http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/emotions/

1. Successful organisations had a leader with a clear vision of what the company could become in three to four years. The study showed that this vision could be so strong that the leader could picture the company at that time, its people, its positioning, its products and its profitability.

2. The leader had an extremely strong level of intention – a desire to get there and a sense of urgency to make it happen sooner rather than later.  This is a classic leader feature and definitely crucial, but in isolation is not enough…

3. The study showed that an effective leader built a team of three to four people who shared the vision and had the same high set of values. Not only did these people share these values, but the expounded them persuasively to the rest of the team.

4. The team’s first priority was always the standard of present work for clients. This is a valuable insight for anyone getting on a roll. Not only does most new business flow from existing clients in one way or another, but the client base must be strong and solid to enable the diverting of team effort to new business.

5. A new business plan was then formulated which had:
a) A philosophy;
b) Goals;
c) Honest acceptance of strengths and weaknesses;
d) Criteria for prospective clients;
e) Key prospects;
f) Key people assigned to key prospects. By allocating team members to ‘tag’ prospects, organisations were ready when a pitch occurred. There was at least one key person in the team already familiar with the prospect’s business, problems and opportunities. It was not a last minute rush to research the business in a week; and
g) Resources were allocated.

The list goes on, but it would be prudent for SME’s to keep these strategies in mind as they look to grow their companies. Again, it places an emphasis on current clients for business, knowing how hard it is to generate new business.

It’s the tip of the iceberg of how people can start to change the way they look at situations in order to grow through them.

But if you like studies and empirical research, take a look through this.

There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does:

1. External Motivators (Carrots and Sticks) work well only for mechanical based tasks.
2. “If  …  Then  …” reward structures destroy creativity.
3. The secret to high performance is not found in external motivators, but in intrinsic motivators such as:

• Autonomy
• Mastery, and
• Purpose

Watch this link to see more:

2. Are there particular kinds of issues where mediation is especially helpful or where it is not likely to be helpful?

Contrary to popular belief, I believe mediation is particularly helpful in cases of perceived bullying and discrimination especially, around gender and race. It is less helpful in instances of bad management, although it can work well here if used early enough.

The rise in the need for mediation is more to do with the growth of managers who lack adequate management skills and experience than its suitability as a cheaper alternative to ET.

Also, depending on your measures of success, it can be used to help broker the end of a working relationship, even in formal compromise agreements.

3. What in your opinion, are the costs of mediation?

Depending on the service, £750-1500 for an external provider + costs in a workplace setting. These costs include staff cover, staff hours, venue and travel. In-house schemes mitigate this cost. There are also some admin costs in terms of time. However, should an exteranl resolution service be required, mediation, if it works, is by far the cheapest intervention .

4. What are the advantages and disadvantages of mediation?

ADVANTAGES: Mediation allows people to clear the air and provides an opportunity to build a relationship, unlike many other processes that often contribute to further hostility . It promotes understanding between people so they can make new choices about how they wish to relate. It is fast. Even if there is an end to the working relationship, mediation can help provide closure through understanding and negotiating reasons for and terms of the end of employment.

DISADVANTAGES: Meditation is not able to challenge systemic mismanagement problems especially where these may have created the problems that led to the need for mediation. The mediator can be placed in a difficult position when witnessing abusive power imbalances. The principle of confidentiality, while crucial, can limit the mediator’s capacity to do anything about this after the mediation has taken place.

5. What barriers are there to use and what ways are there to overcome them?

The biggest obstacle to mediation is lack of awareness about its achievements and measurement of its success. More published research on its success is needed! America has some good research, but there is still a big lack of it in the workplace within the UK.

Getting people away from their desks (or back form sick leave!) is also difficult and usually, if the conflict isn’t preventing them form working, then they may not see the need. On this basis, letting people know how much the conflict is impating their capacity at work can provide a good incentive to oercome this barrier.

Mediation is sometimes used too late and often presented too formally when it is. Going through mediation can be a challenging experience, and fear of that challenge can lead to people not participating. These challenges can include the fear of confronting a “bully” or, sometimes, their own shortcomings. Another obstacle to mediation is the reluctance of individuals who feel “hard done by” to go to an informal/offline process where they perceive power imbalances. They may be concerned that they will be “bullied” further or that they are letting the bully “get off easy.” This reluctance is potentially the biggest reason for increases in ETs.

On the other side, the employer with the institutional power may resent going through a process that does not lead to the trouble maker being sanctioned / sacked and so appears to be “a waste of everyone’s time.” (It can also be challenging for those in higher positions in an organisation to attend an “informal” setting where they may feel their authority is diminished through the mediation process.)

This can be overcome by improving management skills in the first place, such as by setting out clear expectations, ie the responsibility to address people’s concerns is on those who manage people. Where there is a breakdown, it is essential to have people – inside the organisation or outside it – who are able to promote mediation effectively.

The increase in ET’s is not just due to vexatious claims or ease of use/access, but due to the lack of awareness about the inappropriate use of power, such as in bullying. Training of managers and staff should include tools for recognising and addressing perceptions of bullying. The trick is that those with power usually are not aware of how they can be opporessive when they exert it. Even within this consultation paper there are comments such as “frivolous cases”(p17) that may unintentionally belittle some complainants reading this by repeating some people’s experience of being treated poorly or not taken seriously. It is often this lack of awareness by institutions, organisations and leaders that encourages people to seek formal processes as a way to redress perceived power imbalances. This is a complex issue, because those who seem powerless seem to then find ways of holding sway over businesses! However, unless we find ways to address the challenges of unconscious power use/abuse, people will be reluctant to use informal processes, and thus the use of mediation will remain secondary. I will be happy to discuss this further.

In the meantime, research on the achievements of mediation and greater awareness of, (and acceptability by) the main stream should help better establish mediation as a credible form of dispute resolution.

7. What are your views or experiences of in-house mediation schemes? (We are interested in advantages and disadvantages)

In-house mediation can be very effective. I have been directly involved in setting up at least three in-house mediation schemes and contributed to many others. They have two big selling points:

1. Foremost they raise awareness of alternative dispute resolution across the entire organisation, thus promoting effective conflict resolution both informally and through mediation.
2. It gives the organisation the skills to handle conflict as well as to conduct their own mediation. This not only increases the skills and engagement of staff and thus their capacity to contribute and enjoy their work, but also reduces the costs of formal processes.

There needs to be good internal communication about, and effective co-ordination, of the scheme or it will be a waste of time and money. The organisation also needs to have the resources to set up a workable case management system. Of course, whether an in-house mediation cell is viable will depend on the size of the organisation relative to the size of the investment.

Questions about the neutrality of the mediator, particularly given the need to obtain the consent of all parties, could complicate the effective operation of in-house mediation. Thus even where organisations have an in-house service, it may sometimes be necessary to draw on the services of an external mediator. It is sometimes difficult to say “No” to mediation for fear of being labelled the “troublemaker.”

What effect, if any, do you think extending the length of the qualifying period for an employee to be able to bring a claim for unfair dismissal from one to two years would have on  employers?

I think looking at what qualifies as unfair dismissal is a more interesting question than time period. The notion of using a court based system is problematic. I think that there should perhaps be an intermediary body, similar to ACAS, that’s role is to look at and/or create supporting management strategies for companies as a necessary step for both employer and employee before going to court. “Compromise agreements” could be used more often.

I will explore these questions by drawing on a recent mediation experience.

The Case

The frustrating conversation in question followed a hearing concerning allegations of racism within a workplace. My approach was to declare that I too shared the parties’ frustration with the challenges on issues of racism. Some might say I was being sympathetic rather than empathic. The distinction between the two is difficult, but I will explain it as follows:

On the one hand, I was being empathic because I was imagining and reflecting back how the party was feeling. It was empathy because I could see his point of view – that the issue was frustrating, while also having an awareness that he was being racist in that moment – albeit unconsciously. I was making a judgement (yes, we do, don’t we) about him AND empathising with him in order to support him at this meeting. My approach was to support both parties, while also challenging the nub of the conflict. And I believe it worked: The other party, B’s, face lit up when I said that A’s awareness of B’s race was an element of the office dynamic and was potentially “colouring” A’s perspective of the team. This therefore could amount to racism even though A thought it was a positive for the team. In a white dominated culture it can be hard to for white people to understand what it is like to not be “seen” for your skin colour.

Party A responded, “Yeah, but I don’t think it’s racist if I am embracing diversity as a positive thing!” He then had a moment of reflection – we all did. For me, this was a success because he openly recognised that some of his behaviour was contributing to the conflict. In order to have empathised with him more, I might have added, “Yes, it’s really frustrating/annoying when you think that something is good and other people don’t see it that way.”

However, in this instance I was also sympathising. That is, I was also finding working with racism frustrating in that moment. As this was also the parties’ experience, I thought it was valid to bring in my perspective, as both parties were frustrated about not being able to work with the issue constructively. I also did two other things:

1) I supported one party by sitting next to him.

2) I supported the other by speaking about how it had affected him, and

3) I used my awareness of prejudice to find ways to communicate to both parties about it in a way they could understand. Fortunately, in this case, there was already a great deal of trust between us and so it worked.

These seemed crucial elements in the intervention. It also meant that by bringing it to the table, I was owning my perspective on the issue of racism and allowing the parties to reject or accept it. Of course, the reality of whether this is truly possible for the parties raises another question about the power mediators have to influence a conversation.

Another perspective

I had the privilege of working on this case with another mediator who had a very different approach. She appeared to “intervene” a lot in order to slow down the communication process. Instead of evaluating the content as I was, she appeared to focus on supporting the communication transaction itself – making sure both herself and the other party had heard the party’s message before allowing a response. This meant she helped them feel heard while keeping them to the challenge of hearing the other. She also managed to keep them engaged and supported them to have a clear dialogue about their choices. Nor did she appear to be evaluating the situation as racist or not, as I was.

The concerns

Possible concerns about such a slowed-down approach include that harmful patterns of abuse, in this case racism, were not directly challenged; that the mediator is taking a lot of responsibility for the communication style (leading the parties to question the extent to which this was “their” conversation; and that they may not be able to communicate without a mediator in the future. This raises the perennial questions: what is a mediator there to do? What support do the parties need? Should the objective be fostering growth and learning or resolving/working through the conflict? Ultimately of course, it will be a combination of both, as the resolution will entail some kind of learning.

One way to answer this is to look at the stated role of the mediator. Often, explicitly or not, the mediator’s role is to take responsibility for the communication. Support for this view recognises that since the parties are in conflict, it makes sense to give them guidance and provide empathy. This raises such questions as:

• What is the role of the mediator? And what actions support that?

• Is it to take responsibility for the communication?

• Is it to support the parties through a particular conflict?

• Is it to empower the parties?

• And is conflict an opportunity for personal transformation?

For me, these questions encapsulate different elements within facilitative mediation. and are worthy ofmore detailed onsideration.

Some answers: An Exploration of the Facilitative Spectrum

A focus on the transformative end of the facilitative spectrum sees conflict as an opportunity for increased awareness as well as for conflict resolution. It reflects the values of Impartiality, Being Non-judgmental and Empowerment. It also values personal growth and the potential for resolving future conflict. I will call this tendency Focus A. (I would argue this approach is particularly suitable when the relationship is likely to continue but the parties are not yet sure how – as in a workplace.)

A more directive approach focuses on resolving the conflict. While success here should empower the parties to resolve any future conflicts, this is not the essential concern of the mediator. This approach reflects the stated values of Resolving Conflict and Taking responsibility for a Constructive Conversation. More explicitly, it uses the mediator’s experience in resolving conflict AND in the process – this, after all, is why they are being employed. This approach encourages more interventions, particularly with the way the conversation is being conducted. I call this Focus B.

Focus A tends to have the mediator step back. Focus B asks the mediator to be more involved. Are these approaches in opposition? My experience tells me that they are complementary. The mediator should be alive to both and can change depending on the responses of the parties.

Another way of working with these two styles/approaches is for the mediator to describe the style he or she is using and advise when they change it. Mediators can then obtain feedback from the parties as they go. The advantage of this approach is that the mediator is transparent and works directly with the parties’ feedback in the moment. It also values the parties’ role in determining how the conversation is structured – not just over what the content is. The disadvantages include:

a) that the parties may not care (they are in the middle of a conflict and likely to be emotionally charged)

b) the parties may not know what you are talking about, or

c) the parties may disagree about which approach feels better for them. As a result, the process could be disrupted. However, it sometimes happens that we learn more about the conflict’s dynamic and what lies behind it.

Conflict resolution is as much about how you seek to resolve the conflict as it is about what the apparent issues are in the conflict. Describing what your approach is enables the parties to obtain more awareness of their personal conflict, which could in turn lead to a greater understanding of, and more options for resolving, the matter.

Given these, it makes sense to keep this style choice out of the public domain. However, the mediator can still consciously choose to work with one and then the other within a single mediation. For example, they may step back first, then intervene more later on, or vice versa.  Both have advantages which I will outline below.

Stepping back first (Focus A) may allow the parties to have a go and gives them an opportunity for self-determination /ownership of the discussion. Empowerment is the priority. The advantage here is that the parties may experience their frustration quickly which, in turn, may provide extra stimulation to look for their own resolution. Failing that, it could then prompt a need to ask for help from the mediator while still giving the parties some control over how the process is managed. The frustration of their “circular arguments” may also increase their willingness to buy in to the mediator’s interventions later. Of course, the down side of this could be that the parties continue a destructive conversation that repeats the cycle of conflict and they lose faith in the process. It could also be viewed by those involved as a waste of time if they are just having the same conversation they would have “back at the office.” However, mediator’s presence can in itself make the conversation different.

On the other hand, intervening a lot at the beginning (Focus B) may help the parties get through the difficult moments first and pave the way for them to take ownership of the discussion later. Having the mediator slow down and model some effective communication early may also give them the opportunity to do it themselves later.

I have a bias for Focus A because I believe it supports my highest goals for mediation – that it is an opportunity for transformation. This raises the question: How is the mediator to know if “transformation’s” what’s needed and if so, what that looks like to the party! On the flip side, being more interventionist may present the mediator as the one with the “answers”, the one who knows “what is right” for the parties, thus challenging the ethos of self-determination in mediation. Many of us working in the field should perhaps stand up for this more. Certainly, there is plenty of scope for further exploration of mediation practice.

“Personality clash” is a tempting label, but it is often lazy one.  More, it can actually sustain a conflict, by seeing it as “too difficult”.

Personality clash can also be a subtle way of demonising another.

However, with some more detailed awareness, this  seemingly intractable problem can actually be worked with productively rather than avoided through the typical generalisations and blanket statements. For example, what do they do or say? What gestures do they make? Be specific about one situation that stands out.  Go over what was said and how it was done.

Chances are there is a communication style difference that is escalating the problem, without either person realising it.

So what do you do?

First, take some time on your own or with support and re-enact an encounter that has bothered you.  Get clear on a gesture or expression they use and notice how it makes you feel.  See if you can then figure out why it makes you feel this way.  It might be something like a quick turn of the head. Is it a dismissive gesture that makes you feel small?  As a result, do you get the feeling the other person isn’t listening to you?  How does that support (or not) you and your team?

Second, see if it happens again, either with you or another colleague.  Check out whether what you worked on feels right or familiar to what you see.

Finally, find an opportunity to bring this up.  This requires a couple of important elements:

1. That you are specific
2. You own your response to it
3. Explain why that is – from your point of view
4. Check out whether they can understand that
5. Finally, make sure you do it when you are not triggered. Chances are, if you have done the rest of the work, you will feel good about your discoveries and see them as the learning opportunity that they are.

Also be prepared for their different point of view.  Overall this is a learning opportunity for both of you.  It’s about how both of you send and receive information – and more awareness around is a good thing.  It gives you more choice and better understanding of relating to people’s different communication styles.  This in turn helps you better communicate your message.  And feel confident to handle challenging situations.

So next time you hear the words “personality clash” – take a moment and see whether that is really true.

There are at least two forces challenging notions of leadership that are facing us today.  They include:

1. The dissatisfaction with current models of political and organisational power that have led us into the calamities listed above.
2. A matter of definition – one that remains, perhaps necessarily, mercurial and oblique.

The first of these two issues is a matter of some debate and energy, particularly in current think tanks.  Matthew Taylor of the RSA is adamant about challenging the current and outdated models of “leadership by deference.”  One of the challenges here is that to step beyond a culture of deference requires an extra degree of self-responsibility.  This is an interesting challenge and one that can be explored on his blog here.

Elements of Reflexive Leadership

The second one, of definition, is the main purpose of this entry.  It is also one that will be forever changing, so it is with a degree of predicted obsolescence that I attempt to name what I mean by leadership, or specifically, Reflexive Leadership.  It includes the following elements:

• Awareness
• Reflection
• Creativity
• Knowledge
• Access to resources
• Vision, and
• Accountability

Reflexive leadership is based on the increasing awareness of the value of self-reflection in practice – whether it be as a therapist, student or business person. This practice is commonly seen in Kolb’s learning cycle and occurs when attempting to learn any new skill or conquer arising challenges.  The value of reflection has long been acknowledged, but in time-poor environments, it is often the first thing to go.

However, this can be a costly mistake in the long run.  As pointed out by David Allen, this “thinking time” is often THE work that needs to be done.  Take yourself – as a skilled practitioner in whatever field you have chosen.  Let us say, something arises that is challenging your performance or objective.  Nine times out of ten it is not your lack of skill or know-how that is the problem, the problem is based on either one of two elements:

1. It is relational.  Something is affecting you, your colleagues or your clients and is having an impact.  Chances are it is not directly related to the current content of your delivery or objective.  These matters may seem to be unprofessional distractions, but we ignore them at our peril.  Clearing such matters up can unblock many obstacles and put your delivery back on track.  If this is something that cannot be done by you, an acknowledgement of this as a genuine support need can go a long way to increasing your team’s performance.
2. There is something outside of your awareness that is affecting the issue.  Take for example you are exploring diversity with your team for the day – and have hired a building that looks like a courthouse to do so.  It may happen that some of the people have not had good experience with the law, or may just feel intimidated by the setting.  Without realising why, you notice some of the people involved are closed or even irritated.  As people from minorities often experience oppression directly or indirectly from such institutions, the venue may be having an unitended impact on the day.  This is not to say that one shouldn’t use courthouses or avoid symbols of contention, rather an awareness of them needs to be brought in – and in fact, when done well, can make for transformational discoveries.

Addressing either of these two elements takes reflection and thinking time.  Building time in before and after to reflect on choices can go a long way in supporting solid leadership.

In any situation, it may also just be that the communication loop is not connected and that somewhere something is not coherent.  This may be between:

• your intention and your message;
• your message delivery and it’s perception;
• or perhaps in missed feedback from your recipients.

Again, being a reflexive leader will help identify these shortcomings and address them.

Reflexive Leadership isn’t just confined to reflection and thinking time.  It also demands a more immediate sense of “response-ability.”  That is, good leaders are able to respond to unavoidable and unpredictable challenges.  While this ability can be improved through reflection, it also requires creativity, support and knowledge.  Moreover, it is not essential that these are present in a single person – a designated “Leader” by one title or another.  On the contrary, a good team will have multiple resources of these elements. Good leadership recognises where they are available and utilises them.

Another crucial ingredient of good reflexive leadership is vision.  Having a view for the bigger picture is crucial in knowing which of the resources is worth utilising at any point, given the circumstances.  Awareness of such goals and objectives provides good leadership in any context.

Finally, what really stands out in leadership is accountability.  Not shying away from this element is in fact one of the inspiring elements that draw people to one choice over another.   Developing an organsiation is about getting others to trust it – to invest in it.  Without accountability, leadership is trivial and unsustainable.  It is a lack of accountability that has created the disturbances in our financial system that we are experiencing today.

Leadership as “Role”

Above and beyond these elements of leadership, is recognising its shifting nature and that leadership is a role rather than an individual’s title.  This means that anyone in a team or organisation may exhibit leadership qualities.  For example, a receptionist may have insights gathered from interacting with customers that lead to important organisational change.

Optimum leadership is necessarily fluid and a shared responsibility that is not confined to the designated few, but available to all.  Such a concept may seem challenging to many organisational structures.  However, that is not the intention, organised structures create opportunities for fantastic achievements.  Rather, it seeks to promote a way of thinking that maximises the potential of a group rather than limiting it to the thinking of a few – this can be done while maintaining agreed structures and avenues of communication.  Importantly, recognising the mutable nature of leadership will support us in understanding how best to step into its role.

Using Reflexive leadership will help us find our leaders in the shifting balances of power and information that constantly challenge organisations today. By finding ways to respect both agency and community, groups and individuals, reflexive leadership will help us come to terms with the current challenges of leadership.

Has the housing market bottomed out yet? How low will the pound go? Is it going to be sunny in the Caribbean this easter?

Although reassuring, “expert advice” is not necessarily what we look for in a leader.  Qualities of leadership often include boldness, confidence and certainty.  As Tetlock points out – people who acknowledge their limitations (Foxes) find less public support than those who proclaim knowledge of a “truth” (even when it is unrealistic to do so – Hedgehogs). And so it is that Hedgehogs are more likely to get votes.

However, is this  leadership strategy good for us? In his new book Obliquity, John Kay points out that these “truths” are mostly at odds with actual world events.  And, unfortunately, actions made by people with these qualities can be disastrous:

It is hard to overstate the damage that has recently been done by people who thought they knew more about the world than they really did. RSA Journal – Spring 2010

His examples include Iraq and the financial fiasco,  and even Gordon Brown’s focus on “defined and quantifiable objectives.”  While there are arguably rational justifications for the choices that led to these events, it is rare that such experts correctly predict the future.  That is not to say we cannot gather useful information when investing in decisions – whether they be buying a house or going to war.  We would be foolish not to gather outside information… However things do not go according to plan!

Is this our leader’s fault? Is it the fault of the systems that we employ?  Or is it just life? As Rumsfeld famously said of Iraq – “S*** HAPPENS”.  Unfortunately, this is true.  What is more, this implicit understanding between us all – that we can never be absolutely sure of anything – allows us to easily forgive and forget.

Yet this should not prevent us from developing our understanding of good leadership.  Kay promotes skepticism and humility in the face of both the future and our capacity to make decisions as healthy practices.  Unfortunately, we all get bored with lengthy debates about pros and cons and such skepticism isn’t enough.  However, more than that, Kay suggests leadership is about keeping track of high level objectives and practicing what I would call Reflexive Leadership – that is, the ability to learn and adapt as things change and new information comes to light.  Being proficient in reflexive leadership means being able to face unknown territory with confidence.

Confidence is also one of the more conventional qualities of leadership.  That is, regardless of what is said, people who appear more confident inspire trust and more importantly, following.  Those that have confidence to face the unknown will inspire those around them.  What is more, those that have skills, systems and strategies in place to adapt and manage change succesfully will lead us into the future.

As I suggested in the beginning leadership is not about being an expert, nor is it about being a fortune-teller: Leadership is being able to see the bigger picture and to navigate and adjust to the constant flux of variations we encounter.  Good leadership consists, not of being able to proclaim the future, but to recognise and respond to it as it arises in the present.   The qualities of adaptability and creativity combined with a perspective of higher goals will cultivate the confidence and integrity that we typically look for in a leader.

Crucial to both adaptability and vision is communication, but that is another blog…

As mediators, we know this is the place we would like our parties to get to. Unfortunately, the more protracted the conflict, the less likely the person is to let go. This is true both in personal relationship conflicts, like divorce, through to state warfare.

From future-focused and problem-solving models of mediation through to more facilitative approaches, mediators often encourage those in the conflict to loosen their grip on the destructive cycle of conflict. Simply giving people space, listening and giving them a chance to reflect can work wonders – we know this.

However, I am also interested in is what keeps people in a confrontational mode. We know its fear. We know that when in conflict, the last thing we want to do is give in. However, behind this “knowledge” is an attitude that the conflict is bad and we should get rid of it. Yet if we really want to support people in conflict (and not conflict with them) it is also valuable to look at what is compelling about the conflict? The Loggerhead? The fight?

And I am not just talking about “the pay-off”; that is, the psychological gains and familiarities of conflict. I am interested in exploring what the good intention is behind the conflict. This means adopting both an attitude of positive regard as well as a sincere curiosity.

Trouble is, I don’t always do this. Sometimes, I find it tempting to take a higher ground when working with people in conflict, often subconsciously, something along the lines of:

“Oh poor them, this must be really difficult and I am not surprised they can’t see another way out, but if only I support them and give them enough space, maybe they to will be able to see a better way.”

Implying at least, that they are not in the best state they could be and even, that I have a better way for them, even if I don’t dare say it. Problem is I still might be thinking it!

To counter this, means finding out from them what they get out of the conflict:

What are the hopes behind it and what is it that leads them to make the choices they currently are making?

These choices could include: to ignore, attack or continuing to offer placations.

At the very heart, I believe that a stalemated conflict is at least some kind of connection or communication with the other. That it is the something that goes on which keeps them linked. Often it is to do with space and boundaries, but that’s not all of it – people can live next door to each other and have no interaction and feel very satisfied with that.

At least in conflict, people are acknowledged. They feel they matter and that they affect one another. In a persistent conflict, there is a desire to reach out to the other, even though it may appear violent and destructive at first. Behind it is a desire for meeting, understanding and connection.