How Can You Tell Who Is Responsible for Impasses in Conflict Resolution?

Question

I believe that in any given conflict resolution process, participants behave either in a facilitative way or in an obstructive way.
How can we tell what type of person each is?
And how can we undermine obstructive approaches to problem resolution?
I say that self-deception and deception of others should be confronted.
I say that all weak and dodgy reasoning should be challenged.
I say that all principles should be put on the table with a view to review and improvement.

Martin Camden.

[e-mail]

Answer 1

It depends. If you are working in the capacity of mediator, the level of directiveness really depends on both your own personal style and what the situation warrants. Is your approach directive or facilitative? Do you possibly prefer a transformative approach? Your answers to each of these questions will dictate how and when you choose to confront. I tend to be much more facilitative in most situations. I think that healing comes through expressions of pain and regret. To get there though, it often involves having to walk through those more difficult moments. Of course, I do hope that most of your confrontation of the individual ocurrs in caucus. Confrontation of the dynamic between parties seems to work best with all members present. Are you trained in using note cards with your parties? That often helps to move beyond impasse. Address the difficult issues one by one on a note card. When the individual is ready to let go of that issue, he will tear up the notecard. It's a transformative approach, but it seems to work.

Moving beyond impasse is certainly a learned art.

Answer 2

When independant arbitrators are called in to resolve a dispute there really isn't a responsible party, just one party that's less responsive to the problem than the other. It's usually pretty appearant. You look at the problem objectively, decide what the most reasonable solution is, ask each side how they have approached the problem and side witht he one that has come the closest to being reasonable. IA's also typically spell out their reasonning to both sides and why one party is being arbitrated more in the right.

Answer 3

I guess you're describing a situation in which the disputants or claimants may have other reasons to be vexed or obstenant with each other. Paranoia is the number one impasse' builder, in my mind. You must talk to each separately and assure them to a calculative certainty that you are taking no sides but your own as a successful arbitrator or third disinterested party, as Hegel put it. Value for value equations, scientifically measureable, personal action to consequence, scientifically identifiable.

Answer 4

hi F, ordinary answer: purely tell this individual, to examine 2Chronicles 12:14 and ask them in the journey that they have got continuously Obeyed that Verse! Then ask them.... "ordinary a thanks to inform ME i am going to Hell, once you could not Obey God your self? ? ?" which will close Them UP! complicated answer: (Luke 17:3) pay interest to yourselves. in the journey that your brother trespasses hostile to you, rebuke him. And if he repents, forgive him. Use this Verse in the direction of Them! extra complicated answer; it is extremely the first one you should use! you should use the persons contained in the Church that individual Attends! (Matthew 18:15-16-17) "in the journey that your brother sins hostile to you, flow and confront him even as both of you're on my own. If he listens to you, you've received back your brother. (Matt 18:16) yet when he would not pay interest, = take one or 2 others with you = so as that 'each be conscious will be shown = through the testimony of two or 3 witnesses.' (Matt 18:17) If, even with the undeniable fact that, = he ignores them, = tell it to the congregation. = If he also ignores the congregation, = regard him as a gentile and a tax collector. maximum Compex answer: it really is, "have not something to do with That individual, back! (Titus 3:10) a guy = it really is an heretic = after the first and 2d = admonition = = reject; thanks for Asking! RR

Answer 5

I don't believe any one should judge any one else for the way they are. People who do feel that they are better then most and that was taught to them they weren't born with it. Some people would call that a superiority complex. And usually comes from lack of self in the growing up period.

Answer 6

In my opinion it's always the other person who causes an impasse. My way is always the right way. Some people just aren't bright enough to understand that.