Conflict can be good. Conflict can certainly be bad. Conflict creates change — positive or negative. Conflict can be handled well; or handled disastrously.
“Conflict is inevitable. But combat is optional.”
Decades ago, in our neighborhood, we were totally clueless about the extreme conflict that was festering between two of our neighbors. My husband and I were often out, so we didn’t really know what was happening in our street.
Until one day, one of our neighbors, an American ex-pat from a highly prestigious company, asked if he could hold a Conflict Resolution meeting in our house because we were considered neutral.
Apparently, most of our neighbors had already taken sides. The opposing parties were a German resident, and a Filipino doctor.
My husband and I were just supposed to quietly observe and make sure the “adversaries” had ample refreshments as the meeting was going on.
We were apprehensive, of course, but also quite excited to see how Dr. Trent (let’s call him that) was going to conduct the whole thing! We had high expectations because he had a PhD (in something quite intimidating).
Prior to the meeting, Dr. Trent sent us some reading material from a textbook. This was to familiarize us with the process he was going to use. I’m sorry I cannot remember what this conflict resolution model is called.
But here are the basic guidelines, as I remember it:
The moderator first defines the purpose of the meeting; what the conflict is all about, in general, and what the specific issues are, in particular. He then gives the rules for the discussion, as follows:
1.Each person involved in the conflict resolution meeting will be given strictly five minutes to speak — to air his side, each time it’s his turn to speak. When the moderator tells him to stop, he must stop immediately or lose his turn in the next round.
2. Every person will take turns airing his side, clockwise, for five minutes or less.
3. No one should interrupt the person speaking. If you interrupt, you lose your turn to speak in the next round.
4. No insults, cursing or bad words. No shouting. No disruptive or aggressive behavior like banging on the table, throwing things, etc. If you do this, you lose two turns.
5. If you’re too rude or scandalous or disruptive, you will be asked to leave the room. Moderator will decide if you can go back to the discussion, if you’ve calmed down.
6. If you have a question, clarification, or want to correct the one speaking, just write these down and do your rebuttal when it’s your turn to speak.
7. Everyone in the circle will speak for five minutes or less until everyone has said everything he wants to say. The discussion will die a natural death once everyone has had his say.
8. Suggestions on how to resolve the conflict will be culled and summarized by the moderator (or a person assigned to do this). The moderator has no authority to make any decisions to resolve the conflict. He is just there to moderate/facilitate the discussion. This is different from an arbiter who has the authority to make decisions to resolve the conflict.
9. When everyone has run out of things to say, the moderator may ask these questions to encourage reconciliation: (there are questions that my husband and I added when we used this Reconciliation model).
Is there anything you did that contributed to the problem?
What would you do differently if you could turn back the clock?
What can settle this conflict satisfactorily for you? For the others here?
Is there anyone here you’d like to apologize to?
Post mortem: We were amazed by how this method was so effective and comprehensive!
Uninterrupted, people can say their piece without getting into a screaming match. Moderator must, however, be calm and very firm in enforcing the rules — to maintain respect and orderliness.
Amazingly, as rules were strictly enforced, people were forced to listen. As they listened, many vain imaginations, negative thinking, false accusations, manipulation, false reports, lies, gossip and backstabbing, etc. were exposed.
We also noticed that the guilty ones or the “dirty players” became easier to identify. While those who were bullied or maligned were vindicated — just by listening to the discussion.
The conflict resolution session we observed was, by God’s grace, a success. There were some raised voices at the start but when they lost their turn, they obeyed and toed the line.
So my husband and I have been using this model to help people settle their differences.
Especially in church and in marital conflicts, it’s always a huge blessing to see “warring sides” humbly apologize to each other, admit their mistakes, and even try to make restitution when they realize how much they hurt someone.
But when there’s no REAL desire to reconcile, when walls of pride and selfishness remain standing — there won’t be any reconciliation, no matter how brilliant the moderator is. No matter how efficient the Conflict Resolution process is.
We must leave our egos at the door and come in with calmness, humility, and honesty. If we work for peace, God promises to bless us:
“God blesses those who work for peace, for they will be called children of God.” (Matthew 5:9)
“A gentle answer will calm a person’s anger, but an unkind answer will cause more anger.” (Proverbs 15: 1)
