The foundation for any effort to collaboratively negotiate solutions to conflicts is an affirming environment. By developing an improved sense of trust, integrity, security, and safety for negotiation, we significantly improve the likelihood that initiatives to solve the problem will be reciprocated. Extending an "olive branch," is often an important first step in crafting such an agreement. But how do we get to that point, if we are so filled with fear and distrust of our adversaries in the conflict?

In many ways, we must accept as a point of departure that the relationship between the parties is not filled with trust, at least vis-à-vis the situation and its immediate threat. Therefore, two options present themselves:

• Build a sense of trust as a first priority;
  
• Accept that we lack trust, and practically consider how to work together in spite of it.

While we might idealize the former option, we realistically encounter the latter one much of the time. However, we shouldn't abandon the potential benefits of engaging in activities that build trust as a first priority. In practice, there are several useful strategies that can be brought to bear on this challenge:

1. Name the fear. So often, we are reluctant to clearly identify the problems and challenges that inhibit us. By naming the fear, its sources and its triggers, we free ourselves to put that issue on the table and address its influence on other issues of impasse, especially substantive needs.
   
   
2. Establish ground rules. This is often a critical tool for clarifying expectations about procedural needs and psychological needs in negotiation. For a more complete explanation of this process, check the Ground Rules section of this site.
   
   
3. Set aside conflict negotiation for a while in order to clarify "desired outcomes" of the working relationship. This is a related exercise, but less focused on conflict resolution than on team development. In this process, the group responds to the question, "What are your desired outcomes of your work together?" As individuals articulate their responses to this question, they begin to identify sources of frustration (and conflict) that can become an action agenda. In some cases, this is accepted more easily than facilitating a mediation session. For more details on how to facilitate this activity, check the "Outcomes Identification Exercise" on this site.
   
   
4. Engage in an appreciative inquiry process that focuses on what has gone right in the past, and what we wish to bring forward as key themes and values for the future. This approach turns the conflict on its head. By reframing the situation to focus on positive elements, participants may be able to successfully shift from adversarial orientations to problem-solving attitudes. It is also surprising to disputants when such an approach diffuses the energy that otherwise would be going into sustaining the framework of conflict.
   
   
5. Recognize the importance of the overall system in understanding the meaning of a specific conflict. Addressing specific concerns cannot be done in a vacuum; they must be understood within the context that they are occurring. When viewing the opportunity to build an affirming environment, it also challenges us to develop workplace systems that are respectful, consistent, filled with integrity and positively reinforcing. In that way, we foster a sense of possibility among people that can be tapped whenever there are conflicts and energy-draining challenges. This strategy requires leadership, vision, and courage.
   
   
6. Understand that conflict negotiation is an act of profound courage. Engaging in a dispute resolution process requires us to tap our fountain of courage, deep within us. It requires us to confront and acknowledge our fears, and face the threats embedded in the conflict that we often would prefer not to acknowledge. As a manager or leader within a work unit where people are stuck in conflict, we must resist the urge to "send them to the woodshed" or to "fix it for them." Instead, we need to accept our special responsibilities as academic leaders and facilitate a process by which they can seek effective solutions together. If we approach this role with respect for the courage that is required, our staff members will feel much more affirmed and, in turn, more willing to take the risks involved in the process.

But what of the alternative, accepting that we have no sense of trust and simply need to work together in spite of it? We suggest that, if that is truly the situation, the parties utilize external facilitation and mediation services in order to gain a better perspective on the challenges before them. On campus, this includes utilizing the Employee Assistance Office or the Office of Quality Improvement, or the new Ombuds Program for Faculty and Staff, or the Union Leaders and Stewards as resources for this process. In addition, there are numerous resources available in the community.

Improving campus climate is a key strategic initiative at UW-Madison. It is critical that we facilitate access to resources that improve our overall work environment. When conflicts persist to the point that we are pass the point of seeking to develop an affirming environment, it is crucial that department leaders make every effort to improve opportunities for positive change.

Conflict Resolution Menu