From the bedroom to the Boardroom, and everywhere in between, interpersonal conflict will inevitably occur from time to time. Minor disagreements at home and petty turf wars at work can be annoying and costly in different ways, in both emotional and energetic capital. The bigger skirmishes and open hostilities that often characterize divorces and HR lawsuits can exponentially increase all the TME costs for those involved. For these reasons, and countless others, it behooves us all to learn more about healthy approaches to conflict management and resolution.

 First things first, I recommend focusing on intentionally cultivating your personal resilience as an Agent in the world in order to buttress your inner conflict management skills. Contrary to current popular cultural trends and ideologies, you aren’t merely a passive and helpless recipient of whatever the Arena exposes you to. “Safe spaces”, virtue-signaling pins, and social isolation are all instances of approaches that echaracterize this unhelpful victim-of-circumstance-so-control-the-Arena model. Instead, our approach is to recommend taking as much ownership as possible over your ability as Agents to improve what you can control or influence. In other words, your own terrain – physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual.

 For example, exercise, physical fitness, and a healthy diet are 3 keys to more robust bodily health. For stronger mental health the cultivation of solid critical thinking skills, engaged learning, and growth mindset are 3 activities to invest in. Similar keys and practices exist for both emotional health and spiritual health as well. In fact, our full-spectrum Ecology of Practices Coaching model here at Catalyst takes just this Agent-focused approach to action. It specifically includes the development of increased resilience so as to avoid being drawn into unnecessary interpersonal conflict whenever possible. We even go so far as to suggest that almost all interpersonal conflict can be avoided through cultivating said resilience, decreasing emotional reactivity, and increasing your efforts to “go pro” whenever possible.

 However, despite our best intentions and most deft deflections, some instances of interpersonal conflict are inevitable. Once we find ourselves ensnared in such, there are additional skills that we need to bring to bear on the situation to increase our chances of creating a best-for-all resolution. Among these skills, the one I want to speak to here is a top priority – a clear focus towards outcomes and future implications. More of a stance than practice, this view to the horizon and beyond can be cultivated by asking yourself 3 distinct questions regarding any solution proposed to resolve the conflict.

 1)    Is it Fair? Fairness is a primary human motivation, and one that extends down into other species such as monkeys, dogs, and corvids. Sometimes fairness is relatively easy to ascertain and ask for in a conflict scenario. For example, let’s say that certain year-end bonus monies were paid out according to questionable and opaque processes, leading many to question the methodology of management and stoking claims of favoritism and other team-wrecking, morale busters. A fair resolution to this type of conflict could be to ask that all bonus-determining criteria be agreed upon and published at the beginning of the year, and then publicly tracked and updated regularly so that all interested parties know where they stand at any given time so as to prevent similar conflict next year. *Note - See the how this approach orients to future outcomes rather than past “problems”?

 Other times fairness can be much harder to determine. Let’s go with the above example of employee bonuses again, but turn up the complexity. How do you fairlyreward full time employees’ efforts over the year vs part time employees? Surely, it wouldn’t be fair if part-timers got the exact same year-end bonus as full-timers, right? Now add to the mix the ideal of rewarding time served. Certainly it’s fair to reward those with 5 years of service more than those with 2 years, right?? Now what about position in the company? Shouldn’t the team leader position get a larger piece of the bonus than the night janitor? Now what about the full-time night janitor with 10 yrs. of service vs the part-time team leader with just 1 year. What’s the fair way to allocate bonus monies here where multiple variables intersect? 

 The goal here is to seek to identify a solution that can be considered to acknowledge as many differential factors as possible, and to do so as fairly as possible. However, this is but Step 1 of the process.

 2)     Is it Reasonable? At first glance this concept seems very similar to fairness described above. However, often times what seems to be a very fair solution to a conflict is actually quite unreasonable, and therefore, should not be implemented. Many of King Solomon’s parables play up this distinction for effect, like his suggestion to cut a baby in half to be shared equally between 2 women who claimed to be its mother. Obviously the 50% split part was a nod to fairness, but the proposed distribution method was entirely unreasonable.

 More likely situations in your life where the fairness/reasonableness divide should be closely examined might be in relationship breakups where property and other asset disputes need to be settled. Should you cut the car in half to split it, or should you look for equitable trade-offs among all the assets? We can draw from the bonus pool example above for another example. If bonuses were rewarded somewhat unfairly this past year, would it be fair to reward them equally disproportionately in the other direction next year for fairness? Or would that be an unreasonable solution that introduces more problems into the mix?

 3)    Is it constructive? This is perhaps the most important factor to consider, especially where there are future relationships and other implications to consider. For example, many times we can come up with what appears to be a both fair and reasonable prospective solution to a conflict and imagine we are finished. But we’re not there yet. Let’s take a deeper dive into this final point to bring it all home.

 Say a regional manufacturing facility with over 1000 employees was improperly disposing of waste into the local aquifer for 10 years. This waste eventually leaked into a community lake and killed a bunch of wildlife, which ultimately led to its discovery and legal action. The company soon settled with the EPA and paid some appropriate fines. The previous shady CEO was fired, and a new CEO was brought it to take the company into full compliance and move the business forward. So far, so good.

 However, the community was still rightfully upset over the damage to its water and to its trust in the company. It therefore decided to sue the company for enough money to clean up the lake, but also for additional larger sums in punitive damages. The total amount of the lawsuit was generally seen as both fair and reasonable, especially given the amount of damage done to the community and the company’s earlier attempts to deny and deflect responsibility for it all.

 Yet, from the “is it constructive?” angle things looked a bit different. The financial impact of this lawsuit on the company would be extreme, and might push them into closing the facility entirely, thereby jeopardizing 1000 jobs in the community. The suit also failed to consider the longer term relationship damage that might come from it, most likely creating ongoing resentment flowing freely in both directions. In this scenario, the small community might have won the battle of the lawsuit, but risked losing the war of economic survival if 1000 jobs disappeared and losing the value of relationship as any remaining mutual good will disappeared.

 Instead, the lead attorneys from both sides got together and crafted a settlement that included sufficient funds to fully restore and restock the lake as requested, but eliminated the punitive damages request and substituted in much smaller, but sustainable, community investment funding for the next 20 years for a senior center with pickleball courts, continuing education, and other support activities. Finally, they also secured commitment to fund an additional training program at the local community college that would lead to employment opportunities at the company in some capacity for all graduates.

 Adding this constructive angle to the question changed the whole dynamic and provided some helpful, longer term perspective into the total solution conversation. The past-oriented, retribution focused solution that put fairness at the top and reasonableness on the side would have given the community a large short term win, but one that also incurred long term costs.

 Instead, adding in the future-oriented focus on constructive allowed a solution to be negotiated that repaired the initial problem of the poisoned lake, preserved the community’s economic interests via ongoing employment, secured additional community investment for senior support, and provided additional paths of opportunity for the community’s younger members. These additional concessions were still going to cost the company quite a bit of money, but much less than the punitive damages would have, and also spread the money out over many years ahead and into programs that would also benefit the company over time. Win-win-win.

 Next time you find yourself party to a conflict, or perhaps even in a position to mediate one amongst other folks, turn to these questions to guide your solution finding.Is it fair? Is it reasonable?And most importantly,is it constructive?This third part is critical when solving conflicts with friends, family, and/or coworkers whom you are partnering with in working towards a better tomorrow.

Charting the path to win-win-win isn’t always easy, but it is always worth it.