The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed)

by Peter T Coleman

  For individuals seeking to learn how to handle conflict, these theorists offer processes that yield productive results. For example, deliberately establishing an empathic zone after an interpersonal conflict can help set the stage for exploration of what occurred with respect (versus blame) and for building a mutually, beneficial solution through an integrative conflict resolution process.

  OUR FRAMEWORK OF LEARNING THROUGH REFLECTION ON EXPERIENCE

  Our framework of learning through reflection on experience highlights the role of individual reflection more than in Dewey’s model or other adult learning theory models. Our goal in the balance of this chapter is to focus readers on the challenges—and potential—of learning through reflection on experience, especially when the framework is applied to learning how to handle conflict.

  Figure 24.1 depicts a framework for learning through experience based on the model that Marsick and Watkins developed in 1990. Building on the work of John Dewey as applied to problem solving, the circle in the center represents the encountering of a new experience or problem, such as a conflict or difficult interpersonal situation. New experiences are often hard to navigate, even though people may simplify them by emphasizing what is familiar. Problem-solving steps are located at vertical and horizontal axes, and are labeled (clockwise) as North, East, South, and West. Learning steps are located in-between problem-solving steps, and are labeled (beginning clockwise just before North) as Northwest, Northeast, Southeast, and Southwest.

  Figure 24.1 Marsick and Watkins’ Informal and Incidental Learning Model

  Source: Adapted from Marsick and Watkins (1990).

  Note: The arrows denote reflection.

  In our framework of learning through reflection on experience, people use reflection to become aware of the problematic aspects of an experience, probe these features, and learn new ways to understand and address the challenges they encounter. In other words, reflection takes place at key points between these axes as the glue between the problem-solving steps and the learning. The role of reflection in this revised framework is outlined in the example below.

  Problem solving begins when people encounter a new experience and frame it based on what they have learned from past experience (Northwest). Often people make these judgments quickly, without much conscious reflection. Reflection should slow the diagnosis and help a person become aware of the complexity of the situation and the assumptions used to judge the new challenge. After diagnosing a new experience, people learn more about the context of the problem (Northeast). They find out what other people are thinking and doing.

  At this juncture, reflection can play a key role by opening up lines of thinking that would otherwise have remained unexplored. Using time for reflection allows for interpretation of the context as well as the emotions and leads to choices around alternative actions that are guided by recollections of past solutions and the deliberate search for other potential models for action. Before committing to any decision, the person can brainstorm options, perhaps discussing alternatives with peers and trusted others, such as coaches, educators, or facilitators.

  Once a decision has been made about a course of action (East), a person develops or gathers what is needed to implement the decision (Southeast). Reflection might be anticipatory at this point and lead to a decision to gather new capabilities in order to implement the solution. Sometimes reflection occurs while the action is being implemented over time. When people are taken by some surprise in the course of action, as can happen during conflict, they may make quick judgments based on partial information. Handling a conflict without reflection is often counterproductive to reaching a sustainable solution.

  Once an action is taken (South), people assess consequences and decide whether the outcomes match their goals (Southwest). Reflection after the fact allows for a full learning review: an explicit process to assess whether the outcome fulfills expectations or if there were unintended consequences, including interpersonal or emotional ones. When data are available to make sound judgments and goals are reasonably explicit, learning reviews are fairly straightforward. It is harder, however, to recognize unintended consequences, and particularly difficult after many complex conflicts. Reflection is often required at this juncture to understand the full scope of the situation. In order to fully understand the context, many sources of information should be explored and many questions asked of a wide range of people. Ignoring the full picture may yield inappropriate blame, which can be particularly damaging when there are ongoing relationships between the participants.

  A full learning review leads to conclusions about results (West) and lessons learned that can be of help in planning future actions. Reflection at this point brings a person full circle to new understandings (Northwest) that are drawn in a new iteration of the cycle. Later in this chapter, we offer a further definition, as well as several examples of learning reviews in action.

  Reflection stimulates learning in every phase of our framework. Although consciously using reflection to its fullest potential is difficult, individuals can learn to incorporate reflection as part of their handling of new experiences. Regular reflection sensitizes people to surprises and mismatches that signal the inadequacy of their prior stock of knowledge. Schön (1987), labeled this process of adjusting one’s behavior in the midst of a situation as reflection-in-action, highlighting how people can learn and change their behaviors while they are seeking an immediate solution. According to Schön and other action science theorists, reflection after the fact helps to draw out lessons learned that are useful for the next problem-solving cycle.

  In situations of conflict, people are forced into making sense of many complex factors in a short period of time, which can influence how they interpret the context and whether they are open to identifying unintended consequences. Studies of informal learning have highlighted the fact that when contexts are highly variable and surprise rich, as is certainly the case under conditions of conflict, people’s interpretation of what is happening assumes larger significance (Cseh, 1998; Cseh et al., 1999; Volpe, Marsick, and Watkins, 1999).

  Our framework calls attention to the central importance of reflection during a conflict. Specifically, we recommend that individuals use a deliberate “pause button” and focus their reflexive attention on a wide range of contextual factors that could be influencing their interpretation of what is happening, looking for unintended consequences, and thinking about alternative actions to address the situation.

  The quality of reflection is central to the way in which a person makes meaning of what is occurring. Since people are often guided by internalized social rules, norms, values, and beliefs that have been acquired implicitly and explicitly through socialization, they should reflect on these and consider how these internalized constructs may be influencing their choices. In this way, our framework links to the work of Jack Mezirow (1991, 1995, 1997) and Argyris and Schön (1974, 1978). To learn deeply from experience, we agree that people must critically reflect on a full range of assumptions, values, and beliefs that shape their understandings. Our framework also links to the work of Boud et al. (1993) and Yorks and Kasl (2002) by focusing on the role of emotions and feelings. At the heart of the framework of learning through reflection on experience is a dynamic and ongoing interaction of action—having an experience—and reflection that helps a person to interpret and reinterpret experience.

  Two case illustrations of learning through reflection on experience follow.

  Case Example: Reflection after Conflict

  In her early career as a lawyer, Janice described her style of negotiating with people as “obnoxious” and “overbearing” (Weaver, 2011). Over time, she ran into problems due to her outspokenness and take-no-prisoners behaviors. Janice lived through a mounting number of conflicts during which her tone and behaviors were criticized. After a judge sanctioned her for her behavior in the courtroom and her law firm faced a fine, she stepped back and thought about whether her approach was getting her wher
e she wanted to go.

  She engaged in some honest self-appraisal and realized that her approach was causing problems. After a period of personal reflection, she decided to gather information through negotiation classes exploring alternative styles. As her awareness of competitive versus collaborative styles increased, she decided to experiment with different approaches to resolving conflicts outside the classroom setting. Her ongoing experiences with new styles and reflection on the positive outcomes allowed her to begin to internalize a different modality, a different way of being (Weaver, 2011). After her internal learning review, Janice concluded that she should use her toughest style of negotiating only under certain, very limited, circumstances.

  In her description of her personal learning process, Janice described how her ongoing desire to get better at negotiation allowed her to understand that every conflict is unique and that her style of negotiating needed to be nuanced, tailored to the specifics of the individuals and circumstances involved, and actively chosen rather than one-style-fits-all. Her ongoing reflection and learning show that she has moved from West to Northwest, where she is ready to face new experiences. Janice found that over time, her new and more flexible approach to negotiation brought solid outcomes and also stronger relationships with her counterparts, colleagues, and peers.

  Seen through our framework of learning through reflection on experience, Janice’s process of learning how to handle conflict clearly required reflection at several points: when she acknowledged that her outspoken approach was no longer working, when she decided how to gather information about other options, and when she reflected on the successful outcome of using a more nuanced approach to conflict resolution.

  Case Example: Reflection with the Help of a Trusted Other

  Kelly is an educator who describes herself as someone who was raised with explicit expectations about remaining “quiet” and always behaving as “a good girl” (Weaver, 2011). In her early career, she struggled with the idea that it was acceptable, or even safe, to speak up and negotiate, especially with authority figures.

  Kelly had difficulty handling conflict with her bosses for the first decade of her career and eventually worked with a psychotherapist on this issue. Kelly’s meaning perspective about authority and how to interact with authority was initially an unconscious constraint. By using critical reflection in conjunction with a trusted other person, she eventually recognized her meaning perspective’s power over her emotions and behavior. The empathic zone that was created in that relationship helped her to talk about and understand the emotional aspects of her fears. As her understanding grew, she became increasingly willing to speak up for herself, eventually becoming confident handling conflicts with her boss and other authority figures.

  Kelly learned that it was within her control to improve how she handles problematic situations by using reflection before, during, and after conflicts. She said, “As I get older and reflect upon things . . . I say: ‘Well, I could’ve said this. I could’ve done this differently’ you know? It’s like having a reflective mind, so you’re always looking at the situation again, and thinking: ‘How could I have done that differently and change the outcome?’”

  In addition, Kelly now sets aside time to assess difficult situations and make deliberate choices about her actions. By planning what she will say to her boss and role-playing negotiations with trusted friends and family members, Kelly has learned to speak up on her own behalf, overcoming longstanding behavioral habits. Even in the midst of a conflict with her boss, she described an ability to pause and reflect, carefully choosing her words and actions in order to move the discussion to resolution.

  Looking at Kelly’s situation solely through the work of Mezirow would yield a somewhat one-dimensional and decontextualized analysis. While such an analysis would refer to her changed meaning perspective, it could not reveal how Kelly was regularly overwhelmed by conflict situations, the strong pain and emotions that were involved, or how hard it was for her to learn to handle conflict in new ways, including the many setbacks that she had over more than a decade. It also would not reveal the important role that a facilitator—in her case, the psychotherapist—played in her learning.

  Our framework of learning through reflection on experience integrates the impact of reflection and critical reflection in situations like Kelly’s and the key role that a trusted other person can play in learning. Although Kelly had reflected on her issues with authority in her early career, it was not until she engaged in a deeper process of critical reflection that she was able to break through some of her longstanding habits. Powerful emotions often arise as people try to learn from their experiences. These feelings need to be acknowledged and sometimes probed with professionals—whether coaches, trainers, or (for some individuals) psychologists or psychotherapists. Learning through reflection on experience can be strengthened by working with trusted other people, who can serve as catalysts to the learning process.

  We now turn to a more in-depth discussion of different kinds of reflection and the kinds of questions that can be employed to encourage reflection, especially before, during, and after conflict situations.

  Reflection and Critical Reflection

  Simple reflection involves a review of attendant thoughts, feelings, and actions without questioning one’s interpretation or meaning of an experience such as a conflict. But people can be misled by their interpretation of experience. They might frame the experience or solutions inaccurately, especially if they miss information or signals about the nature of the new challenge. Prior assumptions and beliefs can lead to a partial, limited, or incorrect assessment of a situation. Simple reflection in our framework is stimulated by questions such as the following:

  What did I intend?

  What actions, feeling, emotion, or results surprised me?

  How is this experience alike or different from my prior experiences?

  What metaphors and stories capture my experience and differentiate it from those of others?

  What does this experience tell me about worldviews other than my own?

  Critical reflection and critically reflective questions do more than simple reflection. Critical reflections probe the context, the assumptions of the people involved, and the way these influence their judgments, expectations, and behaviors. Such questions look more like the following:

  What else is going on in the environment that I might not have considered but that may have an impact on the way I understand the situation?

  What is the other person’s point of view, assumptions, and expectations, and how can I find out more about them to be sure?

  In what ways could I be wrong about my hunches?

  How are my own intentions, strategies, and actions contributing to outcomes I want to avoid?

  In what way might I be using inapplicable lessons from my past to frame problems or solutions, and is this framing accurate?

  Are there other ways to interpret the feelings I have in this situation? How can I better gain a pathway into experience of other people that might challenge or change my assumptions?

  It is not easy to engage in critical reflection during a conflict or in the midst of a longstanding interpersonal problem, although it can be done with practice. Critical reflection demands an open mind and heart, including the willingness to slow things down (to push the reflexive “pause button”), to question one’s interpretations of the situation and the other person (or people) involved, to listen carefully with a suspension of blame, as well as to probe for alternative viewpoints. Critical reflection is more easily carried out before or after the fact, when emotions and feeling can be examined and understood, and with time to learn new skills in order to change one’s customary response patterns.

  WHY COACHES AND FACILITATORS CAN BE CATALYSTS FOR LEARNING THROUGH REFLECTION

  Just as coaches can help individuals, facilitators can help groups of people reflect on both the cognitive and noncognitive dimensions of conflict. Individuals can be in a rut
(Dewey, 1938) about how they think about conflicts and how they approach negotiations, where they do not know how to interrupt old habits. As we saw in the example of Kelly, trusted other individuals can help, especially those trained to encourage reflection, such as psychiatrists, coaches, adult learning specialists, negotiation educators, and facilitators.

  Facilitators focus on helping individuals to critically reflect on their patterns—for example, their patterns of handling conflict, including those who often avoid speaking up and negotiating. They can help individuals reflect on what has gone well during a specific conflict and what was not satisfactory. Over time, facilitators can help clients build skills to better address conflict by encouraging them to always use reflection to learn from experience, breaking down assumptions, learning to probe the other person’s point of view, and debriefing what was intended compared to what happened. The challenge may be greatest when conflict emerges unexpectedly.

  Facilitators can also help people attend to the noncognitive dimensions of conflict. Perhaps the most powerful first step for doing so is to make space for naming and working with feelings and emotions. There is often a shame and stigma associated with discussing feelings and showing emotion, especially in groups. Facilitators can help to create a respectful, safe environment for feelings to be expressed, such as the empathic zone referred to above. Such an environment can be constructed through encouraging what Torbert (2001) describes as first-person inquiry and practice. First-person inquiry involves paying attention to one’s own intentions and reactions and developing a capacity for attention and self-awareness. Bringing this first-person mindfulness to second-person inquiry through mindful use of how we interweave our framing, advocating, illustrating, and inquiring in our dialogues and awareness of how a situation is playing out is foundational for creating empathic zones. Facilitators in groups may well have to stand tough when others wish to avoid feelings and emotions or, even worse, “punish” a person for showing and discussing them. To do so, facilitators need to be willing to take the time to identify and address underlying values and beliefs that are influencing cultural norms and specific behaviors in the room.