintaining ceasefire and community reconstruction. It’s important work and, whilst the UN will refer to it as peace keeping or peace making, I put to you that it is not to do with peace; it’s to do with ceasefire. That is the unwinding of war. And it is very much the war end of the continuum, not the peace end.

What can you and I, the ordinary individual citizen, do at the peaceful end of the equation?

Maybe it’s time to address the desired state of PEACE rather than the undesired state of WAR?

Maybe it’s time for us, the ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) community, to question where our focus is. Are we, with the best of intentions, taking people’s attention to the conflict or dispute more than to agreement?

Look at many of the models we are teaching at Professional, Association and University levels; most, if not all, start with either issues, problems, points of disagreement or the individual party’s perspective. How many models start with the establishment of a mutually beneficial outcome? How many start with the collective needs?

If we consider the impact of the reticular activating system in the limbic system in the reptilian brain we might put more of our fucus on the agreement. The reticular activating system acts as a filter, sorting for relevance and importance. And makes us conscious of those things of importance based on where we put our attention i.e. if we focus our attention on the point of conflicts we are more likely to see the conflict. If we put our attention on points of agreement we are more likely to see possible points of agreement. It does not have a rational or logical capacity, it simply makes us aware of that which we attend to. So are we inadvertently programming our minds to what we don’t want rather than that which we do want?

If we, as ADR practitioners, are inadvertently focusing our clients’ attention on points of conflict more frequently than we are focusing their attention on the outcome, the needs, the options or the possibilities, then we may well be manifesting conflict unnecessarily.

Could we have a model that starts with the desired state?

Could we start the process with the collective needs or the mutually beneficial outcomes, before we hear the positions, issues or problems?

Just out of interest ask yourself “when did I last start a conflict, dispute or negotiation by establishing what the collective needs were?”

What international dispute do you know of that established the collective needs of all of the parties? Or that established a mutually beneficial outcome for all of the stakeholders?

As a mediator do you:

  1. Invent/generate options to solve problems, to resolve issues?
  2. Or do you invent/generate options to fulfil desired outcomes?
  3. Or do you invent/generate options to fulfil needs?

If it’s 1. then you may well be focusing the parties’ attention on the conflict (undesired state), as many do, and manifesting conflict rather than agreement.

Is our very name, Alternative Dispute Resolution, (through the reticular activating system), not programming the minds of our clients on the undesired state of conflict?

You’re probably asking, “well what can I do?”

I can’t answer that for you.

However I hope in my heart that you do.

I don’t believe we can afford to leave the question unanswered for much longer.

What can be done?

We can watch how often we are directing people’s attention to the conflict areas rather than the points of agreement, common needs, desired state or outcome.

We could focus on needs as much or more than problems or issues.

We could direct our attention to the relationship as often as we direct it to the content.

We could start our next mediation by establishing the collective needs first.

These are small things that you could address day by day in your work, that would have a positive impact.

On a larger scale, there are over 5000 organizations on the web bearing the word PEACE in their name and we have not been able to find one that has a global peace strategy.

If real global change is to occur there needs to be a calculated change process in place.

If this is to happen, surely we can start with the assumption that some of the basic principles of change management need to be applied.

If we can explore the writings of many authorities in the area, Senge being one of the better known, for his perspective on the importance of a shared vision, and consideration for the whole system through what he refers to as Systems Thinking (Fifth Discipline).

Peter Block, in his book Stewardship, refers to the need to break the parent child pattern and create a process of empowering the stakeholders, and Dana Zohah refers to the importance of dialogue (i.e. discovery, exploration and understanding, not debate, not even consensus).

Porras, in Built to Last – Successful Habits of Visionary Companies (pub Century), discusses the importance of the preservation of core ideology and values that remain constant over time, whilst the strategy can be altered;

“This brings us to a crucial point: a visionary company carefully preserves and protects its core ideology, yet all the specific manifestations of its core ideology must be open for change and evaluation. For example: HP’s “Respect and concern for individual employees” is a permanent, unchanging part of its core ideology; serving fruit and doughnuts to all employees at ten a.m. each day is a non-core practice that can change.”

It appears to me that some of these fundamentals may be missing in the international arena.

Of particular importance is the aspect of seeking people’s ideas and encouraging them to initiate opportunities as stated by Rosabeth Moss Kanter, author of The Enduring Skills of Change;

“It is a myth that people resist change. People resist what other people make them do, not what they themselves choose to do…That’s why companies that innovate successfully year after year seek their people’s ideas, let them initiate new projects and encourage more experiments”.

The one principle that we started with, was that for effective and lasting change to take place it needs to start with a vision, a strategy and anenduring conversation, involving as many of the stakeholders as possible. A conversation that has 3 elements:

  1. Acknowledgement of the current perceptions
  2. A comment on the desired or preferred state (a positive image or description of how it could be i.e. a vision)
  3. A statement of what positive actions, steps or options are available to each individual that they can and are willing to contribute.

Hence, maybe it’s time for a global PEACE conversation, a PEACE Strategy.

What would it take to start one?

Some suggestions we might consider follows below:

A) The Internet, with a global conversation asking three questions: (with equal time given to each)

  1. What do you think of the state of the world? (Acknowledging current perspective – consider the system/whole).
  2. How would you like it to be? (Desired state or vision).
  3. What are you willing to do to contribute to having it be that way? (Options and willingness to contribute, empower).

B) A national and then an international simultaneous talk-back radio program, same day, same time, on every radio station in the country and then every radio station on the planet, asking the same three questions:

  1. What do you think of the state of the world? (Acknowledging current perspective – consider the system/whole).
  2. How would you like it to be? (Desired state or vision).
  3. What are you willing to do to contribute to having it be that way? (Options and willingness to contribute, empower).

Crazy?……….Maybe?………..Possible?………Absolutely!!!

Could it have an impact?………..What do you think?.

What would be the impact of a national (or international), simultaneous State of the World conversation on talk-back radio and continued on the internet?

Change driven by the community on the ground, not just by the power of the executive suite and the political process, is change that will endure.

C) A Global World Leaders’ Congress (i.e. leaders from every walk of life), where the same three questions are asked:

  1. What do you think of the state of the world? (Acknowledging current perspective – consider the system/whole).
  2. How would you like it to be? (Desired state or vision).
  3. What are you willing to do to contribute to having it be that way? (Options and willingness to contribute, empowering all to contribute to a positive movement towards peace)

D) The 4th “R” in education projects (R for RELATIONSHIP):

At this point in time the single most needed skill in the whole of the human experience is not taught in our education systems; RELATIONSHIP.

What skill do we human beings use every day of our lives more than that of “R”elating skills, communicating, “R”elationship building?

And yet we do not have RELATIONSHIP as part of our standard educational curriculum.

Clearly we need to teach relationship skills to children, as a compulsory subject in the same way that we teach reading, writing and arithmetic.

This will involve doing whatever is necessary to have the 4th “R” become part of the standard school curriculum for all students from 5 year olds to 12. Changing the way the current adult generation communicates is not so likely, however if we start now and educate the next generation, they will lead the social change towards a peaceful world.

If war is the manifestation of dysfunctional relationship, and it surely is, then perhaps it’s time we start teaching it as a compulsory subject in our education systems.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you do not do anything as a result of attending this conference, please go away from here and talk to as many people as you can about the need for the 4th “R” in education.

E) “Participate In Our Peaceful Planet” campaign:

This will mean approaching every producer of every product of any description, anywhere in the world, that is distributed to or for use by CHILDREN, and have them put this theme (“Participate In Our Peaceful Planet”) on every product they produce. Even if that only means the term “Participate In Our Peaceful Planet” appears on their labels.

F) Start a “Life Preservation Program”:

Starting with a “Life Preservation Day”, then a week, then a month.

This would be a long running program designed to increase our value of human life and the acknowledgement that the taking of life is not acceptable, even if politically endorsed.

Part of this strategy would be to encourage the use of the term PETOL (i.e. Politically Endorsed Taking Of Life) instead of the term war.

These are six of the elements of the global peace strategy that we could participate in. There could be many more. If we were to make a PEACE conversation a regular event in our individual lives it would produce a focus on peace and ideas would start to flow and overtake the conversations of war and violence that have prevailed up to now.

It is time for a change and it is time for each one of us to contribute and take an active part in it.

If we start to talk about global peace (not International, GLOBAL; not war, PEACE), make the conversation happen, raise the awareness in ourselves and in those around us, then strategy is already happening.

My questions to you, my professional counter-parts, are:

  • How many times and places in each day can we start a conversation about global peace?
  • What can we do to improve what we already do?
  • How can we do more than we now do?
  • How can we contribute through our every action, day by day, minute by minute, to moving our focus more and more towards the DESIRED STATE, a peaceful world, peaceful country, peaceful organization, peaceful family and more peaceful self?

Every action, every minute and every person’s contribution matters, no matter how big or small.

It is time for action from us all.

The post A World In Need Of Peace appeared first on Peak Performance.

]]>