For a person attempting to understand a conflict, the question that could start every investigation is “how is the accuser hurting?” or “why does the accuser feel a need to make an accusation?” It may be wise not to widen the scope of a dispute until the circumstances of the accusation are understood. To accuse, there must either be a moral principle at stake, an interest that has to be defended, or an anger than seeks an outlet. Initially before shifting focus to the accused, establish the balance between these three.
If possible, search back through events (Harris and Harris, 1986) with the accuser to trace any source of emotional hurt (remembering that it may come from somewhere else in the accuser’s life and is not necessarily the outcome of their relationship with the accused). If you cannot shed any light, start to involve the accused. Initially, you are still trying to understand the reason for the accusation from the point of view of the accuser, not the accused. If you bring the parties together, let the parties be emotional as it provides information. Avoid taking sides: the objective is not blame. The objective is to stimulate dialogue so that you, and they, can understand the source of emotional hurt and shed light on the hidden dynamics of the conflict.
If you find yourself displaying emotions, consider how the outcome of the dispute affects your own interests. Does your emotionality betray a desire for a closer relationship with one party? Is one party particularly important to achieving your own personal (or organisational) goals and objectives? Talk to someone outside the dispute about your own emotions to shed some light on them. No-one is completely impartial and you may still be the best person to mediate.
If it is a gender dispute, remember that most men want close relationships with women more than with other men, and women want close relationships with men more than other women (except for lesbian and gay women and men). “The other” is often perceived as the source of emotional hurt but this does not necessarily mean it is true. Hurt is a reflection of our own desire, our own sense of loss. We hurt most when we cannot fulfil our desires (and the bigger the gap between our desires and reality, the greater our hurt). Find out, if possible, what event changed the relationship. What did each party say to the other? Could it be an outcome of changes outside work?
If somebody is deeply distressed, establish if it comes from a sense of loss, remembering always there is a 60% chance in the case of a woman, and possibly also in the case of men, that they will not divulge their sexual feelings (McDowell, 1985; India Today, 2003). Talk carefully. On a one-to-one basis, ask them to describe the relationship from the beginning. This will give you a sense of how the relationship evolved and changed.
Support people through loss. If no loss is found, find out why people feel violated. Does the person need protection? If not, then mediate as soon as possible. If yes, then seek professional advice.
Both women and men hurt - it is not women’s or men’s problem alone and is best resolved together. Men fear showing their feelings, not always because they are ashamed, but because experience has taught them that expressing feelings will lose them the respect of the woman (or women) they currently want to love them, or their male friends and colleagues. Women and men teach men this by calling them “losers”, “wimps” or “sissy” whenever they show feelings that reveal their vulnerability. Men and women, on the other hand, teach women to be submissive’ by rushing to comfort them when they become distressed. The more beautiful the woman, the quicker people will seek to help. Bear in mind that these responses are fairly automatic internalised during childhood/adolescence (in much the same way as Pavlov and his dogs). They are continually reinforced during courtship and through films, TV programmes, magazines, books and stories (Farrell, 1986).
They can also be unlearnt (see Berne, 1963; Holland, 1999). Gendered responses are not a good indicator of who is being truthful and who is truly hurting. Women may cry to avoid having to talk. Men may cry, but are more likely due to cultural conditioning to become angry as a way to get (or deflect) attention. Both crying and anger may be genuine or affected responses. They may be honest or a “performance” to win hearts and minds.
When we know that women are no more likely to be physically harmed in personal relationships than men (Fiebert, 2005), our attitude to both men and women changes. When we know that men’s feelings are hurt as much as women’s (Pease and Pease, 2004), but they do not show this, our attitude changes again. When we understand that women are more creative and convincing liars (because they cannot resort so readily to physical force to win their fights), and that men are less good at hiding their lies (because they are punished more readily and frequently for lying during childhood) our attitude changes even more (O’Connell, 1998; Pease and Pease, 2003). We start to understand that men need as much protection from tale telling as women need from physical violence or rape (Farrell, 2000).
Women who understand men are no more inherently violent than themselves will no longer feel a need for special protection. Although they will continue to fear violence from men more than from women, they will begin to understand this is the response of any person who desires to be with them, but cannot be so. Men who start to understand that women are as violent as themselves will no longer feel such a need to give them special protection. If they do, they will come to understand this as a product of their desire to be a hero to the women who watch them, and part of their own need to win approval from them.
The Case for Mediation
Mediation offers a solution that is consistent with the values and goals of both democracy and gender equality. It affords protection to all parties regardless of status, ethnicity or gender. Critics of mediation (or “restorative justice” as it is called in criminology) worry that mediation simply gives the perpetrator another opportunity to intimidate the victim. At the start of a dispute, however, it is not clear who is perpetrator and who is victim. The apparent victim may be the perpetrator - it is the mediation process that helps to determine this (Roche, 2003).
Mediation is hard work: it may involve participants coming to terms with deeply held prejudices, or face up to the full impact of their behaviour on others. But it also gives them a chance to explain their intent and for others to learn why they responded in a particular way. The process may not be quick or easy. The alternative, however, is a workplace culture and society generally that pays lip service to fairness and equality but takes refuge in defensive approaches to conflict.
To support change, build the process of mediation into employment and trading contracts so that investors and entrepreneurs, employers and employees, customers and suppliers, face penalties under the law for authoritarian approaches to conflict resolution. These laws are the ones we can create for ourselves, for our own organisations. They are not imposed by government statute. Consequently, no acts of parliament need to be passed for these laws to come into effect: they can be brought about by changes in management understanding and practice.
This way, existing laws will stop favouring the party who unilaterally withdraws and start favouring those committed to reconciliation. The laws will start to reward compassion and tolerance. Individual businesses taking initiatives to switch to mediation as a tool of social control will be entrenching democratic values without ever having to involve a politician! What greater incentive do you need?
If reprinting this article, please include the following citation:
Based on Ridley-Duff, R. J. (2007) Emotion, Seduction and Intimacy: Alternative Perspectives on Organisation Behaviour, Bracknell: Men’s Hour Books, pp. 228-232.
References
Berne, E. (1964) Games People Play, Penguin.
Farrell, W. (1986) Why Men Are The Way They Are, London, Bantam Books, Chapters 2 - 6.
Farrell, W. (2000) Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say, New York, Tarcher/Putnam.
Fiebert, M. (2007) References Examining Assaults by Women on their Spouses or Male Partners: An Annotated Bibliography, California State University. http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
Harris, T., Harris, A. (1986) Staying OK, London: PAN.
Holland, R. (1999), “Reflexivity”, Human Relations, 52(4): 463-484.
India Today (2003) Sex and the Indian Woman, September Cover Story.
McDowell, P. (1985) “False Allegations”, Forensic Science Digest, 11(4): 64.
O’Connell, S. (1998) An Investigation into How We Learn to Love and Lie, Doubleday.
Pease, A., Pease, B. (2003) Why Men Lie and Women Cry, Orion.
Pease, A., Pease, B. (2004), The Definitive Book of Body Language, Orion.
Roche, D. (2003) “Gluttons for restorative justice”, Economy and Society, 32(4): 630-644.
Share This
Comments(0) 
