Becoming Conflict WiseRev. Pressley Sutherland, Facilitator

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!

“Your automatic responses to frustration are the most important habits you bring to the table, in your workplace, family and community. If you are a leader, in any aspect of your life, this is especially true.” – Anna Maravelis

MCC WebinarConflict and Frustration Resources

1

Synopsis: As Clergy and Lay Leaders, it can be difficult not to take each conflict in our community or ministry as a referendum on our worth. We must be able to differentiate between what is personal and what is systemic. Quite often, we are required to be the least anxious presence in the room. Learning to map conflicts and understand strategies for transforming each stage as well as paying attention to our frustration responses and their cumulative effect on our health can help spiritual leaders sustain a more fulfilling and fruitful ministry.

VIDEO: Can Stress Kill You? (Asap Science) 3:07http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzrjEP5MOT4

Dealing with Frustration

From Anna Maravelis. How to Reduce Workplace Conflict and Stress: How Leaders and Employees Can Protect Their Sanity and Productivity from Tension and Turf Wars. (Career Press: Franklin Lakes, NJ) 2005.

FrustrationHaving a skill set that allows employees and leaders to maintain mood and momentum during periods of high stress and frustration is a critical life proficiency. Yet, for some reason, our ability to manage frustration is seldom addressed. I’ve asked hundreds of attendees if they’ve ever been in a seminar or read a book on handling frustration, and less than 1 percent of the audience responds in the affirmative. Yet, frustration is one of the most predictably disruptive aspects of modern life.

Charles Stroebel, M.D., in QR: The Quieting Reflex, reports that we suffer approximately 30 “heart hassles’ a day. He describes these as moments of

2

“irritating, frustrating, or distressing mini-crises.” If you multiply that by 365 days in a year, during the course of 70 years, it comes to more than 750,000 in a lifetime! Despite this frequency most people have paid little, if any, attention to how they respond to delays, disagreements, and disappointments, and the impact of their reactions on their relationships, health and success. Flooding with cortisol (Fight or Flight)

It’s critical to be aware of how you react to frustration, because every one of your responses creates positive or negative repercussions that accumulate throughout your day and lifetime. However, if you’re like most (otherwise brilliant) people, you’ve never thought about the importance of your reactions when you hit a hurdle or delay. (30)

Three cultures at work: Hostile, helpless, and hearty appreciation

Every time we face frustration, the way we think about it, not the event itself, determines how frustrated we feel and how effectively we respond. Most people are unaware that they continuously and unconsciously answer the question, “Why am I frustrated?” (31)

You probably gravitate toward one or two of three basics reactions to this question, which begin to operate like reinforced circuitry in your mind:

The first response to frustration is reflexive and inflammatory, and it targets other people as the source of problems. This automatic response undermines efforts, cinches long-term failure, and increases hostility. Although these environments are loaded with adrenaline and cortisol, and appear to provide powerful advantages.

The second reaction is a form of harsh self-criticism, and it typically begins to dominate thinking after the adrenaline response fades. This reaction turns the power of contempt inward. It causes individuals to withdraw, become depressed, and feel helpless or immobile. It increases the risk factor for a variety of illnesses. Self-loathing results in the loss of energy and triggers feelings of lethargy and hopelessness.

The third response to frustration is a reflective reaction, and when problems occur, this thinking pattern focuses on situations, not the people. It’s an analytical but warm reaction to frustration that makes climates hearty, and increases respect, influence, resiliency, productivity and a sense of well-being. Reactions that support people as they tackle hard problems increase positive energy and sustain groups through thick and thin. In describing these climates, participants in seminars use words such as productive, energizing, creative, surprising, respectful and affirming. These atmospheres are loaded with advantages. (32)

3

Hostile

(neg

ative)

Helples

s (in

differ

ent)

Hearty

(posit

ive)

0123456789

Frustration Responses

Three Cultures at Work (adapted from thera rising www.theraRis-ing.com)

En

ergy

Lev

els

You might be wondering which of the three categories you (or your team) might fall into: negative, indifferent, or positive. Groups of individuals move to the left (hostility) and right (positive energy) depending on how stressed, exhausted, relaxed or threatened they feel. However, most teams have a set point that’s a fairly good average of tone. It it’s not immediately obvious where you fall on this continuum as an individual, imagine where you would put your closest friends. It’s likely your orientation is similar.

If you or your team gets energy from hostility and contempt, blames people for problems, trusts only a few people (select groups), views others as adversaries, believes that life is a race to get others before they get you, then your hostile, paranoid feelings and interactions with others will confirm your beliefs.

Similarly, if you and your colleagues believe that we are essentially alone, that life is stupid, that effort often goes unrewarded, and that withdrawal from other people and opportunities is inevitable, then your isolation and lack of recognition will confirm your beliefs.

On the other hand, if you or your group works hard to build and earn mutual respect, does what it takes to achieve established goals, gets a thrill from learning and solving problems, and reaches out to others in times of need, then the social capital created will confirm your collective beliefs.

Each of these three choices (hostility, depression and appreciation), are validated by the people around you and by your combined life experiences. We unconsciously seek out people with similar orientations. (36)

4

Parable: The Village Ahead

A traveler, walking along a dusty road, sees an elderly man sitting by the roadside. Abruptly he shouts, “Hey! Old man! What are the people like in the next village?”

The old man responds by asking, “What did you find in the village you just left?”

“Scoundrels,” the traveler grumbles, “we drank and gambled, and in the middle of the night someone stole my food!”

“Ah,” says the old man wisely, “that’s what you’ll find in the village ahead.”

A short time later, another traveler, on the same route between the same villages, approaches the elderly man.

“Tell me,” the traveler asks kindly, “what kind of people will I find in the village ahead?”

The old man responds again, “What did you find in the village you just left?”“Oh,” responds the traveler, with obvious merriment, “I really enjoyed them! They were intelligent and generous. We told stories about our journeys and shared our simple meals.”

“Ah,” the old man replied, “That’s what you’ll find in the village ahead.”

The sage understood that we create our realities through subtle, ongoing choices that reinforce our worldviews. These choices lead us to the experiences that we unconsciously anticipated, and will find again. (38)

Your automatic responses to frustration are the most important habits you bring to the table, in your workplace, family and community. If you are a leader, in any aspect of your life, this is especially true.

Personality-based Response Compared with Reflective, Situation-based Response.Situation: You are driving and in a hurry to reach your destination because you are running late. At a stop light, the woman driving the car ahead of you gets out and proceeds to open her back door, lean in and seemingly take her time without consideration for you or others as you watch the light turn from red, to green to yellow and back to red again! You are furious, and vent your frustration by blowing your horn and speeding by her regardless of the consequences.

In personality-based reactions, you assumed the woman who wasn’t moving after the light changed was too unreasonable, stupid or selfish to care about anyone but herself.

If instead, you use a reflective, situational-based approach when the woman opens the back door of her vehicle, you’ll assume she’s reasonable. There’s a reason why she’s focused on the backseat.

5

If you speculate that the unyielding driver has a legitimate motive for her behavior (in contrast to the inflammatory, personality-based approach) you will be able to avoid flooding with anger and adrenaline. It’s likely you won’t shift into the medulla, the fight-or-flight center of the brain. Instead, you’ll utilize the cortex, the source of creativity and problem-solve a resolution.

Thinking reflectively, from the cortex, allows situational possibilities to surface. It’s similar to asking, “Why would a reasonable person have her attention on the back seat?

In this case, it turned out that she had a baby in the backseat that was choking.

Conflicts and people’s behaviors often have hidden realities (babies in the backseat.)

“Clarify, don’t vilify.” – Nancy Clemens (82)

Reciprocity“Is there one word that can guide you for your whole life? Yes. It is reciprocity. “– Confucius

In formal studies of international conflict, reciprocity is considered one of the most reliable predictors of human behavior. (140)

In a study of reciprocity by Dr. John Gottman, a psychologist at the University of Washington, lasting more than 20 years, biofeedback data was collected on couples discussing hot-button issues in their relationships. Gottman was able to predict the outcome of tense conversations with 96 % accuracy. If the initiator opened the conversation with a harsh setup, his or her partner flooded with 96 % reliability. When the initiator opened the conversation with appreciation and warmth, the conversation ended on that note, almost invariably. (Warm assertiveness)

6

The Escalating Stages of Church Conflict

1.  (Sometimes) An Uncomfortable FeelingSomething doesn't feel right. You can't quite put your finger on it. Nothing explicit has been mentioned. The conflict is still latent. That is, the conflict potentially exists but needs the right conditions for it to appear.

Proactive Responses: Assessment, Investigation, Training, Communication, Relationship and trust building (overall culture), Systems Theory

2.  A Problem Emerges  An identifiable problem has emerged and dealing with it is the focus. The participants are civil and respectful to one another as they each share their perspective. Solutions are proposed and, in most instances, issues are resolved in a calm and collaborative fashion to everyone's satisfaction.

Proactive Responses: Coaching, Education, Conversation Facilitation, Appreciative Inquiry, Dewey Sequence of Problem Solving, Direct Dealing, Systems Theory, Collaboration

3.  A Person To Differ With The focus of conversation changes from what should be done and what is the best solution, to a debate of who is right and who is wrong. Frustration sets in because the attempt to achieve one's goals is undermined by another. Parties may become more cautious in dealing with each other. The dispute can still be constructive if the parties make a greater effort to see the other person's point of view. On the other hand, if the matter is not resolved, the situation can easily deteriorate into destructive conflict.

Proactive Responses: Education, Conversation Facilitation, Collaboration, Appreciative Inquiry, Dewey Sequence of Problem Solving

4.  A Dispute To Win Collaboration wanes. Other problematic issues often appear confusing matters. Disputing parties communicate less to each other and more about each other with those who take their respective side, increasing polarization in the congregation. And while there may not be an intent to hurt one's opponent, it often results. Because the overriding goal is for one's needs to be met or interests to prevail, there appears to be less concern about how that affects others, further exacerbating the conflict. One side comes to believe that the other cares little about them. As one side seeks to achieve its goals, the other side feels like their interests are being all-too-readily dismissed or sacrificed. Action then begets counteraction.

Proactive Responses: Intervention, Guided Self-Mediation, Rehabilitation

7

5.  A Person To Verbally Attack A power struggle emerges. Parties now see themselves as adversaries and "antagonists" (a Greek word that means “to struggle against” as in Hebrews 12:4). When people begin to struggle against each other, watch out! An invisible line is crossed that does not bode well for that relationship or for the church. If the parties in conflict could have resolved the matter without help, they would have. Now is the time to contact a mediator.Original issues and context now become secondary. At this stage, the problem is identified as a person. "You are / he is / she is / they are / the problem." An “us against them” mentality sets in. Emotions adversely affect objective thinking. Selective perception confirms and fuels negative stereotyping. Once stereotyped, the other side can be “written-off” as _____ (fill in the blank). Parties avoid each other and assume the worst of the other. In the absence of direct communication, each faction views the other through an increasingly distorted filter of suspicion, false assumptions, exaggeration, misinformation, and misperceptions.Each side justifies its own hostile behavior as reactions to its opponent and to external circumstances. By contrast, the actions of one's adversaries are attributed to internal deficiencies, such as their character, competency, or spirituality. Public admission of having exercised poor judgment or of having made a mistake becomes increasingly unlikely. In this negatively charged environment, such an acknowledgment would likely open oneself to embarrassment, further criticism, and reprisal. The disputing parties protect themselves, their vulnerabilities and insecurities, by attacking.Negotiations are hard to sustain and frequently break down.Resistance intensifies against an adversary's ideas often because it is one's adversary who proposed them. Discussions and negotiations break down because they seem futile. Unilateral acts become the next logical step which inevitably lead to an escalation of the conflict.

Proactive Responses: Third party – Mediation, rehabilitation, reconciliation

6.  My "Face" To Save  The term "face" refers to how a person is viewed by others. As long as someone is viewed as a respectable member of the community, all is well. But when one's public image is seriously challenged, expect the intensity of the conflict to escalate even further.To have one's public image challenged is to be attacked on a very personal level. It is to be charged with maintaining a false facade. The attacker seeks to "unmask” the other person's true and despicable identity. To the extent that this “insight” is believed, the prior course of the conflict is reinterpreted. With these new lenses, words or actions that may have been originally perceived in a positive light are now viewed as part of a larger, deceitful strategy. False motives are attributed throughout. The conflict is no longer understood in terms of shades of gray. It is perceived in terms of black and white and an ideological battle between the forces of good versus evil.To “save face” against such an attack on one's identity, people will respond with an equally ferocious assault of their own. Disputants will unleash a torrent of negative descriptions against those who have attacked and maligned them, attempting in turn, to undercut and discredit them. They will label those on the

8

other side as unreasonable, immoral, untrustworthy, mentally unbalanced, and/or sub-human. This conclusion justifies almost any action against the other side, exacerbating the cycle of conflict to dangerous levels.

Proactive Responses: Decisive Intervention, Arbitration, Rehabilitation, Reconciliation

7.  A Person To Expel, Withdraw From, or Ruin The parties are locked in an all-or-nothing battle. The church is no longer big enough for everyone. The solution is either to drive out the problem person or people or leave. Or, the conflict may be so personalized, intractable, or irrational that the adversaries would rather suffer private loss or the church's ruin to see their opponent defeated. “Together into the abyss” they go, as one individual soberly described it.

Proactive Reponses: Decisive Intervention, Parting Arbitration

8.  The Aftermath When the dust settles, the worship, fellowship, and the work of the church, as well as individual lives, are adversely affected, often for years to come. For some, winning the battle or driving a person from the church is still not enough. The ruination of a person's reputation may continue long after the battle is over. Another faction will express shame and bewilderment for what they have said or done. They may lose confidence in themselves for having lost control of themselves. Others will deny the depth or severity of their actions. Still others, acknowledging their embarrassing actions, will blame those who led them.  One Pastor, referring to her church that had split five ways in the two years prior to his accepting the call to pastor that congregation, said, “I was especially careful during my first four or five years here. We spent a lot of time addressing the issues of guilt and disappointment. Many felt guilty for their actions. The rest were disappointed - in their friends, their pastors, themselves, even God.”

Proactive Responses: Rehabilitation, Reparation.

SUMMARY The more intense the conflict, the more irrational it becomes. Two intensifying processes take place throughout: (1) an increasing frustration / anger over the unresolved issue(s), and (2) an increasing negative perception of the character of the other side. 

Primary Source: Dr. Ken Newberger. Institute for Reconciliation and Peacemaker Training. www.ResolveChurchConflict.com

9

What's Your Conflict Management Style

Instructions: Listed below are 15 statements. Each strategy provides a possible strategy for dealing with a conflict.

Give each a numerical value (i.e., 1=Always, 2=Very often, 3=Sometimes, 4= Not very often, 5= Rarely, if ever.)

Don't answer as you think you should, answer as you actually behave.

____ a. I argue my case with peers, colleagues and coworkers to demonstrate the merits of the position I take.

____ b. I try to reach compromises through negotiation.

____ c. I attempt to meet the expectation of others.

____ d. I seek to investigate issues with others in order to find solutions that are mutually acceptable.

____ e. I am firm in resolve when it comes to defending my side of the issue.

____ f. I try to avoid being singled out, keeping conflict with others to myself.

____ g. I uphold my solutions to problems.

____ h. I compromise in order to reach solutions.

____ i. I trade important information with others so that problems can be solved together.

____ j. I avoid discussing my differences with others.

____ k. I try to accommodate the wishes of my peers and colleagues.

____ l. I seek to bring everyone's concerns out into the open in order to resolve disputes in the best possible way.

____ m. I put forward middles positions in efforts to break deadlocks.

____ n. I accept the recommendations of colleagues, peers, and coworkers.

____ o. I avoid hard feelings by keeping my disagreements with others to myself.

10

Scoring: The 15 statements you just read are listed below under five categories. Each category contains the letters of three statements. Record the number you placed next to each statement. Calculate the total under each category.

Style TotalCompeting/Forcing Shark a._____ e._____ g. _____ ______Collaborating Owl d._____ i. _____ l. _____ ______Avoiding Turtle f. _____ j. _____ o. _____ ______Accommodating Teddy Bear c._____ k._____ n. _____ ______Compromising Fox b._____ h._____ m._____ ______

Results: My dominant style is ____________________(Your LOWEST score)

and my back-up style is___________________________ (Your second Lowest score)

Conflict Management Styles

The Competing Shark

Sharks use a forcing or competing conflict management styleSharks are highly goal-orientedRelationships take on a lower prioritySharks do not hesitate to use aggressive behavior to resolve conflictsSharks can be autocratic, authoritative, and uncooperative; threatening

and intimidatingSharks have a need to win; therefore others must lose, creating win-lose

situationsAdvantage: If the shark's decision is correct, a better decision without

compromise can resultDisadvantage: May breed hostility and resentment toward the person

using itAppropriate times to use a Shark stylewhen conflict involves personal differences that are difficult to changewhen fostering intimate or supportive relationships is not critical

11

when others are likely to take advantage of noncompetitive behaviorwhen conflict resolution is urgent; when decision is vital in crisiswhen unpopular decisions need to be implemented

The Avoiding Turtle

Turtles adopt an avoiding or withdrawing conflict management styleTurtles would rather hide and ignore conflict than resolve it; this leads

them uncooperative and unassertiveTurtles tend to give up personal goals and display passive behaviour

creating lose-lose situationsAdvantage: may help to maintain relationships that would be hurt by

conflict resolutionDisadvantage: Conflicts remain unresolved, overuse of the style leads

to others walking over themAppropriate times to use a Turtle Style: when the stakes are not high or issue is trivialwhen confrontation will hurt a working relationshipwhen there is little chance of satisfying your wantswhen disruption outweighs benefit of conflict resolutionwhen gathering information is more important than an immediate

decisionwhen others can more effectively resolve the conflictwhen time constraints demand a delay\

The Accommodating Teddy Bear

Teddy bears use a smoothing or accommodating conflict management style with emphasis on human relationships

Teddy bears ignore their own goals and resolve conflict by giving into others; unassertive and cooperative creating a win-lose (bear is loser) situation

Advantage: Accommodating maintains relationshipsDisadvantage: Giving in may not be productive, bear may be taken

advantage ofAppropriate times to use a Teddy Bear Stylewhen maintaining the relationship outweighs other considerationswhen suggestions/changes are not important to the accommodatorwhen minimizing losses in situations where outmatched or losingwhen time is limited or when harmony and stability are valued

12

The Compromising Fox

Foxes use a compromising conflict management style; concern is for goals and relationships

Foxes are willing to sacrifice some of their goals while persuading others to give up part of theirs

Compromise is assertive and cooperative-result is either win-lose or lose-lose

Advantage: relationships are maintained and conflicts are removedDisadvantage: compromise may create less than ideal outcome and

game playing can resultAppropriate times to use a Fox Stylewhen important/complex issues leave no clear or simple solutionswhen all conflicting people are equal in power and have strong

interests in different solutionswhen their are no time restraints

The Collaborating Owl

Owls use a collaborating or problem confronting conflict management style valuing their goals and relationships

Owls view conflicts as problems to be solved finding solutions agreeable to all sides (win-win)

Advantage: both sides get what they want and negative feelings eliminated

Disadvantage: takes a great deal of time and effortAppropriate times to use an Owl Stylewhen maintaining relationships is importantwhen time is not a concernwhen peer conflict is involvedwhen trying to gain commitment through consensus buildingwhen learning and trying to merge differing perspectives

Source: Mastering Human Relations, 3rd Ed. by A. Falikowski 2002 Pearson Education http://www.pearsoned.ca

13

Dealing with Frustrated People: A tool for your pocket

E. A. S. E.Calming a Cortisol-flooded Colleague or Congregant

Empathize, Appreciate, Speculate, Explore

1) Empathize: How does the person feel? Empathy helps you connect with, and therefore, calm, your partner. What might you say to show empathy for their frustration?

2) Appreciate: Expressing genuine appreciation for another person’s behavior or commitment decreases their hostility. What might you say to show relevant appreciation for this person in the moment?

3) Speculate: What hidden factors might the person be dealing with in the background? What is the context for their flashpoint? This step requires you to use the cortex, the problem-solving center of the brain. Imagine three or four reasons why the problem that you are dealing with might be happening.

4) Explore: What are the possible next steps that you and/or the colleague might pursue?

+It would seem logical to move directly to step 4, but remember, when a person is flooding with cortisol, the problem-solving part of the brain is literally circumvented until less threat is perceived.

Adapted from Anna Maravelis, Licensed Psychologist, M.A., All rights reserved.

14

http://faculty.scf.edu/frithl/SPC1608update/handouts/Dewey.htm

Dewey Sequence Problem-SolvingOne of the most effective methods of problem solving is the Dewey Sequence. Developed by educator John Dewey, this reflective thinking process which is a structured organized series of questions is best described by the questions listed below. Every member of the group must come prepared to answer each of the questions in steps one through four as it pertains to your topic.

Step One: Define the Problem

1. What is the specific problem that the group is concerned about? (In the case of your group this will be your policy question).

2. What terms, concepts, or ideas need to be defined?

Step Two: Analyze the Problem

1. What is the history of the problem?

2. What are the causes of the problem?

3. What are the symptoms of the problem?

4. What methods, (approaches, laws, policies)     currently exist for dealing with the problem?

5. What are the limitations of these methods?

Step Three: Determine Criteria for optimal Solution

1. What are the guidelines for a workable solution? (Sample criteria may include cost, ability to be implemented, enforced, i.e., band uniforms-comfortable, eye catching, weather resistant).

Step Four: Propose Solutions

After the group has analyzed the problem and suggested criteria for a solution, it should begin to suggest possible solutions in tentative, hypothetical terms. Many suggest a variety of possible solutions without evaluating them. (Brainstorming).

15

Step Five: Evaluate Proposed Solution

After the group has compiled a list of possible solutions, it should be ready to select the best possible solution in light of the criteria that the group developed in step three.

1. Are there any disadvantages to the solution? Do the disadvantages outweigh the advantages?

2. Does the solution conform to the criteria formulated by the group? (The group may decide to modify the criteria).

Step Six: Select a Solution

1. Weigh merits and deficiencies.

2. What would be the long-term and short-term effects of this solution if it were adopted?

Step Seven: Suggest Strategies to Implement the SolutionGroup members should be confident that the solution will indeed solve the problem. After the group selects the solution they must determine how to put the solution into effect.1. How can the group get public support and approval for its proposed solution?2. What specific steps are necessary to implement the solution?3. How can the group evaluate the success of its problem- solving efforts?

16

SELF-MEDIATION: The 5 Ds to Mediate Your Own Conflicts

Conflict conversations often go wrong when the two parties disengage too soon. As Daniel Dana, author of Conflict Resolution, says; people often don’t “argue” long enough because of a hard-wired behavioral approach commonly known as the “fight-or-flight” response. This natural response can serve us well as a protection from physical harm, but it seldom helps during the normal interpersonal conflicts we experience at home and at work. Our natural response tends to create two behaviors that short-circuit effective conflict conversations:

The “fight” response often leads to the “power-play” approach – raised voice, aggressive body language, and emotional outbursts. Power-plays usually lead to hurt feelings and damaged relationships.

The “flight” response often leads to the “walk-away” approach – withdrawal, leaving the room, and avoidance. Walk-aways leave conflict unresolved and issues unaddressed.

Following a simple process to control these inappropriate responses can help you to effectively self-mediate many interpersonal conflicts.

The process goes like this:

1. Define the problem in behaviorally specific terms. Your anger (frustration, irritation, hurt feelings, etc.) is not the real problem. Frequent miscommunication, chronic misunderstandings, or your inability to work productively together may be how you define the problem. Carefully examine the situation and identify a non-accusatory, objective description of it. 

2. Deliver the invitation to meet. Resist the urge to get drawn-in to a conversation on-the-spot. You want to schedule a time for a conversation. You probably do not want to have the conversation immediately. You definitely do not want to have it “on-the-fly.”

3. Decide on a time and place for a discussion. Set aside 2 hours for an uninterrupted conversation. It may not take the full 2 hours. You just want to allow plenty of time to reach resolution.

4. Discuss the problem and how you will resolve it. During the discussion:Resist the urge to leave too soon (walk-away) or to push too hard (power-play). Encourage the other party to do the same.

Notice and comment on anything positive the other person says. For example, make sure you verbally recognize when they: acknowledge your perspective, apologize for their actions, or take responsibility for their contribution.

Stick with it until you both agree on a course of action. You do not have to agree on every individual point, and you do not need to reach the point of liking each other. You just need an action plan for moving forward.

5. Document your action plan. In many cases, both of you may want to sign and keep a copy of your agreement.

17

This process works well under the following conditions:

You are in a long-term, interdependent relationship with the other person.

Both of you have the authority to take the actions to resolve the conflict.

The conflict is big enough that you need to address it and small enough to not require formal resolution procedures – i.e. grievance procedures, litigation, etc.

The risk of retaliation is low – i.e. they do not have a history of abusing their authority.

You do not expect them to resort to physical violence.

Many of the conflict situations we face in life will meet these conditions. If the conflict you face meets these conditions, I encourage you to apply. . .

Guy Harris http://principledriven.com/blog/tag/self-mediation/

18