Like most of Reference Section Four, the material in this article is presented in all seriousness because we thought it would help.  Anyone who has been stuck in a rental van with a less-than-optimal team can relate, I'm sure.

Peacemaking and Conflict Resolution

A conflict is a perceived incompatibility of actions or goals.  For the purposes of today's game, each member of your team can be assumed to have the same goals, or at least goals that are compatible with the rest of the group even if all goals are not identical.  Even so, there are at least three types of conflict that might arise within your group.  Most commonly, people will dispute what course of action should be taken, or have a miscommunication over what exactly someone said to do, almost always after the task in question has already been started.  Another common conflict is a perceived injustice, that is to say, someone is likely to get their feelings hurt.  A person might feel that their suggestions are not given the the same weight as others, or that their overall effort is not appreciated at all by the other members of your team.  Finally, you might also run into some sort of pre-existing conflict that two or members bring with them into the game.  This last type of conflict has nothing at all to do with the game or with anyone else on the team, though other team members can be drawn into the argument by "taking sides".  In fact, the larger your team is, the more likely you are to bring one or more of these pre-exisiting conflicts with you, and the more likely it is that the team will break into factions along these social fault lines.

So, how do we resolve these conflicts?  The following suggestions are non-scientific, and may not apply directly to your team or situation, but they may give you a starting point for conflict resolution:

• Communication.  To find out what the problem is, you need to talk about it.  Sometimes bringing a problem out in the open will be enough of a catalyst, and a solution will present itself.
• Mediation.  Of course, sometimes a group discussion will degenerate into threats and name calling.  In that case, you might need to designate an uninvolved party to determine exactly what the problem is.  By talking through a third party, communication can still take place despite the strong emotions of the people involved in the conflict.
• Negotiation.  Perhaps some sort of agreement can be reached between two arguing parties.  For example, if one person has their way on where to eat lunch, perhaps the other can select a location for dinner.
• Compensation.  Sometimes you need to change the stakes involved.  If one person's idea or plan is used, then they win.  The loser is going to feel bad, obviously.  So maybe you should look at alternate rewards for people who come out on the wrong end of a conflict.  One person has the satisfaction of being right, and the other person might get a cookie, or a beer, or some other small but emotionally gratifying reward to help ease the bad feelings involved.
• Cooperation.  Maybe the two sides can be brought together by giving them another goal, focus, or enemy to concentrate on.  If you do attempt this method of conflict resolution, please try to pick some outside focus of aggression, rather than setting up a new conflict within the team.
• Appeals.  It might be helpful to appeal to someone's better nature.  Ask them to swallow their pride for the sake of team unity.  This approach has two drawbacks:  First, the person you are talking to might not have a better nature to appeal to, and secondly, it only postpones the conflict, though for the purposes of the game delaying an argument for a few hours may be sufficient.
• Arbitration.  Get someone outside the conflict to make a decision, and tell everyone involved that this is the way things are going to happen, and they better start liking it, now.

Back to Index