Episode 34: Gordon Sloan – Giving Up on Conflict?

In this episode, Gordon Sloan discusses:

• The important distinction between difference, disagreement, conflict, and dispute
• What he thinks can be negotiated between parties and what cannot 
• The role of identity in conflict
• How crucial it is for conflict management systems being designed by the actual stakeholders
• Implications of professionalizing mediation

More About our Guest

Gordon Sloan is a mediator and teacher of conflict resolution and dispute resolution. For 35 years, he has been a national leader in a range of third party interventions and is known for interventions in larger disputes involving multiple parties, often with public issues at stake. Gordon teaches in government, private, and academic settings; designs conflict management systems; and is a founding partner in ADR Education, a national conflict resolution firm. His degrees are in Religion and Law. One of his fascinations is how to address intense, value-based conflict, particularly where identity is being challenged.

Gordon Sloan’s Resources

• His ADR Education page

Resources Mentioned in this Episode

• Chris Moore (mediator, author)
• The Carter Centre
• Ben Hoffman
• The Cyprus situation
• Chris Merchand and Kathy Constantino (authors)
• Mediator in a Box 
• Bill/William Ury

Quotes and Highlights

(Given that we have two Gordons in this episode, we call our co-host Gord and our guest Gordon Sloan)

[1:21] Gord notes that one of things that Gordon Sloan has spoken about quite a bit in recent years is the distinction between a conflict and a dispute, and why that’s important. Gordon Sloan replies:

• One of the things that has to bookend that kind of a conversation is how little is really written about that distinction, so there isn’t a body of knowledge out there that generally recognizes it in this field (specifically mediation and conflict resolution, generally). 
• But there’s quite a history to that, and without boring us through this history over the last 20 or 30 years, the field has not labeled things very accurately, or not clearly enough that we can make these distinctions with the words conflict and dispute. 
• There seem to be two distinct bodies of experience that mediators are called in to deal with. (Gord adds that what Gordon is talking about is relevant for anyone dealing with conflict.)
• One experience is disagreement (which can sometimes be irritating, difficult or violent) and the other is difference
• Difference doesn’t always mean disagreement. There’s all kinds of situations where we could be different. Cultures can be different. And there could be lots of rich and interesting difference out there. 
• Gordon Sloan talks about how dispute resolution began all across Canada and the United States in the 1970s and 1980s.
• Gordon Sloan: so I know, in some of my personal relationships and the relationships of organizations and people that I have worked with over the years, there are just profound differences. And those differences are actually very productive, very helpful. They cause a lot of learning. They cause a lot of growth if they’re reasonably constructive and not dysfunctional. So that’s great! Viva la difference is fine. We can be different, and cultures can be different, and language groups and ages and genders, and all of the things that we mark as identities can be different, and everything can be just fine. But when those express themselves in disagreement, that disagreement is problematic, and when the field calls that conflict, I think they’re off base.
• Gord: “What you’re suggesting, I think, is that this distinction has to do with how the people involved handle it. Am I right?”
• Gordon Sloan: “I think you’re right.”

[7:09] Gordon Sloan talks about his professional involvement in a large church communion dealing with the determination of the church body to bless same sex relationships, and the challenging discussions among some of them. He says, “What I didn’t know at the time, and I am now really clear on, was that that wasn’t a disagreement; that was a rich conflict.”

[9:13] Julia shares that she’s still grappling with the terminology, and says “Are you saying from your experience that deep difference, so deep that it hits identity, is what you call conflict?” 

• Gordon Sloan: “I wouldn’t say that people of difference are having a conflict. I would say they’re in conflict. I think you can have a dispute, but when you’re experiencing profound difference, you’re in conflict.”
• Julia asks Gordon how he defines conflict.
• Gordon Sloan: “Conflict is…I would use the word non-commensurate, and I think that’s a big one. The not-get-together-able differences that divide us. […] I think some conflict is sufficiently commensurate that people can get along and discuss. But in a family where half the family is arch conservative and half the family is arch liberal, they’re going to continue to have disagreements because of that conflict. They’re in conflict politically, and so it’s not difficult for them to have disputes, disagreements, over all kinds of stuff: where the family vacations, how they spend money, what their standards are going to be for this, that, and the other, what kind of cars they drive.”
• “My experience has been that disagreements are negotiable, and anything that’s negotiable is mediatable. Conflict, particularly deep-seated, core conflict of an identity nature, is not negotiable. I mean, who’s gonna negotiate their sexual orientation or their gender?”
• Julia: “But what do you do about this, though? I’m getting very concerned about this philosophy and direction!”
• Gordon Sloan: “Well, one thing you don’t do is pretend to mediate it and think that you’re going to resolve conflict with people simply by sitting down for a difficult day together, and having tough conversations.” 
• Julia: “So part of it is getting realistic.” 
• Gordon Sloan: “It is.”
• Gord: “I don’t think you’re saying that it might not be valuable to facilitate a conversation, but it’s a different kind of process.”
• Gordon Sloan: “Absolutely. And the difficulty is we, I, but I I think most mediators, wade into what are packaged as disagreements only to discover oh my God, some of this is disagreement alright, and yes, I can help with that discussion, and they can get nice, clear, transactional outcomes. But some of it is not. Some of it is conflict that is so fundamental and so deep for these people or this organization that the best they’re going to do is have ongoing discussions that are more about education, exposure, familiarity, learning, those kinds of things. You don’t take Arabs and Israelis over a settlement issue and expect that you’re going to sit down with them and solve that problem.”

[15:35] Gordon Sloan shares an example of a time when he was mediating what he thought would be a pretty straightforward legal pleading and realized that a much deeper conflict was in the room. He sensed he was the only one who realized it. The case was regarding an injury following a car accident, and the plaintiff wasn’t interested in the nature of his injury – which is really what they were there to talk about – he instead focused on the nature of the accident, specifically a highly insensitive comment about him from a first responder, which highlighted how terrifying the experience was for the plaintiff. Gordon Sloan talks about the importance of acknowledging that this was not just a dispute over money – this was a conflict over Am I alive or dead? Does the other side understand this? Who’s going to prevail here, the 16 year old punk or the injured, nearly dead man?

[22:22] Gord asks Gordon Sloan how often he’s transparent with parties regarding the difference between conflict and disputes. Gordon Sloan responds: 

• I’m more that way, talking more about that, in the last 10 years, than I did in the first 25 because I didn’t understand it, and I’m not sure fully understand it now, but it’s certainly worth bringing that up – leaning back and saying, You know, I kind of noticed, and then disclosing what you notice. It seems to me that you people are basically different in the way you such and such regard so and so. I don’t know that that’s something that you should expect to solve today. Tell them that! But what you can solve are the various ways that that becomes clear in your workplace or in your relationship. Let’s talk about those.
• [27:00] Once you notice that conflict is really at work here rather than presenting disputes, then I think, as you were suggesting earlier, Gord, you can come clean and announce that you see this. And if I was the head of a team, I would ask them to contribute to it. How do you want to address this? And in a mediation, I would do the same thing. Some of them will say, “Well, we can’t address because that’s just the way we are!” And so if you can’t address it and that’s just the way you are, what do we want to do together today and maybe next week when we meet, or whatever it is, to acknowledge that and to see your way through?
• [27:44] This is all happening while the field blithely talks about conflict resolution as if it were frequent and possible. I don’t think it’s frequent, and I just find myself in the twilight of my professional career thinking, maybe conflict resolution doesn’t happen. Maybe conflict addressing happens, conflict of enlightening happens. And, maybe we don’t wanna resolve it. I mean, why should chainsaw-toting loggers beat their chainsaws into ploughshares.

[28:23] Julia says “Let’s talk about that for a second.” Gordon Sloan says “Why can’t people be the way they are?” Julia says “Well, because I’m here because my mother had to leave her home country because of war, because of violence, because my grandfather was murdered. That’s why I think we need to think about it and do something.” Gordon Sloan says “Well, sure. Except, um, I don’t know that situation, of course, but does that mean that the people doing the persecuting and the people being persecuted were inherently different? Or does it mean that people had been politically convinced that they should be on one side or the other of that problem?” Further discussion ensues! Julia asks “What if they clash in a violent way? What’s the response, if any, not just from a professional mediator from anybody in a community?” Gordon Sloan puts forward two responses: 1) education, exposure, connection, dialogue, and governments supporting and assisting in getting opposite forces together to talk and understand and see what they can do to become more familiar and change society. 2) maybe third party intervention or facilitation isn’t the answer to some of those problems. More assertive responses. We shouldn’t assume that when there’s violence and when there’s arbitrary outrageous behavior that somehow getting everyone together and talking about that, even over time, is going to solve it. People need to take cover and protect themselves from death and mistreatment and abuse.

[32:17] Bernie Mayer is part of my inspiration for saying that the way ahead with conflict issues is to see what in the conflict that is un-negotiable can be made negotiable. How can you make something negotiable? And that’s something I think third parties could do, whether they’re mediators, leaders, managers, or policy makers. How can we tease out of this significant difference specific issues that the different forces can tackle and solve? Part of that is cognitive behavioral therapy; if they see that they could do it, holy crow, maybe it will change their approach to one another, slowly but surely. The important thing in resolution conflict is to realize that this takes time and it takes a more or less – and it is more or less – willingness to tackle this. 

[33:31] Julia asks Gordon Sloan to say more about people who don’t want to come to the table, and how to motivate those who are avoiding conflict. Gordon Sloan shares a story that illustrates this question, and says “It’s very unusual, in any mediation I’ve been involved in, for the two parties to have the same level of keenness, the same level of volition. And I think the experiments across Canada and the administration of justice have proven they don’t need to have the same motivation. In fact, some of the experiments show they don’t need any motivation at all. Just get them in the room together, and with a little help from somebody – that’s all mediation is – things will happen.”

[36:15] The hosts ask Gordon Sloan to speak about how a leader could assess a situation, such as a workplace complaint. Gordon Sloan says:

• [40:06] If the presenting party or force says “We need you to mediate this dispute because it’s having an effect in the workplace,” and let’s say that person is manager of human resources. I would want to know, What do you mean mediate the dispute? “Well, it’s a terrible problem and there’s some ringleaders and so on and so on.” But what am I going to do? Because they may mean they want somebody going and coach those ringleaders. Or they may mean they want someone to go in and just fix things, which is not the profession I’m involved in. Or, or, or. There could be a lot of other processes that work there. And so part of the diagnostic tool for me is asking what’s needed here, both in terms of what the sponsor thinks and in terms of our professional expertise. 
• [41:04] We face these all the time. We’re in a much better position than a lot of other people in large organizations to assess what’s needed, and usually they’re very receptive to our assessment because, frankly, they’ve done what they can to try to get a handle on a very difficult problem. And then I think once one starts to talk to the people, either because you’ve done interviews or because you’re helicoptered in and you’re sitting down with very little preparation, which sometimes happens. Then those other diagnostic things apply. Is this just difference between these people, and they hate each other, and there’s some good cultural (small c, low-context cultural) reason for that, or is this really a disagreement that they have over some behavior that each has occasioned on the other? Or is a little bit of both, and you’re gonna find out more about that as they talk. It’s a bit fly by the seat, isn’t it?

[42:33] Julia asks Gordon Sloan to share his thoughts about the responsibility of a leader, whether they’re a leader of an organization or country, in terms of modeling healthy engagement of conflict or disputes. Gordon Sloan says:

• It’s interesting – that’s really outside my role as a third party, but when you look back at the situation after it’s over, you get these inklings of what might have been in place that could have prevented this in the first place? And I do think it’s a question of how open the leadership/leader is to acknowledge diversity, if it’s a conflict issue, and to be insistent upon non-exclusion, so far at that diversity is concerned, to be insistent upon principles of the workplace, and not just pay lip service to the principles because they’re too ‘suckhole,’ if I can use that adjective.
• [43:39] I have worked in plenty of big workplaces that are decentralized, where they will have standards set by a government body, a treasury board, or somebody – value statements – they say We maintain a diverse workplace in which the dignity of every employee, dah dah dah. And some, particularly, darn it, particularly older managers who were around before these things were developed, roll their eyes at that kind of stuff, and they’ve been through half-day courses on it at some time in the past, but they’re just not carrying it out. And so I think one of the obligations is – and one sees that dinosaurism disappearing, I must say, it’s a really positive thing – but corporate leadership has got to be sure that the leaders in those organizations not only understand those standards, but really have been schooled in practical ways to bring them about. 
• [45:00] It needs to become, and it usually is, one of the planks in the platform of someone’s performance review. This is a core, not competency. It’s a core approach that we expect you to take with your people, and we want to see fruit and when there isn’t fruit because often there’s rotten fruit hanging on the tree, you have to have dealt with it effectively and brought people to account, but also brought people to change.

[48:55] Gord asks Gordon Sloan to say more about the term ‘conflict management system.’ Gordon Sloan says:

• Chris Merchant and Kathy Constantino wrote the book on this subject, and they’re both insistent that these systems only work when employees build it themselves.
• [49:53] In about 2003, the federal government of Canada modernized the civil service and insisted that every government department and agency had to develop an informal conflict management system, and they had to do it themselves. Gordon Sloan was involved in eight or nine sessions where senior leadership, management leadership, rank and file, and union people all were brought together to figure out how they were going to deal with conflicts in their organization. They weren’t really talking about conflicts – they were talking about how to deal with disputes between employees, and disputes between employees and the organization.) This was by and large successful and resulted in systems that differed from one organization to another, rather than having one massive system across government. Everybody bought in.
• [51:38] I really agree with points that were made in one of your earlier episodes that there is a conflict management system, whether the organization recognizes it or not, there is a default system in place. Every family has one. 

[53:55] Gordon Sloan talks about some implications of professionalizing mediation, and says [58:38]“My experience has always been that mediation is not a profession. It is an activity. A complex set of activities carried on by members of all kinds of professions. So let each profession have its standards that it either imposes on its professionals when they mediate or not.”

[59:12] Julia asks Gordon Sloan if there’s anything else he’d like to mention, and he says:

• There’s gotta be someone out there who can write the book on conflict and dispute, and make that phenomenological distinction without getting too antiseptic about it. 
• We’re headed in a direction in the next ten, twenty years, of distinguishing those two things and developing paradigms for conflict addressing of the sort we’ve had for dispute addressing, because the dispute addressing ones, they’ve got models and frameworks and approaches up the yin yang. And with this other, we’re still trying to help those discussions of difference. But I suspect that’s where we’re going. I hope that’s where we’re going.