When people have a disagreement, they each tell the story of that
disagreement from their own point of view based on a set of assumptions
about why each person is “right.” In these stories, there doesn’t seem
room for another point of view, that is, however, until the other
person in the conflict tells his or her side of the disagreement. Then
you often have two equally plausible and completely opposite stories,
which are supposed to be about the same event.

How do you help people who disagree find a way to understand their own
stories so they can see the other point of view and begin taking steps
toward resolution?

The process is one of looking at each of the elements of the conflict
story separately so that they can be considered and addressed
individually. Mediators call this approach breaking the disagreement
into its component parts and dealing with them in smaller chunks. This
process is also called “unpacking the story” or “making room,” but you
need not know the terms to understand the concept.

One of the elements to consider is the underlying assumption or
assumptions, often unstated or even unrealized, that makes the person
telling the story believe he or she is “right” whether that story is
about work or home or something else. Some of these assumptions have
been floating around for so long that they are never even considered in
the process of resolving the conflict; they are simply accepted. These
assumptions are called the “dominant discourse,” the story that we all
accept just because no one thought to name it, examine it, challenge it
if necessary, and consider it as part of the resolution process. It is
the assumption of “how things work around here” or culture.*

A common assumption is that of superiority, that one category of people
is superior in some way to another, stronger or smarter maybe, so the
superior category is always right. This story operates often in stories
of conflict that exist among people from different races, religions,
nationalities, or gender.

Another assumption is that of appropriate role definitions. Often this
assumption is part of a conflict over who is expected to do what, as in
marriages or in turf disputes at work, and like other assumptions, we
may not initially recognize that it is operating. This assumption is
not necessarily about equality of roles, only their different
responsibilities.

A third assumption is that of privilege or entitlement, that one group
gets more of what is available or doesn’t have to follow the rules as
others do simply by being a member of a particular group. Privilege
comes with a family name or with wealth or seniority or with whatever
defines it in your group or organization, and may not related to
accomplishment.

These stories of superiority, role, and privilege or entitlement can
sneak into a story of conflict very subtly and are very hard to
address. They have to be named and examined, their truth and
applicability considered and maybe even rejected as part of the
resolution process, and that requires tact.

Beliefs are strongly held, and asking in a challenging tone, “Where did
you get that idea?” isn’t going to encourage thoughtful consideration
of the idea, only its defense. Examination of an underlying assumption
has to be done with respect. If, instead of an outright challenge, you
make an observation that one party seems to have a particular way of
thinking about something, then you can inquire gently how that person
came to that point if view, whether it was something that was assumed
and practiced in his or her family, or was learned when someone went to
school. By discussing it instead of challenging it, the person can
consider whether that assumption is still valid and applicable in this
situation. The review may lead people to rethink some things they
simply accepted before, and that may be a great deal to ask.

This is not easy work, but it is very much worth it. People defend
their beliefs strongly, and examining assumptions can actually add to
the conflict rather than resolve it. However, think of the many invalid
assumptions that have already been challenged and resulted in positive
change, how many more we can address as part of working toward
resolution, and the benefit becomes clear.

Have a great week.

Maria Simpson, Ph.D.
psm@earthlink.net
* My sincere thanks to John Winslade and Gerald Monk for these ideas
which are fully explained in their book Narrative Mediation, available
from Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Check the website at www.mariasimpson.com for the page on coaching
guidelines and a description of the Two Minute Training Communications
Calendar for 2007. Also, remember that on-line video coaching is
available as are customized programs for your group.

© 2007 Maria Simpson