I had a particularly difficult facilitation a few weeks ago with a group that was so mired in conflict, I don’t think they will ever get out. Really. I think the two sides will continue to fight against each other until one side gives up (which hasn’t happened in the last three years) or the group disintegrates because no one else wants to be a part of it (more likely).

As I tried desperately to help them change the way they were dealing with their conflict, I realized that I took them down three paths. It occurs to me these paths might be useful in general.

First, we explored the past. This is called the "what happened conversation" in the book Difficult Conversations. When I listened to them arguing passionately about mundane things, I figured there was a history to this conflict that was not being discussed. It’s a bit of a paradox, because in many cases you can’t particularly resolve the history. But talking about it, and clarifying the source of the wounds, will often release the pent up energy that is blocking the current conversations. Basically, this approach allows you to get what the conflict is REALLY about onto the table.

In this last case, that approach didn’t work. The history of this conflict went back fifteen years. I didn’t have enough time to get into that history enough to release anything (and again, I’m not sure this group really wanted to resolve things). So I went to the second approach: negotiate specific agreements about how to move forward. I usually do this in the form of making specific requests. When groups get hung up on coming up with complete answers, I often turn to this approach. Sometimes you just aren’t able to or aren’t ready to figure out a comprehensive narrative that explains the whole situation as resolved. But that doesn’t mean you can’t move forward. Making requests of the other party can help speed that along. I asked each party to make a specific request of the other party. Then the other must answer (a) in the affirmative or (b) deny the request. But if you deny the request, you MUST come up with a counter offer. "Okay, I won’t do what you asked exactly, but what I will do is…" Going back and forth with requests and counter-offers not only allows some forward progress, it is frequently a better way to discover larger resolution.

We made some progress with requests with this group, but ultimately that conversation broke down too, so I went to my "last resort": what are YOU going to do differently? As a conflict resolution guy, I want the parties to resolve things, but if they can’t, I ask each person individually to figure out what they will do differently. I frequently remind people in conflict that the only thing you actually control is your own behavior. Resolution is frequently defined, roughly, as "this conflict will be resolved if THEY do x, y, and z." When the other party changes or concedes, then we can move forward. If the other party does things differently, then I can trust them. It’s a recipe for "stuck" because BOTH parties define it this way and are waiting for the other side to change. The truth is, there is ALWAYS something you can do. It may not be your first choice, and it may not necessarily resolve the whole thing, but if you want different results, you’ll have to change, and the only thing you can control is your own behavior.

• Explore the past
• If that doesn’t work, negotiate specific agreements about the present moving forward.
• If that doesn’t work, identify what you will do differently regardless of the others.

These won’t get you out of every sticky conflict (obviously), but I think they are useful for both facilitators and parties themselves in approaching conflict conversations.