Steps to Resolving Conflict

by Gary S. Shunk, LCSW

“You did it again!”

“What?”

“You loaded the dishwasher wrong.”

“Oh, come on.”

“I am serious. There is a right way and a wrong way.”

"Give me a break.”

“No, the way you load it doesn’t get the dishes clean and...”

In his book, Leading Through Conflict, Mark Gerzon states, “Conflict is anything that results in chronic inefficiency for the system of which it is a part.” In other words, the system illustrated above––a marriage––is experiencing “inefficiency,” a disagreement on how to load the dishwasher. “Chronic” refers to ongoing disagreement with no resolution. For this business-owning couple, loading the dishwasher was not the issue. Rather, they were unable to address their business conflicts, and so they brought them home and encountered them around the dishwasher, because that was less threatening than confronting their “real” disagreements at work.

Gerzon uses the term “system,” to denote a relationship. A marriage is a system, as is a family enterprise, a law firm, a financial services firm, or a family office.  

When consulting with a family enterprise or advisory firm, I often begin with the statement, “Conflict is inevitable.”  All relationships experience conflict on a daily, sometimes hourly basis. Conflict is an encounter with “differences.” Problems arise when one or both parties disagree with the other’s point of view.  

Recently I was helping two advisors negotiate their differences in a wealth management firm. As they continued to joust for position, I turned to one advisor, pointed my finger at him and said, “You are 100% correct in your view of the situation.”  This caused a smirky grin to spread across his face. I then turned to his associate, whose opinion was polar-opposite and stated, “You are 100% correct in your view of the situation.” After an awkward silence, the advisors looked at each other, then turned to me, and almost in unison said, “How can that be?”  “Because,” I said, “your points of view are just different—neither of you are wrong or right; you just see the situation from different angles.” From here we moved on to discuss how entering a conflict can actually launch the beginning of creative problem-solving, and even innovation. But, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. Success comes when a conflict is skillfully traversed. Here are some steps I employ when working with family enterprises and advisory firms: 

Step One: Acknowledge that we see things differently. During a family meeting, a discussion between two brothers began to escalate. By escalate, I mean their discussion literally became louder with growing emotional intensity. I intervened and invited them to consider why their voices were growing louder. They didn’t have an answer. I offered, “When we don’t feel heard, we literally speak louder.” This notion led to the acknowledgement they were caught in a right/wrong argument. Someone had to win and someone had to lose. This competitive style had been going on in their lives since childhood. The issue they were in disagreement about became lost in the emotion of the power struggle. As the conversation continued, the brothers eventually agreed they each viewed the problem from different perspectives. Neither was right or wrong––just different. By arriving at an acknowledgment of differences instead of being right or wrong, their power struggle was nullified, and the doors to constructive dialogue were opened. Power struggles occur when one or both parties don’t feel they are being heard and therefore not validated. Trust is built when authentic listening occurs, creating mutual validation.

Step Two:  Decide who will speak and who will listen. When I am facilitating meetings, I ask the listening party to put their agenda to the side and be present to hear the point of view of the other. Ground rules include making “I” statements, and avoiding blame. Blame always derails dialogues, because blame is a regression into the negative use of power. The listener agrees to not interrupt with “yes, but…” statements, or other reactions that interfere with the speaker getting to their truth. The positive power in this step arises as the listener authentically listens and paraphrases back to the speaker what was heard, seeking periodic clarification with simple, non-probing questions like, “Did I hear that correctly?” and asking, “Is there more?” As the listener continues to listen and paraphrase back what is heard, the speaker is able to go deeper into their thinking and feelings about the issue at hand. Ultimately, the listener is assisting the speaker in discovering what their true sense of the issue is. Skillfully executed, this process builds and repairs trust, often leading to positive transformation in the relationship. 

After one round of the speaker/listener set, I reverse the roles, so the other has the opportunity to be heard.  

Step Three: Either continue the dialogue or move to a decision. In many cases, a conflict may have been present in a family or firm for months, years, or generations.  Beginning this process may evidence the need for ongoing dialogues that move slowly toward resolution. If dialogues are continued consistently over time, a resolution will usually emerge.

When both parties agree they feel heard and validated by the other, it is time to move to a decision. Dialogue is negotiation. It is the “work” of steps one and two. Unless more time is needed in dialogue, we need to shift forward to either “compromise” and “sacrifice” in step three.  

In the scenario above, where I told each advisor they were 100% correct in their individual views, our dialogues continued for two more meetings, at which time they both acknowledged they were ready to make a decision.  

Compromise and sacrifice are close cousins. In compromise, we seek agreement with flexibility around terms. In sacrifice, we give something up we want. Regarding sacrifice, when we give something up, we need to be in agreement with ourselves when we make a concession. If we are not in agreement with ourselves when we make a sacrifice, the conflict goes subterranean and surfaces later, worse than before. When we are mutually honest and thorough in our dialogues, we reach agreement with ourselves about what we are willing to give up. We may be saying “no” to ourselves, but ultimately we are saying “yes” to the larger system, enterprise, client, or partnership.

During the course of our meetings, both advisors came to experience the other’s differences more positively than at the beginning of the dialogues. This occurred because of the “inner” change that took place within each of the advisors. The inner shift is a perspective or viewpoint of the other that occurs within the self. When we make an inner shift, it is mirrored in the outer world of relationships. This leads to respecting and trusting one another in ways they previously hadn’t. When it was time to decide on executing a plan for a client they shared, they were unified––working together for the best interests of the client, and not their individual agendas. Compromise was easy and became creative as they were in agreement. When it came to sacrifice, there was still mild disagreement. Over the past two years the risk tolerance of the client changed, and whether to recommend conservative or more aggressive investments was still undecided. Because of their earlier commitment and work in bridge-building dialogue, the advisors were really “hearing” the logic, feelings, and opinions of each other. In the end, one advisor said to the other, “You’re right, this vehicle is the best way to go.” That same advisor later thanked his associate for not backing down and helping him learn more about a particular set of investments, as well as the nuances in the shifting risk tolerance of their client.  

Step Four: Consistency. Some time ago, I facilitated a family retreat. I was hired by their financial advisors as a collaborative partner, to address a crisis in family leadership.  Power plays and broken promises were in great supply. In spite of this, the family wanted unity. Over the course of two days, with many facilitated and intentional dialogues, the second-generation siblings were able to reconcile their differences and move forward toward an agreement regarding governance issues. Everyone felt great about the success of resolving this impasse.  

However, a two-day retreat does not resolve a lifetime of poor communication, power struggles, injured trust, and hurt. I proposed to meet again in three months, and review the governance decisions. Three months later, many of the same conflicting differences were rearing their heads. With the same intention to reconcile and unify, the sibs succeeded a second time. They asked our team to meet again in six months. Though things were better six months later, many conflicts still existed. Again our meeting was successful. We met again just a few weeks ago. The siblings continued to joust from time to time, but the overall dynamics were warmer and united with a focus on putting their decisions to work. At the conclusion of this family meeting, the G2 siblings told me, “We’ve got it, and…we’ll call if we need you.”  I say Step Four is about Consistency.  Maybe a better word is Practice. To become efficient at playing piano, running a marathon, or any activity, including communication, consistent practice is a must.  

Conflict is inevitable. Learning to see conflicts for what they are––a point of view “different” from your own––opens up possibilities, dialogue, creative problem-solving, innovation, and trust. 

Gary S. Shunk, MSW speaks and consults nationally on business psychology, conflict resolution, and the psychology of family wealth. Mr. Shunk has been quoted in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Private Asset Management, Investment News, ABC News, and Radio New Zealand LIVE. He is a certificate holder in Family Wealth Advising and Family Business Advising with the Family Firm Institute and an Associate in the Family Business Center of Loyola University in Chicago. His website is: www.FamilyWealthDynamics.com