When working or living with conflict, it pays to take a holistic view of the situation in which the conflict exists.
“Holistic means looking at or treating an entire system, complete entity, or whole person rather than focusing on separate individual parts.” (Gemini AI)
In a two-person or even small group mediation we are usually working with one part (i.e. the relationship between the two staff members, or family members) of a much bigger system. Now, this is fine, when the origins of the conflict that has emerged lies within and between the two people you, as a mediator, are sitting with.
However, what I often find is that there are invariably elements of the dispute that arise from factors that are inherent to the wider system.
Where I believe this takes us, on the widest possible scale, is to the fundamental interdependency of humanity and the universe. For example, as human beings we are dependent on oxygen and sources of food and water being available, and other aspects of the system are dependent on how human beings act in return.
This same interdependency exists within the sub-systems that we work with in conflict. For example, two people’s capacity to deal with stress and manage inter-personal relationships may depend at least partly on the conditions they are working or living in.
High stress levels can mean that staff or family members have much less capacity to meet their colleagues or other family members in a considered way. Instead, they may feel overwhelmed and under resourced to have conversations concerning differences that arise between them.
Examples of factors that potentially exacerbate conflict in work-based systems are a key staff member, possibly a higher manager, being off-sick for a longer period of time. Job descriptions that are not specific or clear on roles and responsibilities. Managers not feeling confident or equipped to have conversations with staff members at the early stage of conflict dynamics emerging, which in itself can point to other systemic factors, e.g. poor interview processes or a lack of training support.
Another systemic factor could be the amount of time that is expected of or taken by teams to meet, spend time together, and form deeper and more sustainable relationships, outside of the immediate task of their day-to-day jobs. There is a case to say that function has, in some cases, taken priority over relationship.
Where I have the opportunity, usually in conflict transformation tasks that offer a broader remit than purely mediation, I will examine this wider system. Then I will work with the people in the system to consider and if necessary address the wider systemic issues that may be exacerbating or even creating the conditions for conflict between two or more staff members.
Where this leads me, is to a place of advocating for, in the first instance, a diagnostic approach to working with conflict in the workplace or even within families, before the implementation of more direct interventions. That we may understand the map of the territory before deciding how we might navigate our way across it.
Nick Adlington
go-dialogue.co.uk