Conflict Resolution Lessons from Lord of the Rings: I Will Take the Ring (Getting Started)

Conflict resolution entails a journey into the unknown. No matter how much we prepare, we can never know for sure how another will react to us or respond to our message. Not surprisingly, this uncertainty leads many to avoid conflict rather than venture into the unknown. Conversely, one of the hallmarks of those successful in dealing with conflict is the courage to begin.

A lynchpin moment in one of my favourite movies, The Fellowship of the Ring, occurs at the Council of Elrond – a meeting convened to decide what to do with the “one ring to rule them all” and how to confront the growing threat to Middle Earth. As various factions bicker, Frodo steps forward and declares “I will take the ring. But I do not know the way.” Faced with this act of courage, the bickering factions pledge their support and unite around Frodo and his quest – the “Fellowship of the Ring” is formed.

In his life-changing book, Warriors of the Heart, Danaan Parry calls on us to become “warriors” in the cause of positive change. In defining the term, he draws on varied cultural references. He refers to the Buddhist tradition of a warrior as “one who has the courage to know oneself” – including our “dragons” or dark side. Rather than slaying their dragons, warriors transform that energy into positive power. Danaan also cites a Tibetan definition of a warrior as “one who faces one’s own fear.” Tellingly, neither definition refers to other people or circumstances, but define the Warrior path as “inside your own being”. This is echoed in yet another culture: the Yaqui Indians of northern Mexico, whose concept of a Warrior was one “who brings newness into the world” – one willing to venture into the unknown and bring their vision back to the tribe.

Danaan also states that a Warrior is one “who has and needs no place to stand, no position to cling to”. This is exactly the opposite to the role of Hero on the drama triangle of conflict (along with the Victim and Villain). The Hero is fueled by a sense of righteousness – a belief that they have staked out the moral high ground and that their behaviour, however injurious to others, is therefore justified.  The definitions of a “Warrior of the Heart” provide an alternative approach for those any who would engage in collaborative conflict resolution.

I was reminded of the way of the Warrior recently when I received an e-mail from a student who had attended one of my workshops. During the workshop, she used a personal conflict with a (former) friend as a case study during which we practiced “observation without judgement” and explored the motivations of the “villain” in our story. While the student didn’t agree with her friend’s actions, she was able to understand what motivated the behaviour and to depersonalize the conflict. Following the class, she contacted her former friend (with whom she had not spoken for a year), listened with curiosity to her friend’s needs and was eventually able to resolve the long-standing issue and resume the friendship. I was gratified and impressed on several levels, not the least of which was the courage the student demonstrated in contacting her friend with an attitude of curiosity. She needed “no position to cling to” (i.e. no need to be right). As a result, she opened herself to another perspective and uncovered a new path on which to move forward in the relationship. She was truly a “Warrior of the Heart” in that moment.

So when confronted with conflict, demonstrate the Hero’s courage, but let it be the courage to remain open to the newness, understanding and growth that the conflict may provide. Draw inspiration from Frodo and engage the conflict, even if you do not “know the way”.

Who Am I? Part 2: Jean Valjean and Inner Conflict

In her book, Fierce Conversations, Susan Scott writes that “all conversations are with myself and sometimes involve other people”. The same can be said of conflict – that all interpersonal conflict is accompanied by internal conflict, in which our values appear to be in opposition to each other. Until we reconcile such internal conflict, we are unlikely to be able to resolve our external conflicts.

Internal conflict is the driving force behind character development in drama. One of my favourite dramas, Downton Abbey, is so compelling because of the masterful job it does in portraying its characters’ internal conflict. These often pit true love against a sense of duty or pressure to conform to societal norms. The characters’ decisions ultimately define them. That we relate to these dilemmas speaks to the universal theme of internal conflict.

This is also central to Les Miserables. The protagonist, Jean Valjean, has breached his parole and has been pursued by his nemesis, Inspector Javert. One (of several) choice points in Valjean’s story line arises when another man has been mistaken for him, arrested and is facing imprisonment. On the face of it, this is good news for Valjean, as his case will be closed and he will no longer be the subject of Javert’s obsession [as discussed in my previous blog]. Yet Valjean is torn. His sense of justice cannot bear to see an innocent man go to jail in his stead, but to right this wrong, Valjean would need to reveal his identity and risk arrest. The song “Who Am I” chronicles his inner conflict (“If I speak, I am condemned. If I stay silent, I am damned.”) The song climaxes as our hero touches on his inner truth (“I am Jean Valjean!”) as his sense of justice triumphs.

How we reconcile our inner conflicts can be said to define us. Several years ago, a colleague bounced a cheque to me as a result of conflicting views over a harassment investigation [yes, I am aware of the irony ]. I was torn between my aversion to conflict and my outrage at being unjustly treated. I wavered until I asked myself “am I being the man that I would want my daughter to marry”. As I certainly did not wish my daughter to marry a doormat, I knew that I needed to pursue the matter despite my discomfort.

People are continually confronted by inner conflict: should I speak up when my supervisor mocks me in meetings (my need for respect) or should I “suck it up” to avoid possible retribution (my need for safety or even financial security). People unwilling to make a clear choice end up in limbo: unwilling to act, yet frustrated by the status quo. Even though an interpersonal conflict may only involve two people, each of the two will be experiencing some level of internal conflict. This may reflect a desire to “get this over with ” contrasted with a need to save face. Until the internal conflict is reconciled, the external conflict is likely to persist.

A colleague of mine who has integrated “mindfulness” with her conflict resolution and counseling practice introduced me to a concept that can help us resolve our internal conflicts: “wise mind”. This has been described as the balance between reasonable mind and emotion mind – a “middle way” that taps into a deep sense of intuitive knowing.  For some people, it is that still, small voice within that knows what is best.  For others, wise mind is experienced as a “gut feeling”.

If you find yourself torn by inner conflict, I suggest identifying the values or needs that appear to be contradictory. Once you have determined those needs, ask yourself “who am I?”. Wise mind can provide you with the insight to answer that question and guide you through your inner conflict. Singing is optional.

Who Am I? Part 1: Inspector Javert’s Suicide and Identity in Conflict.

A recurring theme in Les Miserables is the far from rhetorical question “who am I?” The protagonist, Jean Valjean, is thrice confronted by that question and his decisions define him as heroic. His nemesis, Inspector Javert, however, is unable to come to grips with  this same question and ends his life as a result. [Question: is it necessary to give a spoiler alert when referring to a novel written in 1862, made into a movie as early as 1935? ]

At a pivotal point in the story, Valjean shows mercy to his enemy, Javert. Javert is unable to reconcile this act of forgiveness with his longstanding view of Valjean as a villain (“must I now begin to doubt who never doubted all these years?”). Rather than viewing Valjean’s action as an opportunity for reconciliation (or at least reflection), Javert denies that he has anything in common with his arch-enemy (“There is nothing on earth that we share. It is either Valjean or Javert.”) Racked by this inconsistency and stripped of his identity as the righteous hero (“I am the law and the law is not mocked.”), he plunges into despair (figuratively) and to his death (literally). (“The world I have known is lost in shadow . . . there is no way to go on.”)

In a less dramatic fashion, this theme recurs in many long-standing conflicts. Over time, the precipitating incident or issue is superseded by a sense of identity as a long-suffering victim (or, as in Javert’s case, a righteous hero). Subconsciously, a person in conflict may begin to define themselves through their role in the conflict. In other words, they become their story, and if the story was to change, they would be left asking “without this conflict, who am I?” Like Javert, their identity is dependent on viewing the other person as the villain.

You may have witnessed this in people with vendettas against a bureaucracy. They can be seen with hand-painted signs proclaiming conspiracy and detailing the wrongs they have suffered. This is not to say that people are not mistreated. Rather, it speaks situations in which people have become so enmeshed in the conflict that their sense of identity is linked to their role in the conflict. Back to the theme of Les Mis – without this conflict “who am I?”. In some cases, a resolution that would meet their needs would leave them without a sense of identity – without their “story”.

Both the transformative and narrative approaches to mediation address this aspect of conflict. Joseph Folger and Robert Busch, in The Promise of Mediation, suggest that “disputes can be viewed not as problems at all but as opportunities for moral growth and transformation”. Their transformative approach aims to “improve the parties themselves from what they were before (as opposing to simply improving their situation). Gerald Monk and John Winslade pioneered narrative mediation in their book of the same name. Their approach focuses on the importance of building a story of relationship between disputing parties that is incompatible with the conflict. Both these processes aim to provide participants with an answer to “who am I” by replacing their conflict saturated stories with ones of resolution – by giving the parties a new sense of who they are in relationship to the conflict.

One can only wonder what may have become of Javert, had he had access to Monk or Winslade (below). Sadly, such a scene would likely have been left on the cutting room floor, for “happily ever after” has no place in a tragedy.

Conflict Lessons from Lord of the Rings: Faramir and the Fallen Foe

One of the highlights of my conflict resolution career was a national conference presentation entitled Conflict Lessons from The Lord of the Rings. This combined my passion for conflict resolution with my love of Tolkien’s powerful trilogy. The session explored how archetypal themes from the Tolkien’s epic can help us understand conflict.

In one scene, Faramir, Prince of Gondor, stands over the corpse of an enemy soldier and reflects:

“The enemy? His sense of duty was no less than ours, I deem. You wonder what his name was. Where he came from?  If he was really evil at heart? What lies or threats lead him on this long march from home, when he’d rather have stayed there? Peace. War will make corpses of us all.”

Firstly, this reflects the “drama triangle” of conflict, in which we view ourselves as an innocent victim or righteous hero and cast our adversary as a callous villain. Our adversary, however, views the mirror image of the situation – they see themselves as innocent and righteous and view us as the villain. Faramir’s short monologue demonstrates curiosity and empathy. By acknowledging his adversary’s sense of duty and remaining curious about his motives and values, Faramir humanizes his fallen foe. In my book, The Joy of Conflict Resolution, I examine the relationship between the roles of hero and villain and conclude that “a villain is a misunderstood hero” in their own story. I encourage us to remain curious as to the motivation of the other person in conflict. This understanding paves the way for collaboration.

Secondly, and more subtly, Faramir speaks to the cost of a win/lose approach. Danaan Parry, in Warriors of the Heart, points out that no one will accept losing and that win/lose will eventually devolve into lose/lose as a cycle of revenge unfolds. This dynamic underlies passive-aggressive responses in conflict, as well as outright aggression. This theme is also explored in Monk and Winslade’s book, Narrative Mediation. They recommend “mapping the impact of the conflict” on each party. This expands the discussion by encouraging each person to share how the conflict has affected them. The parties come to realize that they are both suffering – and sometimes, this shared pain is the only common ground between them. This realization humanizes those involved and allows each person to view the conflict, not each other, as the enemy.

We can also apply this approach in dealing with our own difficult people. Consider that the people who may drive us crazy are doing the best they can to get what they think they want – even though their methods may be inappropriate or unacceptable. They are likely to be as uncomfortable with the situation as we are and may welcome the opportunity to move beyond the pain of the situation towards a new understanding.

In honor of the recent release of The Hobbit this will be the first in a series of Lord of the Rings themed blogs.

Revenge or Justice?

Despite the benefit of having a PVR to fast-forward through commercials, I recently stumbled across a lawyer’s television ad based on revenge as a motivator. The ad opened with a miserable looking middle aged woman sitting on the couch. Her equally foul husband walks in, grabs the remote, sits down and shoots her a dirty look. She replies in kind. Cut to the picture on the television they are watching – a smiling, attractive woman says “Last Christmas Eve, my ex served me with divorce papers and ruined my Christmas. Two days later, I retained [fill in the blank] and Associates and ruined his New Year.” (smiling). The couple on the couch pauses a moment, then both jump for the phone – presumably to be the first to retain the hatchet man in the ad. The commercial reminded me of an old lawyer joke (and as a former lawyer, I have heard more than my share). Q: Why do lawyers have such a bad reputation? A: The 99% keep giving the 1% a bad name. (I should point out that ninety percent of the lawyers I know fall into the 1% – I guess I’ve been lucky.)

I found it interesting that the lawyer’s ad tapped into a potential client’s need to make their spouse  suffer, rather than appealing to a positive goal (an efficient, fair resolution). In my work as a conflict resolution professional, I often hear people speak of the desire for “justice”. Their version of justice often involves a degree of suffering for the the other person. Revenge is perhaps a way for a victim to take back power they feel they have lost. The question remains, however: does revenge achieve that end? Or is it closure that allows a victim to heal and move forward?

Those familiar with The Princess Bride may remember the character, Inigo, who has spent his entire life seeking revenge (“Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.“) At the end of movie, when asked about his future, he responds “I have been in the revenge business so long, now that it’s over, I don’t know what to do with the rest of my life.”

Fortunately, two movements have emerged to offer different approaches to justice.  Restorative justice (also known as victim-offender mediation) became formalized in Canada in the late 1980′s and is now a recognized part of the criminal justice system. The goal of restorative justice is to repair the wrong, not simply by punishing the offender, but by including the victim in the process and creating solutions that meet the needs of the victim and community. Outcomes may involve apology, explanation, restitution or other acts of service. Instead of being objectified, the offender must listen to the victim, understand the impact of their actions and participate in an outcome designed to hold the offender accountable for their behaviour. The focus is healing, not punishment.

Similarly, in the area of family law and divorce, an approach called “collaborative divorce law” is rapidly gaining acceptance. In collaborative divorce law, lawyers for both sides agree to assist the clients to resolve conflicts by employing cooperative techniques rather than adversarial strategies and litigation. All parties and their lawyers enter into a “Participation Agreement” where it is agreed that if a settlement is not reached, the lawyers will withdraw from the process and not participate in the ensuing litigation. In other words, there is no incentive for the lawyers to drag proceeding into court. Some forms of collaborative divorce law also employ “divorce coaches” or counselors to assist parties with the emotional aspects of the process. For further information, check out “A Client’s Guide to Collaborative Divorce” at http://www.sheddenfamilylaw.co.uk/book-club.php.

Although advertisements preying on the need for revenge may grab our attention, I find it gratifying to know that many professionals in the legal system work tirelessly to redefine “justice” and healing. And perhaps leave revenge to the movies.

Would John Wayne Negotiate?

The clock ticks as high noon looms. Marshall Will Kane, abandoned by his townsfolk and facing overwhelming odds, ponders his next move. Does he board the noon train with his wife or does he stay and confront the man sworn to kill him in revenge for arresting him earlier in life? It wouldn’t be much of a movie if Kane boarded the train and chose “flight” over fight. Instead, he makes his stand, facing certain death. As the quintessential western High Noon proceeds, we learn whether our hero will triumph over seemingly impossible odds. We eat it up.

In 2000, I attended a workshop by mediator and author Robert Benjamin, entitled “Negotiation Lessons from the Movies”. He showed clips from several movies (including High Noon, Braveheart, and Kramer vs. Kramer). He then invited us to explore how negotiation was portrayed in those movies and how they reflected cultural norms regarding collaboration and negotiation. It quickly became apparent that for many people, negotiation shows weakness. After all, John Wayne never negotiated – he fought for what he believed in.

We don’t have to look far to see current examples of that perspective. In this week’s episode of The Good Wife, the featured law firm of Lockhart, Gardner adopted the very aggressive and dangerous tactic of asking a judge to recuse himself. During a strategy session, one of the principals of the firm, Diane Lockhart, encapsulated the competitive philosophy with memorable quote: “When you’re going nuclear, don’t leave any missiles in the silo.” Fifty-eight years after High Noon, the theme of “death before dishonour” persists.

Even the word “collaboration” has negative connotations for some. During a recent workshop we were exploring various conflict styles (compete, avoid, accommodate, compromise and collaborate). One participant found it difficult to ascribe any benefits to a collaborative approach. He had been raised under a fascist regime and the term collaboration held the same meaning for him as it did during World War II – one who aided the enemy and betrayed their nation. Similarly, I worked with a lawyer of middle eastern descent who represented many clients of similar nationality. He stated that his clients would often resist a negotiated settlement and would rather go to court and lose than to be seen as weak by negotiating. The Spartans used to tell their warriors to “come back with your shield or on it”. This presents a challenge for mediators (or those who would negotiate collaboratively): participants often fear that the process itself will result in a loss of face.

What are the implications for those who adopt or support a collaborative approach to conflict? In mediation, for example, those who choose to participate need to be commended for their courage and commitment. They need to be validated for engaging in a process in which they maintain control over the ultimate outcome and which seeks a solution that works for all involved. And most importantly, we need to consider their constituency – those to whom they will be reporting (formally or socially) after the conflict has been resolved. Never underestimate the need of a participant to save face (often with those who are not in the room).

In his thought-provoking book, Warriors of the Heart, Danaan Parry talks about the need to abandon the traditional concept of “hero” (such as Rambo). He introduces the term “Warrior of the Heart” to describe a positive change-maker. These “warriors” have the courage to “know themselves” (including their dark side) and listen to opposing point of view without the need to defend, attack or justify. They have the courage to venture into the unknown and bring newness back to the tribe. Such a mindset is necessary for true conflict resolution as well as personal growth. May we all awaken our inner Warrior of the Heart.

For more information of Danaan’s book and the Earthstewards organization that he founded: http://www.earthstewards.org/

For Robert Benjamin’s article on the portrayal of negotiation and mediation in the movies: http://www.mediate.com//articles/benjamin2.cfm

Nik Lewis Apology: Take 2

In my most recent blog, I commented on an insincere apology by football star Nik Lewis, following a failed an inappropriate attempt at twitter humour. I differentiated between a partial and insincere apology, such as “I’m sorry if any of my actions offended anyone” and a  full apology. The latter acknowledges fault and is often offered with a promise not to repeat the behaviour in question.

In his initial apology Lewis stated, “Am I sorry that you got offended? Yes.” Needless to say, the apology failed to stem the tide of outrage at his original offensive tweet. The following day (likely responding to pressure by his team), he offered the following statement:

“I never would condone violence to anyone, especially women. I made a mistake by making that comment on Twitter and I take full responsibility for that comment. I would like people to know I am a better person than that.” He then pledged to donate his paycheque ($3,600) from Sunday’s CFL West final to the Calgary Women’s Emergency Shelter.

In contrasting his two apologies, we can see that he included many of the elements of a full apology:

• acknowledgement of the hurt or damage done
• taking responsibility for the situation
• a statement of regret
• an effort at restitution

It is unfortunate he had to wait for a replay to deliver a genuine statement of regret.

Insincere apology follows inappropriate OJ Simpson reference on twitter

In an earlier blog (I’m Sorry – does it calm the waters or fan the flames?) I differentiated between types of apologies. A partial and insincere apology, such as “I’m sorry if any of my actions offended anyone” can easily be interpreted as “I didn’t do anything wrong, but I regret that you are so sensitive.” A full apology, on the other hand, acknowledges fault and is often offered with a promise not to repeat the behaviour in question. Some of the elements of a full apology include:

• acknowledgement of the hurt or damage done
• taking responsibility for the situation
• a statement of regret
• a promise that it won’t happen again

Earlier this week, Nik Lewis, an all star receiver with the Calgary Stampeders (of the Canadian Football League) tweeted the following:

 “just bought OJ’s gloves on EBay. Now all I need is a white girl named Nicole #MaybeALittleToFar”

Not surprisingly, this sparked widespread outrage and resulted in both a fine from the league and a disclaimer from his team (“this organization is not proud of what occurred.”)

When a reporter asked Lewis if he regretted sending out the tweet, he replied:

“I mean, I regret getting money taken out of my pocket [fined],” he said. “I mean, I regret saying it. But I can’t take it back. That’s something you just go through in life. My life has been about overcoming things that I’ve always overcame. I’ll just continue to push forward and overcome this and when I go out there on Sunday, and I’ll just prove why I’m here.

“Everything I do can be offended by somebody, so I mean I’m not going to spend my life just sitting here, walking around and apologizing to everybody,” he said. “You know people follow me on Twitter for a reason. A lot of people have sent me letters and things like that on twitter expressing how funny they think I am and not to change and all this other stuff.

“For the people I didn’t offend, thanks for the support. For the people I do offend, I can’t apologize every day of my life, because I’m going to do something every day to offend somebody, and that’s just the way it is. You can’t just go around apologizing every time. Am I sorry that you got offended? Yes.”

I can’t think of a better example of a partial and insincere apology – and confirmation that such an apology adds insult to injury by a blaming those who were offended for being too sensitive.

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Lewis+regrets+tweet+says+apologize+every+life/7548756/story.html#ixzz2CIvpyn7O

Mediation in the Movies

Ever since I began mediating in 1991, I wondered why there weren’t television shows or movies about mediators. As I began to understand the dynamics of conflict resolution, I realized why: “in story, nothing moves but for conflict” (Robert McKee in Story). And, while mediation may be challenging, rewarding and productive, it just isn’t as sexy or enticing as a good knock-down, drag-em-out conflict. From sitcoms to dramas to the Jerry Springer’s of the entertainment world, conflict equals ratings. Conflict resolution; not so much.

Because I am fascinated with storytelling and screenwriting, I am constantly on the lookout for shows or episodes that feature conflict resolution. In the movies, The Wedding Crashers features two mediators (though apart from a short, dysfunctional mediation at the outset, their profession recedes into the background). An episode of The Office (“Conflict Resolution”) shows Michael Scott (played by Steve Carroll) mediating a dispute between two co-workers. And more recently, Showtime’s Fairly Legal (filmed locally in the Vancouver, B. C. area) features lawyer/mediator Kate Reed (played by Sarah Shahi) as she fights for justice for the underprivileged. While these portrayals are, for the most part, entertaining, they do a disservice to mediation, it principles and its values. In many cases, humour emerges from the bumbling or heavy-handed behaviours of the characters playing the mediator. In The Wedding Crashers’ opening scene, divorce mediators (played by Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson) encourage the divorcing couple to think about the good times in the past and paint a picture of a brighter future. While these strategies are not uncommon in mediation, our movie mediators turn the mediation into a two man dog and pony show, prompting one of the clients to agree to settle and ask them “could you two just not talk any more”. In The Office, Steve Carroll conducts the mediation by reading from a manual and then imposing his own solution on the parties. In Fairly Legal, “mediator” Kate Reed usually attempts to impose what she sees as a reasonable solution, and then dons an advocate (or investigative) cloak to unravel the mystery behind one party’s refusal to accept her solution. Her “joint sessions” seldom last more than five minutes before one party storms out and imposes a deadline – setting in motion the race against time that defines most episodes.

I find these shows entertaining and amusing – even if they do poke fun at my profession. I hope that other viewers realize that there is little resemblance between the fictionalized world of mediation and its application in real life. Mediation stands on the principles of an impartial third party and the autonomy of the parties to generate their own solutions. The mediator creates a “safe space” for each party to tell their story and express their needs. The mediator ensures that the conversation remains focused and respectful. The mediator is not, however, the hero and therein lies the disconnect between reality and show business. So next time your favourite sit-com or drama features conflict resolution, enjoy the humour and drama, share a laugh, but make sure you have more than a grain of salt available.

Next week: Negotiation lessons from the movies.

The Thrilla Adjacent to the Amigdilla

Amy and Penny.

I thought of my neuroscience friends and colleagues when I heard the following dialogue from The Big Bang Theory. The conversation between Amy and Penny occurs after they have visited their boyfriends and observed another woman flirting with the men. Amy is a brilliant, though quirky scientist while Penny, possesses more street smarts than book smarts. They discuss Penny’s off-again, on-again relationship with her boyfriend, Leonard.

Penny: Maybe she was flirting with him, but who cares? I don’t even know where my relationship is with Leonard right now.

Amy: So says your pre-frontal cortex. But meanwhile, the limbic system of your brain is calculating that if another woman is attracted to Leonard, it must be because he is desirable.

Penny: Of course he’s desirable. He’s smart. He’s sweet. And in the bedroom – let me tell you – he really tries.

Amy: So it does bother you.

Penny: Fine! It bothers me a little. [Pause] No – you know this is stupid, it doesn’t bother me. [Pause] Okay, it bothers me, but only because she wouldn’t stop laughing. He’s not that funny.

Amy: And there you have it – pre-frontal cortex reasoning versus limbic lust. If this was a boxing match, they’d call it The Thrilla Adjacent to the Amig-dilla [laughs]. If you were a brain scientist, you’d be busting a gut right now!

Here’s to brain scientists everywhere.

Related articles

• The Big Bang Theory, Season 6, Episode 3, “The Higgs Boson Observation” (televisionmania.wordpress.com)