1

DANGEROUS MAGIC

Essays on Conflict Resolution in South Africa

ISBN Number: 978-0-6397-5534-2

First edition 2023

Published by Paradigm Media, South Africa

Copyright © 2023 by Andre Vlok. All rights reserved. No part of this book
may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical
means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without
prior written permission from the author. Quotations and reviews in fair
usage may be used without such permission.

All references and research as indicated, or further details relating to

such sources available on request. The author will consider the removal
of quotes upon a reasoned request for such removal. Enquiries about
rights and permissions can be addressed to the author.

The author can be contacted directly via

andre@conflictresolutioncentre.co.za or via
Paradigm Media at enquiries@paradigmmedia.co.za

2
 INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION ….and an invitation

2. TOOLS OF THE TRADE - a few necessary definitions and concepts
3. WORKPLACE CONFLICT – some changes proposed
4. IDENTITY AND VALUE CONFLICTS – a need for new conflict
strategies
5. BOARDROOM BATTLEGROUNDS – a specialized arena
6. CONFLICT AND WORKPLACE DIVERSITY – diversity at work
7. MEDIATION – the magic of conflict resolution
8. CONFLICT COMMUNICATION – fighting talk
9. CONFLICT, TECHNOLOGY AND NEUROSCIENCE – new frontiers
10. STRUCTURAL CONFLICTS IN SOUTH AFRICA –the influence of space,
structure and systems on our conflicts
11. DISCIPLINARY PROCESSES – engines of conflict, and DSD solutions
12. GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE – conflict comes home
13. CONFLICT IN OUR SCHOOLS – educational conflict
14. CONFLICT STREET-FIGHTING – a few simple conflict techniques
15. MIGRATION – conflict with our neighbour
16. RECONCILIATION – is there a place for reconciliation in South
Africa?
17. PROJECT PEACE – peacebuilding and nonviolence in South Africa
18. CONCLUSION – conflict and our future

3
 FOREWORD

Being a conflict advisor is not for the faint of heart. Purposefully choosing
that profession in South Africa borders on insanity. Succeeding at that role in
South Africa is nearly miraculous.

Andre is all of these and that is to our great benefit, for two reasons. While
every conflict may be as unique as the clash of values and the individuals who
hold them, Andre has still managed to deal with an unusual breadth of conflict
types. This has enabled him, or forced him, to find a critical mass of
approaches and practical learnings that will work in many different situations.
More situations than most other professional advisors or conflict participants
will ever face. I’m reminded of the wry quip that veterinarians make about
doctors: “They only have to deal with one species.”

Not only has Andre managed to go broad in his application, but with this
book he has also managed to go deep. Complex problems require
comprehensive solutions, and he has been able to draw from wide-ranging,
multidisciplinary body of work. This includes neuroscience, psychology,
complexity theory, and other disciplines. There is no Universal Theory of
Conflict. Beware anyone who claims such and fails to bring this level of
multidisciplinary understanding.

As the world, real and virtual, shrinks and we humans are jammed ever
tighter together, our values will only clash more. Diversity is only a strength
if we can meaningfully engage with each other.

4
 It behooves all of us to understand how we can effectively show up and
responsibly participate in the challenging years ahead. We need to hear from,
and learn from, people like Andre, who have the combined breadth and depth
of understanding conflicts, battle-tested in hardscrabble places like South
Africa.

Works like Dangerous Magic give us an unprecedented opportunity for all

of us, professionals or not, to improve our conflict competency and apply the
practical realities of this unique combination of hard-won information and
usable techniques.

Dr. Mark Szabo

Author, Fight Different
Founder, Center for Complex Conflict

5
 ACCLAIM FOR DANGEROUS MAGIC

Andre Vlok has written a brilliant book, summarizing the very best insights
into the nature of conflict and the difficult, dangerous, magical process of
resolution, while simultaneously translating them into South African history,
conditions, and culture. Better yet, he applies his deep insights and wide-
ranging wisdom not only to small-scale inter-personal and relational disputes,
but to workplaces and organizations, and to South African society and
culture. His book offers countless insights and practical techniques that can
be applied universally, in every nation and culture.
It is a tour de force – a gift. Read it, learn it, apply it, enjoy it.
Kenneth Cloke, mediator, and author of Mediating Dangerously
and The Dance of Opposites.

Andre Vlok is both philosopher and pragmatist, a prophet that sees far into
the future and yet remains so intimately a part of us. In "Dangerous Magic"
he takes the contested spaces that define human existence and in his straight
talking and truth-telling yet caring ways, helps us to navigate our
collective discomfort with each other and with the multiple contextual
conflicts that arise from being human. He guides us into deep conversations
that build bridges and pathways to places of profound understanding and
caring. But more so, Dangerous Magic is artistic and intelligent in that it
helps us all to see those boundaries and possibilities that are necessary for
the resolution of our conflicts. This book is a tool that is both
revolutionary and normative in helping us in our call to transform the world
around us. Dangerous Magic is about us, all of us, as we build beyond
bitterness in order to become better.
Lorenzo Davids - The Justice Fund

6
A must-read for anyone seeking to learn mediation strategies.

Phumzile Van Damme

Freelance Consultant
Disinformation Combatting Specialist & Communications Strategy

Dangerous Magic comes at a time when our country needs more than ever to
start resolving conflicts plaguing our society if we are to move forward in
peace.
Mbali Ntuli, former MP
CEO & Founder of Groundwork Collective

Clearly shows the author’s vast practical experience in conflict

resolution. The different essays on the wide variety of conflict related topics
shows clear insight and provide a novel approach to conflict resolution. The
book is a breath of fresh air and is highly recommended for all actors involved
in conflict resolution not only in the work place but also in the South African
society at large where conflict seems to be part of our daily lives.

The book can be of great assistance to managers, employers, union officials,

students and any person who wants to be part of conflict resolution.
Prof Paul Smit
Associate Professor: Labour Relations Management
North-West University (Potchefstroom Campus)

7
Over the years South Africa has been through many conflicts which always
appear to have no end in sight, this is also true for many other forms of
conflicts as are well documented in this book.

Better conflicts as described by Andre is where the Magic happens, when one
seeks to understand, set aside your ego, and believe that conflict in essence
is the differing of views that ultimately leads to a new reality, it is where
problems become solutions and the greater good is placed above the views of
individuals.
Dr Richard Noor
Business, Philanthropist,
Societal Transformation Advocacy & Author
Executive Director HM Group Cape Town
Chairman of the Board, Community Chest Western Cape
Chairman, Advisory Board CPUT

8
 Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
… and an invitation

Conflicts probe our innermost natures, and the outermost limits of

our being. They provoke cruelty and compassion, competition and
collaboration, revenge and reconciliation. Mediation is the
dangerous magic that moves us from the one to the other.
Kenneth Cloke

People function well only when their inner lives are secure and
peaceful.
Bessie Head

One cannot level one’s moral lance at every evil in the universe.
There are just too many of them. But you can do something and
the difference between doing something and doing nothing is
everything.
Daniel Berrigan

9
 Introduction

To slightly paraphrase Frank Sinatra, if you can manage conflict in South

Africa, you can manage conflict anywhere. A dizzying whirlpool of
causes and triggers – from unbelievable inequality, racial, cultural and
tribal divisions, unemployment and systemic educational problems, the
enduring legacies of apartheid and a list of other concerns – all seem to
work together to make modern South Africa a place of pervasive and
exceedingly harmful conflicts.

South Africans have to deal with a variety of personal and professional

conflicts on a daily basis. Often these conflicts are systemic,
generational or cyclical, and interwoven with much of the South African
way of life. Add to this a sharp decline in trust in government and its
systems, corruption at levels that would have been rejected as
improbable by a fiction editor, a stuttering economy and a list of other
causes, and the South African rainbow nation resembles more of a
storm-cloud than a symbol of impending good weather.
The result of this, in simple terms, is that we have several classical
causes and triggers of conflict embedded in our society, and that these
problems are serving to cause new conflicts, which have by now become
the perfect self-perpetuating cycle of conflict, despair and even
violence.

A seemingly self-evident dearth of effective, moral and inspirational

political leadership seems to close the door on South Africa’s conflict
resolution options.

This book suggests a very simple thesis: we are living in the midst of a
complex web of conflicts, caused by an inter-related process of
inherited and self-created conflict causes and drivers. We need to be
better at our conflicts, in our workplaces and in our personal lives, for
our families, for our communities, for ourselves. These conflicts and
the way that we currently deal with them often perpetuate the old

10
harmful conflicts and create new ones. These conflicts make it at best
more difficult and at worst impossible for us to transcend and escape
the other more obvious socio-economic and political problems that we
are experiencing.
We need not have less conflict, but we do need to have better, wiser
conflicts, and for this we each bear an urgent responsibility to
contribute our own small effort in removing or minimizing these conflict
causes and drivers, for whatever reason or motivation we are
comfortable with, and whether in our professional or personal lives.
This can be done by each of us, in a manner appropriate to and
manageable for us, becoming more conflict competent, where we are
better at the way in which we approach and conduct ourselves in our
conflicts. In short, we have many reasons why we need to become
conflict competent.

Conflict competence – why bother at all?

There is a tendency to, in adulthood, consider conflict as inevitable, as
part of the way the world works, and to simply make do in trying to
avoid it or get through it as quickly as we can with as little harm as
possible. For some of us conflict, even in its toxic and harmful forms, is
a drug, an adrenalin rush, an anchor that reminds us that we are noticed
and alive. We tend to see our conflicts as something happening to us,
something that we have to bear, something that we have little or no
control over.
As South Africans, we are particularly bad at resolving our conflicts. For
some of us the options range from suing to sulking, from violence to
evasion. We have very little modern knowledge of the causes and
triggers of conflict, consigning us to repetitively dealing with the
symptoms and results of conflict, like some unwitting Augean stable
hand. When we do deal with our conflicts, or when we have to, we
repackage and reinterpret them, re-running the same causes and the
same triggers while resigning ourselves to these seemingly endless
results and costs.
As we will see, conflict is indeed a part of the world that we live in, as
inevitable as it is ubiquitous. And therein lies an important part of one

11
of the main theses of this book: that we cannot and should not escape
conflict in our professional or personal lives, but that we should become
conflict competent, as much as we can, as this directly causes us to
flourish and reach our full human potential.
An above average understanding of conflict, an above average conflict
competency such as you will acquire after reading this book, will enable
you to see how conflict underpins just about everything else in our
everyday interactions. We can try to understand the symptoms of these
interactions as they play out in diversity disputes, workplace
arguments, performance issues, racial prejudice, political shouting
matches, social media harassment, bullying, unfair dismissals and a
very long list of other real world occurrences, all or most of which we
may become subject to or involved in, or we can learn to understand
conflict, its causes and triggers, and the best practices in strategy and
techniques to deal with those conflicts.
Conflict pervades the everyday world of the political leader, the CEO,
the middle-manager, the teacher, the police official, the student, it
affects the content and outcomes of our needs and wishes, and it shapes
and guides our lives and the lives of others. Should we not know as much
as possible about these dynamic influences on our lives, should we not
improve our odds at being conflict competent?
From this perspective your conflict competence is a real, practical
benefit in your professional and personal life, in nearly every
interaction that you are a part of. You can choose to use this conflict
competence as an active component in your life to directly affect your
business or personal world, or you can use it in a more defensive manner
in just safeguarding your interests in not getting unfairly manipulated
or abused. For something as pervasive and influential as conflict, most
of us know precious little about conflict, its buttons and levers, its
potential and limitations.

What this book will do….and not do

South Africans have been promised the moon and the stars by a
succession of mostly political suitors, often only with their own benefit
in mind. We have survived and evaded, permanently or temporarily, a

12
series of very bad political options without ever breaking our societal
patterns of inequality and lack of meaningful economic growth, without
stepping away from these conflict causes and triggers. We have run out
of time with most of our more serious conflicts – we do not have the
luxury of being able to listen to comforting theories and promises, to
experiment with techniques that will not provide us with measurable
and real results in those conflicts. This sense of urgency we need to
balance with an understanding of the nature of many of these conflicts,
that they are the results of decades of abuse and harm, that they will
need time to be addressed, that the healing we need will take time and
patience.
Other than the hand-picked selection of street level conflict techniques
that we will discuss in Chapter 14, I am not going to tell you that there
are quick fixes to these conflicts. There will be no sweeteners
accompanying the medicine we need to take. I will not waste your time
with theories and techniques designed to work well in a boardroom in
New York if that technique cannot earn its keep here in South Africa.
This will not be a political manifesto of any sort. Personally I am very
apolitical, and efficiency and real-world results are all that are of
importance to me in most political debates. I may not always tell you
what you want to hear, and at times I may even offend some readers.
Please accept that this is never intentional. Our stakes are simply too
high, we have wasted too much time. Where I have to choose between
giving you knowledge that you can use and benefit from and being polite
and politically correct, the choice is going to be easy.
After more than twenty years of litigation and spending most of my days
in courts around South Africa before I decided to embark on this
fascinating journey of conflict resolution, and I have had a meaningful
exposure to academic rigor and its value on the one hand, and practical
results that make the clocks tick on the other. While I am by nature an
academic, intellectual type of person, I have been forced to earn my
keep in the trenches. I know what works and what sounds good but does
not work. I hope to bring the scholar-practitioner view to the topics
that we discuss, mixing theory and practice into an effective conflict
tool. Conflict is a very complex topic, and any attempts to remove the
practice and technique of it from its theoretical roots can lead to

13
misunderstanding, frustration and negative outcomes. We will have a
comprehensive look at both those aspects, and you will then keep what
you need in your own journey, and discard or store the rest.
I have studied and applied the best in the fields of negotiation and
conflict management, and I will share that here with you with one goal
in mind: for you to derive the benefit you need with your own specific
professional or private conflicts, now and in future, for you to become
conflict competent and conflict confident in your own life, and for those
of us who are interested, to in small ways and large heal this country
one step, one fight, one conversation at a time.

Bearing in mind the distinction between the theory and the practice of
conflict, we will in this book have essays dealing with practical and
immediately actionable topics (workplace conflict, diversity, conflict
techniques and so on), but understanding that past systemic and
ingrained conflicts have, and continue to have, a direct and immense
impact on our current conflicts, we will also look at a few topics that
may need a longer view on these conflicts, such as reconciliation and
community peacebuilding.

To readers who believe that it is time to move on from these wider

conflict topics, and that continued harping on them causes more harm
than good I can only say that you may be right. I disagree with that
position, but we need not settle that debate in this book. It would take
a particularly rose-tinted view of our country and its conflicts not to
see the causal link between prevailing conditions and some of these
conflicts. But you need not take a particular political view (I do quite
well without one) in order to be effective in your personal and
professional conflicts, and to (if you are so inclined) play an effective
role in community conflicts.

Many of these uniquely South African crises and conflicts are in fact
caused by our insistence on rigid political stances above all else. We
(and this is certainly not a uniquely South African phenomenon) have

14
lost the ability to have good, constructive debates and arguments, we
have forgotten the benefits and even joys that can come from a hearty,
vigorous argument (call it “debate” if you prefer) with someone that
you disagree with. We regard absolute conformity with the “right” view
and opinion as such a public good that we insist on it, and that healthy
dissent and disagreement often now get met with scepticism and
distrust. We will deal with some of the consequences resulting from
this approach to our conflicts in the book, and how to protect ourselves
against these consequences.

As we will see: what we need, is not less conflict, but better conflict.

We will deal with various topics, chapter by chapter, that are relevant
to our modern day lives and conflicts. These topics and their solutions
will be based on current best practices and research, practical
experience gained through my own national practice and consultancy
work and through adaptation, where necessary, to make the latest in
conflict resolution viable and available to you in a way that enriches
your life, and removes the fear of conflict from your interaction with
others. I hope to present to you, in a seamless and hardly noticeable
manner, a combination of theory and practice that works in measurable
ways.
We each have work to do in our conflicts. As much as I am often accused
of being a “conflict missionary” in my approach of working with South
Africans to be better at conflict, this book will work for you even if your
goals are more modest and personal, and if you have no interest, time
or energy to carry these new skills out into your community. Simply put,
you will be meaningfully better at conflict when you have finished
reading this book, but what you do with that fact remains up to you.
In this process we are going to have to unlearn a few habits, acquire a
few new ones, and examine some well-established “wisdoms”. This may
at times be uncomfortable work, but I assure you that I will only ask
you to do so when it is necessary for your benefit. And even then, when
you have considered that and given it a fair chance and you still want
to dismiss such approach or technique, please do so. We are in the

15
process of learning how to have not less arguments, but better ones.
Disagree with me where you believe that this is necessary. How we
respond to conflict in our lives differ from person to person, even from
time to time in the same person’s life. We are all given the same notes
to play, with slightly different instruments, and some of us will end up
as the banjo player, while others use those same notes and become
John Coltrane.
This is not easy work. The old ways seem better, at times. Some
conflicts are so pervasive, so seemingly impenetrable, that you, and
those around you, may have formed the impression that they are
intractable and permanent conflicts and thought patterns, and that
there is simply nothing that can be done about it. We shall examine
that, and see if you may arrive at a new view. Some of this work will
need a bit of practice, one or two conscious efforts at applying new
ways of doing old things. Patience and perseverance may be required.
Your friends may worry about you for a while … if none of this sounds
appealing ask for your money back now.

We will notice the existence and undercurrents of conflict in its raw

form, and how that can manifest in various ways, affecting us for better
or for good. We will see how we often tend to deal with the symptoms
of that conflict, as opposed to rather understanding and addressing its
true causes, and how this causes cyclical, frustrating, exhausting,
repetitive conflicts. For this we will often make a distinction between
the principles involved and the techniques that follow from that.

In the process, some of us may be tempted to blink or look away from

conflict. We South Africans are, for all the violence and intemperate
behaviour that we see on our television screens and in our streets, often
very conflict avoidant, and we seek to, for various reasons, avoid or
postpone the process that we will be going through in this book. It is,
ironically, often because we are so conflict avoidant that we end up
dealing with conflict in its more destructive and harmful forms.

16
Conflict has been studied for centuries, and some of its greatest
exponents have cautioned against war and its related emotions. This is
often seen as a setting up of the options between war and pacifism.
Pacifism has its own limitations, and as much as it has a role in
peacebuilding (see later chapters) it is not a realistic option for our
everyday conflicts.

As Sun Tzu reminded us all of those centuries ago

Weapons are inauspicious instruments, not the tools of the
enlightened. When there is no choice but to use them, it is
best to be calm and freed from greed, and not celebrate
victory. Those who celebrate victory are bloodthirsty, and the
bloodthirsty cannot have their way with the world.
As early as the 3rd century C.E. Chinese strategist Zhuge Liang claims
that “The Tao of military operations lies in harmonizing people”.

In studying war and conflict as it manifests in our professional or

personal lives, we learn to effectively deal with it. Effective modern
conflict resolution, in its scholarly and practitioner forms, is far from
being a soft skill. It is a hard, effective, modern skill that measurably
and demonstrably gives you the edge in conflict, whether in business or
your personal life. It combines the old wartime studies with modern
strategy, and the interdisciplinary fields of psychology, neurobiology,
social sciences, game theory and several others to make you truly
conflict competent and conflict confident.

If we are surrounded by perpetual conflict, and if conflict can be a

constructive energy if managed effectively, should we not all strive to
be as conflict competent as our particular circumstances allow? As you
will see in this book, the effective management of conflict can become
quite a complex journey, requiring the honing of a few very particular
skills. As Carl Von Clausewitz reminds us in “On War”

17
 “Everything in war is very simple,

but the simplest thing is difficult.”

But as conflict scholars Bush and Folger point out, as much as we should
see conflict as a positive and constructive energy, and as much as
conflict is mostly inevitable, it is the result of a conflict that can be
positive and constructive. The process and the actual conflict itself can
still be very upsetting, even traumatic, and it is here where we need
our conflict competency to be increased to as high a level as we are
prepared to invest in it.

I have created support structures around this work for you (more of that
later), and we will be doing this together. Like the students of my
distance learning course often point out about their increased level of
conflict competency, this book may very well change your life … in
wonderful, lasting ways. In the process you may get to know yourself
better. That may not always be comfortable work either. Remember
that you are going to have to burn away some old habits and thought
patterns. You are swimming in strong currents here, and you will need
to keep an eye on your own emotions and reactions. Some of these
topics are difficult in themselves, and they may have a direct bearing
on conflicts that you have had to endure, or are still enduring. Where
necessary, share this knowledge, techniques and your reactions with
your health professional or adviser.

Managing and being effective at your conflicts, whether that is in the

boardroom, the workplace, a dusty street or your home, is challenging
work, but it is practical, rewarding work. Properly done, it has results
that you can measure, results that you can cherish and build on. I want
to inspire you, I want you to see what can be done, and I want to show
you the urgency and importance of your contribution, at whichever
level you decide to pitch it.

18
 To our international readers

Living and working here in South Africa I feel it absolutely necessary to

focus this book on global conflict topics as they are experienced here
in South Africa, and to deal with the assessments and solutions that we
need here. I hope that the international reader will find something of
interest in the general conflict theories and practices that we will
discuss, and in the fact that globally we see that many of the local
experiences and solutions can be transferred, with or without local
tweaks, into other countries and cultures. I hope that, as I have and
continue to learn from the international conflict community, they can
maybe learn something of value from our experiences. My next book
will have a more global focus.

A summary of the structure of the chapters

I originally intended writing a more conventional South African conflict
manual, with various chapters dealing with maybe one or two conflict
topics as we find in most textbooks. In planning the framework of the
book I was however eventually drawn by an idea of a series of essays,
each still dealing with practical, real-world topics and techniques but
in a way where these chapters also can stand alone in their own right,
without necessarily following each other in a structured manner. Of
course there is a thin golden thread running through these essays –
improving your conflict competency at an advanced level – but reading
through the essays will not feel connected until later in the book. In
fact, you could with equal benefit read the chapters out of sequence
(after you have read Chapter 2 on certain definitions and concepts).
This modular approach allows us to deal with essential conflict concepts
and tools against specific, specialised and contemporary backgrounds.
Slowly, as you work with the various essays, you will start to see the
interconnectedness of the conflict principles, and how they interact
like instruments in an orchestra. Many of the concepts we will work
with in one chapter, say on boardroom strategy, will be applicable to
the section dealing with union negotiations. Philosophies, groundwork
and techniques are placed in this framework where they make most
sense, but most of them are transferable to other conflict situations.

19
The book consists of eighteen chapters, with this Introduction being the
first one. Chapter 2 will deal with a series of definitions and concepts
that you will need to be comfortable with in applying your new skills
correctly and to benefit optimally. Knowing from my own experience
that definitions are often seen as dull and dreary items to be skipped,
these very brief paragraphs have been designed to also act as
standalone chunks of conflict knowledge on a practical level. If you only
read Chapter 2, your conflict competency will already be better than
before you picked up the book, so give it a try.
In chapter 3 we will consider a few of the ongoing conflict strategic
errors made by corporate South Africa that make our workplaces such
hotbeds of uncertainty and confrontation, and we will consider the
improvement of the existing workplace tools and the implementation
of a few cost-effective and measurable new ones. Workplace conflict
has been my preferred battleground during the last three decades, and
this part of the South African conflict coalface needs a lot of work. Real
solutions for real problems. While the essay may be written from the
perspective of the employer or manager, employees and unions can also
gain from these considerations, and it will hopefully serve to both
initiate debate as well as lead to increased conflict efficiencies in our
workplaces, an arena where this is so sorely and so urgently needed.
Chapter 4 will show us the futility, and consequent harm, of using only
fact-based arguments in those all-important identity or value
arguments that we have, whether those are political, religious or other
personal conflicts, and we will learn a counter-intuitive system of
techniques that is more persuasive and successful in dealing with these
contentious and often harmful disputes, all backed by solid current
scientific and best practice evidence. This chapter will briefly deal with
conflict on social media, and how we can improve our results there,
with other more detailed social media strategies to follow later in the
book. This chapter is a good example of the complexity that is necessary
to truly become conflict competent and of the practical benefits that
can be achieved by becoming so skilled.
Chapter 5 will arm us do be more efficient at conflicts in the
boardroom, which will include dealing with the overlap between

20
boardroom executive conflict and advanced negotiation skills. This
essay deals with the dynamics between negotiation and conflict, and
the benefits of not seeing these two disciplines as separate areas.
Negotiation is often taught in a vacuum, outside of those tense conflict
backgrounds, with their tension and high stakes, and we will expand
and upgrade your negotiation skills to be more tailor-made for the South
African environment. This chapter is, at a certain level, complimentary
reading with the workplace conflict essay (Chapter 3), but it is also
more distinctly focused on senior management and their modern
conflict needs and potential.
In Chapter 6 we investigate the popular and polarizing concept of
workplace diversity, and we assess how it is misunderstood and
misapplied in the South African workplace, the resultant harm and
cyclical conflict it causes, and we consider a few practical measures
that could improve the results we seek. In doing so we do not seek to
add to any polemical treatment of the topic, and we simply approach
the conflict realities of this important field, with an eye on maximizing
our conflict competency in an ethical workplace.
Chapter 7 deals with the wonderful tool of mediation, its untapped
potential for healing and progress in South Africa, and where we can
start to implement this essential conflict tool. We look at its
measurable potential in the workplace, its under-utilization and we
investigate what such a process can and does look like in practice, what
benefits we stand to gain by using it, and we also assess what benefits
mediation can bring to us on the wider national and continental
canvass.
Chapter 8 gives us some tools to improve our conflict communication
skills, while again traversing that important distinction between
upgrading our technical knowledge and making us practically more
proficient in our conflicts.
Chapter 9 stays with the theme of communication while assessing our
conflicts and how they are affected by technology, and what we can do
to improve those conflicts. Flowing from those technological
developments and influences on our modern conflicts we also have a
surprisingly practical look at what applied conflict knowledge we can

21
gain from the diverse but connected fields of neuroscience and current
conflict knowledge gained from those fields.
Chapter 10 will investigate the importance of spatial planning and the
environment on our conflicts, how structural conflicts continue to
create and influence our modern day conflicts, and how we should
address these conflict causes and triggers so well hidden in plain sight.
Chapter 11 will focus on the very relevant topic of workplace
disciplinary hearings and processes, and how modern conflict
knowledge can improve these processes, including an in-depth look at
the cutting edge new solutions offered to workplace conflicts (and
other dispute resolution areas) by the new conflict field of DSD (dispute
system design).
Chapter 12 tackles the national scandal of our gender based violence
problem with some real-world considerations and techniques. This
essay specifically steers clear, as far as possible, of a simple retelling
of the horror stories that we know so well from our media, and looks at
this scourge through a specialized conflict management lens.
Chapter 13 focuses on conflict in our schools, and suggests a few
practical conflict tools for intervention, with the second part of the
essay giving educators some practical assistance and support.
Chapter 14 is a collection of “street fighting” conflict techniques,
where we will learn some practical applications for use in our everyday
conflicts, without much of a discussion about the principles
underpinning such techniques. This is the chapter you read while
waiting at the airport.
In chapter 15 we consider the contentious and topical question of
conflicts with our neighbours through migration policies and societal
attitudes, whether this constitutes xenophobia or not, and what
practical steps we can take to alleviate this growing crisis.
Chapter 16 considers the appropriateness and content of any possible
reconciliation projects in South Africa, and we try to make progress
with this complex topic, bearing in mind its practical and lasting impact
on our current day conflicts.

22
Chapter 17 builds on our considerations in chapter 16 with some
practical programs and solutions for peacebuilding in modern South
Africa, with a special focus on tested philosophies and strategies such
as nonviolent campaigns and dealing with conflict in our communities.
We consider some efficient and real world conflict strategies that we
can bring to our streets and communities. Chapter 18 is then an
overview and assessment of the state of our conflicts, and what we can
do to be better prepared for conflict in our professional and personal
lives. That chapter will also discuss a few practical support structures
and conflict tools that we provide that could assist you in your own
conflicts.

Each chapter starts with a few quotes, which I regard as contributing

something of value to the topic of that particular essay. Please reflect
on these quotes and how they can assist you in a deeper understanding
and be a practical aid in your own conflict work.

A note on politics

While I hold a few rather strong political views, I tend not to go around
waving them in people’s faces. I do high level conflict work for political
individuals, parties and organizations, and I do not let my political
views, such as they are, interfere with my work.
So it is also with this book. I accept that political views are often
important expressions of a person’s identity. We live in a society with
incredibly diverse political views. For instance, the Institute for Race
Relations tells us that racism is not really all that important a factor for
the majority of South Africans. Others vehemently disagree. While our
politics is built on conflict, we do not need to be political animals to
improve our conflict competency. In fact, our political views and
passions may cause us to lose some of the best attributes of really
conflict competent people.
So politics matter, of course they do, but for our purposes here, our
politics, yours and mine, is not an important consideration for purposes
of our work here. I want you to work through the book and be better,

23
much better, at your conflicts at the end of it. I want you to make some
life changing decisions about conflict along the way, and I want you to
be more conflict competent and conflict confident when we are done.
For that, we do not need politics, as important as that may be in other
spheres of our lives.

Ethical considerations

As you will see in working through this book, conflict resolution is not a
soft skill, it is not about playing nice. I can assure you that I am not a
saint, and most of my work in boardrooms, factory floors and
conference rooms get done in a tense atmosphere that you can cut with
a knife. Being conflict competent does not mean that you have to be
all friendly and polite, or that you will be at a disadvantage in a hard
world. That is, in fact, one of the easy ways of testing a conflict
resolution technique: it needs to outperform a conventionally
adversarial technique. This work does not take any of your conflict
options away from you, it enhances your options, your knowledge, your
decision making processes and options. That is it, that is all that we are
busy with. Helping you to survive your conflict, helping you stand up for
your rights and interests, advancing your conflict competence.
However, this book and your own study and experience of dealing with
conflict will teach you some skills that are open to manipulation.
Modern conflict resolution principles and techniques are powerful tools
in our conflicts, and they can really make a difference in our lives, and
the lives of others. We can use our abilities to influence and persuade
people for good, to resolve a conflict in the interests of those involved,
to heal, to bring prosperity, trust and good working conditions, or we
can use those same skills to manipulate people into positions that are
ethically indefensible. Those fences will sometimes be difficult to see,
and every situation requires its own assessment of whether you are
bringing resolution or more harm to a conflict. There are no easy
answers for some of these scenarios, and you will have to find your own
way in the more difficult ones, aided by external advice, your
conscience and values and your growing experience.

24
Always keep an eye on the wider picture – not just what you are doing,
but why and how.

You can use these skills in your existing work, community, family or
personal life, or you can use it as the start of a career in conflict
management at one of the many levels and applications that are
available.

For a country with a history so marked by personal and systemic

conflict, South Africa has little to show in the conflict competency of
its institutions, its politicians and its citizens. This needs to change and
improve if we are going to be able to lift ourselves out of the downward
spiral of our current inability to effectively deal with our conflicts.
Some dangerous magic is required.

A few words on footnotes and research

I have eventually decided against using footnotes and extensive

research sections. Where a statement in the book is not clearly my
opinion (which I will also defend where necessary), all other writing is
based on research and best practices. I have opted for a dedicated and
focused reference and suggested reading list at the end of each essay,
setting out most (if not all) of the material consulted for that essay.
These books are all part of my library, and readers are most welcome
to ask me directly for expanded quotes or the more detailed reference,
context or clarification that a footnote may have achieved. While the
book is an attempt to effectively combine the scholar and the
practitioner approaches, it is already coming in at over 300 pages, and
as such I would rather let the practitioner focus on the mechanics of
what we are discussing, while inviting the scholar to ask for further
information where necessary.

25
 Conclusion

Everyone says this about their book, I know, but this work is really
important for the everyday applications that we have mentioned above.
If you improve your conflict competency by even just 1% you gain a life
skill, a real benefit from that, something that you carry with you even
though there may be very little conflict in your life.

Thank you for being here. Let’s work.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READING

(Chapter 1)

1. Mediation in a Time of Crisis, by Kenneth Cloke, Goodmedia Press

(2021)
2. The Art of War, by Sun Tzu, Thomas Cleary translation, Shambala
Publications (2000). Of this seminal text Cleary says “As a classic of
Taoist thought, The Art of War is thus a book not only of war but also
of peace, above all a tool for understanding the very roots of conflict
and resolution.” and “Taking a rational rather than an emotional
approach to the problem of conflict, Sun Tzu showed how
understanding conflict can lead not only to its resolution, but even to
its avoidance altogether”.
3. On War, by Carl von Clausewitz, Princeton University Press (this
edition 1989)
4. The Handbook of Dispute Resolution, edited by Michael L. Moffitt
and Robert C. Bordone, Jossey-Bass Publishers (2005)

26
 CHAPTER 2: TOOLS OF THE TRADE
- A few necessary definitions and concepts

So if knowledge is to be of help in eliminating wars, it must be

knowledge of ourselves.
Anatol Rapoport

Prepar’d myself the conflict to sustain,

Both of sad pity; and that perilous road,
Which my unerring memory shall retrace

Dante Alighieri, from The Divine Comedy, Canto II

You know, I don’t at all hesitate to be a bit utopian about all this
because I think hope is itself an act, a very big leap, which in a
sense defies the grim facts always about us and opens up new
ways of thinking about things.
Daniel Berrigan

27
 Introduction
This brief essay is designed to give you a working knowledge and level
of comfort with some of the technical concepts that we will be working
with throughout the book. They are not intended to be academically
rigorous or exhaustive of all possible scenarios. These working
definitions are simply designed to help you form an initial familiarity
with the tools that you will need for the work that lies ahead, and you
can of course delve deeper into such definitions as circumstances may
dictate later on. Or, you can skip the entire chapter and get to the
interesting parts, although you may have difficulty in following all of
the nuances and possibilities of our later discussions without some
knowledge of these terms.

I would like to think also that the essay may be of practical help to you
even outside this book, and in your general exposure to conflict. The
terms are observable conflict realities, they often occur in real life
scenarios, and being aware of them in itself could increase your conflict
competence and conflict outcomes.

So browse through this chapter, see what sticks and return to it later
on when you run into a concept that you need more clarity on in the
later essays.
I have not arranged them alphabetically or in any specific sequence, as
they would need to be understood individually and then put together as
your particular conflict requires, and as your conflict competence
increases.

(a) Conflict
The term “conflict” in the popular mind seems to have as elusive a
quality as “love” or “fairness”. It is more than armed, international
conflict, it is more than the obvious arguments and disagreements that
we have with others. Conflict, as we will use it here, can include all of
that, but it also includes any situation where we enter into competition

28
with others for resources, for attention, prestige, validation, survival
or other desirable goods.
It has nothing to do with the necessity of the dispute, the relative
strengths of the parties involved or the fairness of the result. Conflict
is a process that can last from seconds to decades, it is a direct or
indirect disagreement as to real or perceived differences and
incompatibilities or of a clash of interests, it finds its genesis in many
different motivations, some seen and understood, some not.
Ultimately, conflict is an energy that walks with us, ever present if only
in potentiality, ever available to use as a mechanism to advance goals
and projects on a personal or community level. It is often a struggle, a
struggle to overcome, to collaborate, to do better, to survive. As we
will see and apply in this book, conflict is unavoidable in the long run,
and it is, when implemented skilfully, one of humanity’s primary
creative forces. It is also, as most personal reflections will show, an
intensely destructive force that can harm or destroy careers,
productivity, harmony, relationships and lives if left unchecked or
unskilfully implemented. It has ethical and moral dimensions, and even
in its slowest moving manifestations it is a dynamic process.
Conflict often gives rise to uncertainty, but it remains the best process
through which differences and disagreements can be resolved, the
conduit through which temporary uncertainty and even unpleasantness
can lead to greater certainty, to a transcending of earlier obstacles. We
all have conflict in our lives, personally and professionally, and the only
real question is to what extent we prepare ourselves to be effective at
that conflict.

A few definitions of conflict from the relevant conflict literature would

include-

Conflict is the interaction of interdependent parties who perceive

incompatibility and the possibility of interference from others as
a result of this incompatibility.

Folger, Poole and Stutman

29
Conflict exists wherever and whenever there is an incompatibility
of cognitions or emotions within individuals or between
individuals. It arises in personal relationships, in organizations,
between groups and organizations, and between nations.

Barbara A. Budjac Corvette

(b) Conflict management, conflict resolution, conflict

transformation and peacebuilding
These four terms are often used interchangeably, simply intending to
mean a general interaction with various forms of conflict. A very
imprecise distinction would be to see conflict resolution as the
interactions and techniques used to aim at resolving a particular
conflict, with an emphasis on ending that conflict, while conflict
management could be referring to more of a long term process of
dealing with conflict that seem to be cyclical or enduring, say at a
workplace, and where the emphasis may not be on the resolution
thereof as on monitoring it and dealing with the symptoms of it.

I love Tammy Lenski’s definition of conflict resolution:

“While conflict can be a trap of the past, conflict resolution
is an act of the present and the future.
You cannot resolve conflict unless you can figure
out a way to face forward.”

I also like the idea of conflict transformation, used by the well-known

conflict scholar and practitioner John Paul Lederach. This term is
mindful of the possible unease that could come from the terms
management or resolution, such as that it may create expectations of
enforced or demanded resolution, or that the conflict that is important

30
to people is being rushed or eliminated. This concept is quite helpful in
social conflict scenarios.
Peacebuilding has a more global feel to it, often dealing with conflict
management or resolution in national or international conflicts.
Peacebuilding has become a highly specialized area of conflict studies,
and as we will see in Chapter 17, it is a complex area that requires a
level of nuance and application that we can deal with better there. The
lines are blurred even more when we notice that conflict scholars and
practitioners use the terms loosely or with different meanings and
contexts. The good news is that most people know what you mean when
you use these terms, and they can be used quite interchangeably, as
we will be doing in this book, unless specifically indicated where a
specific definition is applied.
With new frontiers in global (regional and civil warfare, terrorism) and
personal (social media, access to information) conflicts, the need to
understand and be conflict competent has risen to new levels.
Overlapping to some degree, with nuances of meaning for some, the
terms peacebuilding, peacemaking and conflict resolution all generally
refer to the systematic study and application of the causes and triggers
of conflict, techniques and systems to oppose, limit or prevent that,
and several levels of study and practice designed to help individuals and
organizations to cope optimally with their conflicts. It has a rather clear
division into global/regional conflicts and then the more personal or
organizational conflicts, such as workplace or personal conflicts.
As an additional, expanded working definition, we can accept the clear
explanation of peacebuilding by Festus Kofi Aubyn:
“…peacebuilding is today understood to encompass the full
array of processes, approaches and stages needed to transform
conflict situations into more sustainable peaceful relationships
and development before and after conflicts.”

As a research discipline it works with the causes of conflicts, especially

violent global or regional conflicts, and seeks to transform the long term
relationships between conflict parties. The work of peacebuilding
emerge, as Goenawan Mohamad so powerfully says, “from the face of

31
the victims”. It asks of us to find ways to live together, often after
violent and/or protracted conflicts.

(c) Sources of conflict

While the sources of conflict are often ostensibly easily identifiable,

from “Your rudeness makes me angry!” to “Systemic unemployment
causes widespread conflict in affected communities”, it is
unfortunately rarely used effectively as a conflict management tool.
One of the key lessons in conflict management we need to understand
and make a part of our own practice is the simple realization that
without an accurate assessment of the causes of a conflict we cannot
get to and successfully deal with the resolution thereof.
While various conflict studies, authors and practitioners have their own
favourite categorizations for the causes of conflict, our purposes here
should benefit from a simple threefold division, that being conflict
caused by (a) scarce resources, (b) the need to maintain and promote
a positive sense of the self, and (c) the desire to assimilate in society
and hold consensually shared and socially validated opinions or beliefs.
Most of our modern conflicts will fit into one of these categories, from
which we can delve deeper into a greater specificity on a case by case
basis.
Conflict causes should be distinguished from conflict triggers, that
being the event(s) that revives or brings to the surface a lingering or
unresolved conflict. A conflict cause may be a person’s fear of
unemployment, a conflict trigger may be criticism of that person’s
professional abilities.
A conflict driver may be a factor, event or emotion that sustains a
conflict even though it neither caused nor triggered it, such as
prejudice, ignorance, past experience of conflict and so on.

(d) Conflict climate

A conflict climate in a group or between individuals is the shared
experience of the group members, arising from common practices,

32
perceptions and procedures. It influences interactions, both before,
during and after conflict events.
Understanding the conflict climate, especially in workplace groups, is
important because it often unearths hidden causes and triggers of
conflict, which may otherwise be very difficult to notice or deal with.
Practically speaking, it is how participants (say employees) view a
variety of conflict variables, such as fairness, efficiency of procedures,
management commitment and so on. It is to be distinguished from a
conflict culture, which is more a driving force, while the conflict
climate follows on those events, more of a reaction. Conflict climates
are created and maintained by groups, not individuals, as much as
individuals may seem to be causes in such climates.
A conflict climate can be difficult to change, and they generally do not
change quickly or without focused and structured intervention and
management.

(e) Conflict outcomes

These are the results of conflicts, often referred to as winning, losing,
or shades of those terms that may include a draw, and the ever so
popular compromise. The nature of the conflict itself, the personalities
and abilities of the involved parties and a myriad of factors affect these
conflict outcomes, and these goals often change during a conflict. We
will be focused on conflict outcomes in the following chapters, and
there we will discuss the various strategic considerations that are
relevant to a particular conflict, but for now we need to unlearn a few
bad conflict habits, some of which are still very much present in popular
literature and imagination.

Conflict management is not about “being nice” or “meeting them in the

middle”. The popular perception of conflict resolution simply being an
exercise in finding the middle of the road “solution” is outdated, lazy
and unnecessary. This misconception is partly created by conflict
authors and practitioners that advocate for compromise as a strategy,
and this has led to some very pernicious perceptions of the potential of

33
conflict management. Let us be very clear on this here at the start of
our journey into conflict. War, divorce and a fistfight outside the pub
are also forms of conflict resolution. Conflict must be resolved,
transcended, turned into something positive (or at least into a lesser
negative), it must not be sugar-coated, avoided or minimized.
Some conflicts cannot be resolved, some relationships should end. We
do not mediate a negotiated settlement with the child molester, with
the rapist, and compromise can be harmful in the long run. The conflict
outcome necessary in each situation should be assessed honestly and
comprehensively, and each conflict deserves its own tailor-made
solution.

(f) The cost of conflict

The South African workplace has several hidden costs of conflict that
are not accurately assessed, managed or brought into reckoning in the
planning and strategizing phases of policies and campaigns. While
certain specifically delimited conflicts can be gauged in relatively
accurate financial terms (say a strike or commercial boycott, legal
costs, days spent at conflict tribunals such as the CCMA or bargaining
councils by senior staff etc.), some of the most important conflict costs
are not that easily calculated or even noticed.
Examples of these nearly hidden conflict costs include a loss of
authority or respect, whether in the workplace itself or the wider
marketplace, brand damage, loss of productivity, the creation of
incorrect perceptions as to power sources or the erosion of power (see
e.g. Chapter 4), productivity loss, decreases in staff morale and loyalty,
conflict related health issues and absenteeism, presentism, the
creation of silos and interest groups that are counterproductive to
company goals, underperformance and several other causes and
triggers.
If nothing else, these subtle but destructive conflict costs should alert
us to the modern necessity and importance of conflict competence. The
accurate and updated understanding and management of conflict,
especially in the workplace, has become a modern necessity for middle
and senior management.

34
(g) Conflict ripeness (timing and sequence)
If one Saturday night after enjoying his golf too much your neighbour
drives through your front wall and into your bed of prize roses his
sincere apology may be better received a day or two after the event
than if it gets delivered there and then at 2am on your front porch on
the day of the event. Timing is crucial to effective conflict
management, as is the sequence of our chosen conflict events,
interventions and strategies. Conflict studies in recent times have
focused attention on studying the question of conflict ripeness, or the
question whether a conflict is ready for a specific resolution
intervention.
Everyday life holds several illustrative examples. Without being too
specific, the question of whether South African society is ready for
political reconciliation is one of these examples. People have to go
through various emotional and psychological processes in order to, at
their own pace, understand and accept certain realities following on
conflict events, and pushing for resolution at too early (or too late) a
time negatively affects such outcomes. In divorce proceedings
experience often show parties needing to work through various levels
and experiences of pain and anger before they are ready to consider
and accept settlement proposals or reconciliation. Be aware of this
critically important consideration in your conflicts.

(h) Conflict system

This is simply the technical term for a system of procedures and
outcomes designed to deal with conflicts arising. A classic and well-
known example is a disciplinary process at a workplace, dealing with a
system of warnings, disciplinary hearings and consequences for
misconduct or other disciplinary breaches. Modern conflict practice
allows employers and other management systems to tailor-make and
design their own conflict systems that can deal effectively with cultural
and gender conflicts, management team performance and client
interaction goals. These conflict systems, as the modern versions are
designed, can be done in modular format, internalized to

35
management’s requirements, and constitutes a measurable, largely
transferable skillset.

(i) Differentiation and integration

These two concepts are the two main goals that parties should aim for
during a conflict. Simply put, differentiation is the process of
establishing the parties’ various positions, concerns and suggestions, an
airing of the various perspectives. Once this has been done, the parties
should be moving towards integration, which is the resolution of their
conflict.
These two concepts can very complex and deserve their own in-depth
study and understanding. They are of tremendous tactical and
strategical value and importance, and an incorrect assessment or
incorrect application of these principles can lead to negative conflict
outcomes.
It is especially with differentiation that most conflicts are derailed.
Differentiation is often skipped or rushed in an effort to quickly get to
solutions, leaving many options unexamined, feelings or emotions left
unacknowledged and resentments or fears in place. Similarly,
differentiation that is not skilfully handled can lead to escalation of the
conflict, as parties often express their views and concerns in emotional
or even insulting language, or (equally harmful) an increase in conflict
avoidance or rigidity, where parties try to suppress views or the conflict
itself, or where parties simply become increasingly reluctant and
unwilling to constructively participate in resolution or consider
solutions.

(j) Group polarization

Polarization is an easily observable event. It simply signifies two people
moving towards opposite points of view during conflict, and it is
normally an inherent part of conflict, and this is taken into
consideration during conflict resolution.
When polarisation however occurs in a group setting, research shows us
some remarkable and troubling evidence of conflict behaviour that

36
needs to be understood and used in any conflict strategy. Here we see
significantly different conflict behaviour, not just an escalation in
numbers as opposed to the original binary positions.

Technically group polarization occurs when initial individual group

member tendencies in a specific direction get enhanced after group
discussion. This results in groups often holding more extreme views,
divergent from what the individual or average member of that group,
would hold. As this happens in the group, the group and its members
tend to coalesce not towards the middle of their previous positions, but
towards a more extreme position as indicated by those positions. Here
group discussion diminishes variant opinions and eventually produces
convergence of belief or opinion on a relatively more extreme point.
This is very visible on social media and in workplace settings.

(k) Restorative justice

Restorative justice is a fascinating topic in conflict studies and practice,
sometimes controversial, often extremely effective in reaching conflict
wounds that other, more conventional approaches may not be able to
reach. It has an especially promising role to play in the South African
context, and we have used it to heartening effect especially in school
and community projects in recent years.

A working definition of restorative justice (this one by Nicholas Bradford

and David Lesal) would include:
“Restorative Justice is a community response to crime and other
misconduct that focuses on addressing the harms done to victims
and communities by holding offenders meaningfully accountable
for their offenses. The goal of Restorative Justice is the creation
of safe, healthy communities. Such communities are created when
there are opportunities for victims to have their needs addressed
and when offenders are integrated into the community as
positive, contributing citizens.”

37
Bradford and Lesal point to five “pillars” in the concept of restorative
justice, that being:
- Acknowledge and confront conflict;
- Engage all stakeholders
- Empower the conflict author and the victim
- Value empathy
- Develop agency

The philosophy is based on an instinctive understanding that the

traditional processes of justice often exacerbates societal problems and
injuries, and act as short term solutions while not always playing the
role in fostering peace and healing as well as they should. This then
allows restorative justice to use alternative tools in addressing not just
the results of these conflicts, but also the root causes of it. At its best,
restorative justice interventions bring alternative direction and
possibilities, credibility and outcomes. It can be used to great effect in
communities, and normally addresses criminal and anti-social
behaviour. Globally inspiring results have been accomplished in youth
and anti-drug campaigns. It addresses the need to balance, restore and
heal, as much as possible, the damaged relationship more than the
breach of a rule. Victims and offenders are involved in techniques and
programs that are designed from conflict principles, and these programs
often work best where conventional programs have been tried and
failed. As Howard Zehr puts it, restorative justice is a compass, not a
map.
I believe that the concept of restorative justice, cast and applied in the
South African context, has great and untapped potential for some of
our bigger societal conflicts, such as school dysfunctions, community
crime and gender-based violence.

38
(l) Nonviolence
Nonviolence is an extensive group of conflict strategies, as most
publicly developed and extended by public figures such as Mahatma
Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, Nelson Mandela, Thich Nhat Hanh, the
14th Dalai Lama, the Berrigan brothers, Dorothy Day and John Dear. It
is a conflict philosophy that combines the dynamics of active opposition
to an idea or system to principles of a complete absence of and a refusal
to commit any act of conventional violence in effecting such opposition.
It refuses to settle for either violence or complete disengagement as
solutions in large, protracted conflicts. Nonviolent strategies include
public acts of social unrest or defiance, protest marches, boycotts, sit-
ins and occupations, mass incarcerations and so on. Nonviolence has, in
my view, played an important role in the South African liberation
history, and it still has an unfulfilled role to play as an effective
mechanism in several of the current South African conflicts.

(m) Structural conflicts

Conflict does not always flow from direct interaction between
individuals or groups. Modern conflict studies show clearly the effect
on disputes and resultant conflicts that certain structures can have.
Often controversial and with political overtones, these structural
conflicts either cause, exacerbate or perpetuate conflicts simply by way
of the way things are done in a specific organization or industry. So for
example a police station with a racist culture, a business with a policy
of conflict suppression or a government department with cultural biases
can greatly influence conflicts, without there necessarily being a
particular individual or group driving that. Much study is being, and
needs to be done, on this aspect of modern conflicts.

(n) High conflict

This is a handy term to be able to at least know and recognize when
you see it in practice. Good, healthy and constructive conflict leads to
resolution, to progress. High conflict, on the other hand, is normally
performative conflict antics with its own agenda, and where resolution

39
is not really featured as a goal. It is normally accompanied by shrillness,
insults and intractability, where concessions and progress, where
mutual benefit and an end to the conflict are sometimes actively
sabotaged or avoided. This is conflict for its own sake, conflict for
other, destructive reasons. It is often a waste of time and energy to
engage with, and we often encounter it in domestic, workplace, social
media or political settings where it is in one or more of the parties’ best
interests to keep the conflict alive. As Amanda Ripley quips, in high
conflict the conflict is the destination.

(o) Mediation
We will do an in-depth study of mediation (Chapter 7), but for now the
following brief definition of mediation will be sufficient:
“Mediation is a conflict management process whereby a person or
group, typically an outsider, intervenes in a conflict to help the
adversaries to negotiate an agreement themselves or to take
other joint de-escalating measures.”

(Louis Kriesberg and Bruce Dayton)

(p) Neutrality in conflict

Modern conflict research and my own practice shows quite clearly that
true and complete neutrality by any party in conflict, including in some
instances the conflict resolution practitioners used by the parties, is as
unnecessary as much as it is unwanted by several role players.
Depending on the specific capacity in which the conflict is managed
(management, mediator etc.) a high and unconditional level of
unbiased, transparent and ethical conduct is necessary, but this does
not necessarily make such role-players truly neutral. Whether it is in
the business world or the more private conflict arenas people care
about these outcomes, much depend on that, and they often want you
to care about it as well if you are involved. True neutrality, if it exists,
comes across as cold and distant, as disengaged and unfeeling. So, with
due care and discretion, show people that you care about outcomes,
that you are not so much neutral as unbiased, and that the wage

40
negotiations, the argument about the building plans, the broken
promise, the infidelity matters to you in a constructive way. For a more
comprehensive discussion on this, see Chapter 7 (Mediation) and
Kenneth Cloke’s use of the term “omni-partiality”.

(q) BATNA
Traditionally a classical negotiation term, your BATNA (best alternative
to a negotiated agreement/settlement) is an indispensable concept also
in conflict. We need to accurately (and early on) assess our options and
possible outcomes. This allows us to understand what strategy may work
best, what our best results may be, and the limitations of our powers.
It is also necessary to understand our opponent’s BATNA. What options
does she have if our proposal is not accepted?
Example: We are negotiating about the price of your car. You want
R120 000 for it, I am offering R100 000 for it. At R105 000, I would be
better off by buying my neighbour’s car which he is selling for R104 000.
In this simple example then, my BATNA is that R104/105 000 range. In
wage negotiations your BATNA may be alternative employment,
accepting the offer at a specific rate and so on.

(r) The Coherence Trap

An important concept coined by Dr. Mark Szabo deals with our
inclination, especially when we are dealing with complex conflicts, to
smooth over rough edges in our understanding of the world around us,
to ease the cognitive dissonance resulting from trying to hold two
ostensibly unrelated or disparate concepts in mind, or where we want
seeming incongruities to be explained and resolved. In complex
conflicts we may early on in the situation encounter concepts or
complexities that fall outside our experience, require more time,
budget and attention than we have available or just require facing
uncomfortable discussions or decisions. Information that we need may
be difficult or impossible to obtain. Our minds have evolved to make
sense of things, a need that psychologists call coherence. This is a
powerful psychological need in most humans, and when we encounter

41
something that does not make sense to us we push towards coherence,
towards making sense of the pieces that do not seem to fit, we try to
avoid uncertainty. It causes actual disorientation, tension and
dissonance. This is the Coherence Trap, where we take shortcuts, omit
processes, convince ourselves of things, rush to judgment and generally
hurry to make sense of what lies before us. This is of course the more
so under the pressure that sometimes accompany conflict situations.
This process causes us to either ignore or completely miss subtleties or
nuances that may have an important bearing on the conflict that lies
ahead. It may oversimplify a complex situation and deny us access to
vitally important information, and it may fatally affect our initial
strategies to be used in a conflict.
We need to be aware of our confusion and discomfort, that we may be
drawn towards oversimplification and what this may cause, and we then
need to train ourselves and gain experience in new and creative conflict
interaction patterns, avoiding the old, stale ways of approaching
complex conflicts and their results.

(s) Face concerns in conflict

A concept that we will encounter throughout the book, and one that is
of great practical importance in our conflict work, is the idea of face
(as in “saving face”). We will deal with the concept in greater depth
later on, but for now we can simply note that people have various
identity and value based perceptions of how they see the world, and
importantly, how they want the world to see them.
The face needs that people have can differ between individuals as well
as groups, and from conflict to conflict. It is experienced as respect,
trust and other emotions, and as such they are often overlooked in our
conflict strategies.
As we will see, this conflict dynamic can take on a crucial role in our
conflicts, where parties either do not recognize or acknowledge these
face concerns, or have different face concerns and they end up with
this being a bigger, more intractable part of the conflict than the
original dispute. To effectively include this in your conflict toolbox you
will need to understand the concept in broad terms, and have a working

42
knowledge of how to apply it in actual conflicts. Chapter 5 deals with
this in greater detail. There is also a link in the reference section below
to a more extensive article dealing with this important concept.

(t) Intractability
Peter T. Coleman, a respected conflict scholar and practitioner, defines
this rather advanced conflict concept as:
“Intractability happens when the many different
components of a conflict collapse together into one mass,
into one very simple “us versus them” story that
effectively resists change.”

Most conflicts require a certain level of complexity and nuance. This

allows us to see different points of view, different takes on events,
different potential problems and solutions, and maybe even a measure
of empathy. Once this collapse has occurred of course, things become
oversimplified and nuance becomes harder to establish. Such lack of
complexity is often aimed at by disinformation campaigns and other
polarization peddlers. It is often necessary, especially with protracted
and cyclical conflicts, to reintroduce a level of complexity and nuance
before progress becomes possible.

(u) Conflict escalation

Escalation in conflict is an important conflict dynamic to bear in mind.
It is a heightening of tensions, often accompanied by an increase in
harmful conflict behaviour such as threats, demands, and the volume
of the conflict often also increases. Certain conflicts, such as those that
have reached a deadlock or that are characterised by conflict avoidant
behaviour, often benefit from focused escalation being brought to bear,
although this is best left to someone with experience in conflict
management.
Escalation that has become unstable creates and adds new dynamics to
an existing conflict.

43
As Amanda Ripley says:
“When conflict escalates past a certain point,
the conflict itself takes charge. The original facts and
forces that led to the dispute fade into the background.
The us-versus-them dynamic takes over.”

One of the junctures where escalation can be particularly harmful is

during the early differentiation phase in a conflict, where the parties
must be able to explain themselves and their positions, and where the
very process of clearly stating the various positions can lead to that
escalation.
Conflict escalation that has become harmful is often characterised by
the parties now arguing about secondary, new issues that did not exist
when the conflict started. So we see an argument start about wage
increases, and after negative escalation the parties are calling each
other names and complaining about each other’s lack of manners.

(v) Conflict rigidity

The successful resolution of conflict often requires an ability to see
things from the opponent’s point of view (even if only as a strategic
consideration and not a matter of empathy), the limits of our own
abilities, dynamic factors such as economic factors, union demands,
third party interventions and what creativity can be brought to bear on
a conflict in order for a mutually acceptable result to be achieved. This
requires in turn that, even though we may be emotionally and even
physically drained, irritated, angry and distraught, we retain a measure
of flexibility and ability to keep an eye on our options.
Conflict rigidity is the level of unwillingness or inability to accurately
assess, consider and agree to these creative developments and
solutions. The more rigid we become in our thinking during conflict, the
less we are able to calmly assess our options, all available scenarios and
consequences. It is a physiological reality that as we become more
angry or frustrated the less we are able to access all of the important
sections of our cognitive abilities (see article below on neurobiological
impacts on our conflicts). Certain conflict events such as taunting,

44
insults or unreasonable conduct or positions tend to increase conflict
rigidity in participants, which make them less able to think
constructively, where trust deficits occur, and an increase in the
willingness to harm the other side becomes more prevalent. It is in
these conflict rigid environments where people counterintuitively, and
often to their own prejudice, decide to take conflict decisions that are
harmful to everyone, and where they become far more susceptible to
destructive alternative suggestions and solutions, often making them
more vulnerable to manipulation by third parties with their own
agendas. Unless you then want the particular conflict to remain
unresolved, behaviour that increases conflict rigidity should be avoided
or carefully managed.

Conclusion

These various conflict concepts, in summarized form, should serve you

well both in some of your conflicts as well as understanding some of the
debates in the rest of book.
It has also, hopefully, given you an indication of how easily you can
improve your conflict competency.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READING

(Chapter 2)

1. Fight Different, by Dr Mark Szabo, Szabo+Partners Ltd (2020)

2. The Little Book of Restorative Justice, by Howard Zehr, Good
Books (2014)
3. Contemporary Peacemaking (3rd edition), by Roger Mac Ginty,
Palgrave MacMillan (2022)
4. High Conflict, by Amanda Ripley, Simon & Schuster (2021)

45
5. An article on the BATNA concept, by Jim Sebenius, while
primarily applicable to commercial negotiation, can be fruitfully
employed in your more complex commercial negotiations and
conflicts. It can be found at Microsoft Word - 17-055 Sebenius
BATNA WP 170310.docx (hbs.edu)
6. Article “Experimental research on social conflict” by Dean G.
Pruitt, in The Sage Handbook of Conflict Resolution, edited by
Jacob Bercovitch and others, Sage Publications (2009)
7. The Little Book of Conflict Transformation, by John Paul
Lederach, Good Books (2014)
8. My article on face concerns during conflict can be found on the Conflict
Conversations blog at FACE SAVING - The Conflict Conversations (conflict-
conversations.co.za)

46
 CHAPTER 3: WORKPLACE CONFLICT
Some urgent changes proposed

Stone by stone
we’ve built these walls between us

Arnor Dan (from the song “Stone by Stone”)

Difficult, toxic workplace situations occur so regularly that they

have come to be viewed as a normal part of the job.

Dr. Kathy Obear

47
 Introduction - workplace warzones

The general South African inability to have successfully or completely

transcend our past conflict habits is clearly visible in many of our
workplaces. Sharp racial, gender and class differences persist in some
areas, distrusts stalks the corridors, and maybe most damaging of all,
both management and the workforce continue to use severely outdated
concepts and strategies to address a very complex environment, where
some simple, cost effective but modern solutions are required.
Workplace disputes continue to play an inordinately big role in much of
South African workplace strategies. The 2021/22 CCMA statistics show,
even in the midst of the Covid pandemic, a dispute referral of 156 000
cases, while the pre-pandemic levels tend to be closer to 200 000 such
workplace disputes being referred per year. The “business/professional
services” sector remains the highest referring sector.
These high levels of workplace conflict, largely unresolved and cyclical,
continues to feed on itself. Parties experience the negative
consequences of such ongoing conflict, and this leads to further
resentment, escalation, distrust and conflict rigidity. These cycles are
never broken, and temporary relief or short-term gains become the
overriding strategy.
The modern understanding and application of workers by many
workplaces, in practice if not necessarily in theory, is well captured by
Achille Mbembe:
“There are no more workers as such. There are only labouring
nomads. If yesterday’s drama of the subject was the exploitation
by capital, the tragedy of the multitude today is that they are
unable to be exploited at all. They are abandoned subjects,
relegated to the role of a “superfluous humanity”. Capital hardly
needs them anymore to function.”

Grim, and debatable in some areas, as this phrase may be, it sharply
asks the question about the place and value(s) of workers and their
workplaces.
And it is right here, regardless of one’s views of the answer to such
questions, that we come up against a crystal clear divide. Having

48
oppressed, neglected or just “abandoned subjects” in the workplace is
a recognized cause for serious conflict, in many forms and with many
direct adverse commercial manifestations. The converse follows:
effectively managing the causes and triggers of these workplace
conflicts brings about measurable commercial benefits.

Conflict in organizations is a multilevel phenomenon. From the so-

called “hot” conflicts such as actual violence, strikes, threats,
arguments or insults, to the “cold” conflicts such as underperformance
as punishment, project sabotage, gossip campaigns, undermining
leadership, conflict in the modern workplace requires an advanced
level of understanding and practical knowledge. To comprehensively
deal with and manage conflict in the workplace, we need to understand
the different levels, gears and levers that move (or stall) these
processes. This requires, for our purposes, a distinction between
individual and group conflict.

In not comprehensively understanding conflict as the foundation of all

the other symptoms, and on misreading the direct link between those
conflict principles and the more immediately pressing economic
principles, workplace leadership at several levels harm their business
interests.

But it is not just in the macro application of economic principles and

philosophies that employers do their own causes harm, it is in the
mundane, every day running of their workplaces that they (mostly)
unwittingly create and perpetuate these conflicts. We shall examine a
few of these errors that should really be viewed as commercial
blunders.

These debates can be concluded regardless of one’s political or socio-

economic views, or the ethics involved in workplace practices. As
important as the moral and ethical considerations are, there is a very
strong argument to be made for the correct management of these
conflict principles from a purely commercial perspective. I will

49
therefore leave aside the moral arguments, and leave that to the reader
to consider while we look at the effects of unresolved and undetected
conflict in the workplace, and what effective measures the modern
employer or stakeholder can bring about to effect change in the South
African workplace, if for no other reason than their own benefit. .
Here we need to remind ourselves that in looking at workplace dynamics
such as disciplinary processes, efficiency and performance,
absenteeism, strikes, loyalty, training, staff turnover and loyalty, CCMA
and litigation, productivity and cash flow, we are looking at the
symptoms of these conflicts, and that we need to dig deeper to really
get to the root cause of the various problems: unresolved conflict and
how we manage it.
Getting this initial assessment wrong means that we lock ourselves in
spiral staircases of unresolved and cyclical conflicts, with an endless
investigation and strategizing about union tactics, why it is so difficult
to get good staff, cost cutting measures and why we are
underperforming or not performing as we should be doing. Strategies,
policies and procedures are designed and re-designed that deal with
these symptoms, never getting to the essence of the problem, the self-
perpetuating cause thereof: unresolved and unmanaged human
conflict.
Many of these management own goals come directly from what is
variously referred to as HR, the disciplinary process or procedures, or a
variety of other descriptions of what is in essence a command and
control structure.
Management often continues to use a top-down command structure,
kept in place with outdated disciplinary processes that are reactive,
dealing only with transgressions and disciplinary problems when it is
late in the day, and often too late to constructively resolve the problem
or to improve or salvage the working relationship.
This reactive after-the-fact approach causes a slew of further dominoes
to fall, often without the causal link between such outdated practices
and consequent harm being understood or noticed. This use of the
disciplinary process as the main (or sometimes only) arbiter of discipline
and motivation then inevitably leads to a workplace environment and

50
climate where distrust and polarization is entrenched and increased,
where poor performance and discipline (and even criminal acts) are
perceived as justified behaviour, the loss of valued team members,
poor motivation, factionalization and this, inevitably then seemingly
justifies increased disciplinary procedures and implementation. This
self-perpetuating cycle then leads to cyclical, even generational
conflict and it becomes hard to spot, much less to eradicate. This
underdeveloped, sometimes dysfunctional workplace environment then
easily bleeds into the wider economic and political instability and
fragility, and the one environment starts supporting and encouraging
negative conduct and consequences in the other. Underlying all of it:
conflict and its causes.
Human resource and related team members are often not trained in the
latest conflict techniques and strategies, as much as they may be well-
trained in other fields, and they become the frontline of these harmful
policies, often to their own disadvantage. But these costs do not only
accrue because of the retention of these outdated policies and
strategies, there is also a cost in lost potential and opportunities when
it is understood how much better the workplace can perform, how much
more effective it can be for all concerned, if the true power and
potential of modern techniques and strategies (some of which we will
consider in this chapter), and the benefits of diversity properly
understood and applied can be internalized and applied.
These improvements have nothing to do with woke agendas, political
correctness or workplace fads, they are simply the application of best
workplace conflict practices that can be measured and managed.
A few of these less than optimal current practices that we have
mentioned follow for a more comprehensive assessment. These are all
areas in the modern South African workplace that, in most such
workplaces, across various industries and workplace size, can do with
immediate improvement.

a. Workplace cultures
The influence of a given workplace culture (to be distinguished from a
workplace climate) is often undervalued or not assessed at all in

51
designing or implementing workplace disciplinary or commercial
strategies. This term involves crucial conflict parameters such as the
silos that exist wherein people work and operate, cliques and power
centres, the possession and use of power, available resources, the
treatment of dissent and criticism, the role and value of creativity, the
dignity of employees, trust between various groups and many more
factors. It is that vague concept that outsiders can’t see and insiders
can’t escape. National experience shows an inordinate number of well-
intentioned staff programs running aground on the rocks of an unseen,
unacknowledged or misunderstood corporate culture.
Workplace cultures are hardly ever consciously designed and set in
place, they simply follow over time from the strength and skills of
certain personalities, economic goals, brand implementation, a lack of
co-ordination of departments, budget and resource constraints,
internal competition, unresolved conflicts and so on. They are often
very difficult to detect or accurately read, especially by those most
affected or benefiting from such cultures, and such cultures can make
meaningful improvement across several parameters quite difficult. The
observed fact that an entrenched workplace culture may in itself
prevent the discussion, definition or implementation of systems and
strategies that could eradicate or improve such culture from the
workplace highlights how pernicious such a culture can be.
Workplace cultures, whether by design or by inattention, can often lead
to conflict avoidant practices, where bad news gets hidden or
minimized, where constructive criticism gets discouraged or even
punished, and where generally healthy debate gets effectively removed
from the very place that modern management should value, encourage
and expect it. As conflict expert Kenneth Cloke warns:
“As a result, organizations have developed cultures that
encourage people to avoid discussing difficult issues, not fully
communicate what they really want, and settle for partial
solutions or no solution at all. In doing so, they cheat themselves
and others in the workplace out of learning from their conflicts
and discovering more skilful ways of resolving disputes.”

52
Such a workplace culture is often writ large across policies and
procedures, and disciplinary codes, processes and outcomes often
become the manifest face of such cultures.

b. Disciplinary codes and processes

Outdated workplace disciplinary codes and processes, in the
implementation of the letter and the spirit of such mechanisms, are
some of the worst causes and triggers of workplace conflict, often
without that link being noticed or understood. This can, and often is,
the case even when such a code and set of procedures, at least on the
face of it, comply fully with current legal requirements.
Outdated codes and processes are often overturned at dispute
resolution forums such as the CCMA, bargaining councils or the Labour
Court, and the time, cost and open aggression that these systems
engender lead to deficits in trust (in the system, in each other),
willingness to resolve disputes and a gradual cynicism, which in turn
triggers cycles of further misconduct, poor performance and
motivation, staff retention problems and other forms of workplace
conflict. These codes and processes are often cobbled together from a
variety of sources and motivations over a period of years, and then
applied in isolation, without all involved necessarily knowing the over-
arching strategy or goals, assuming there are even such considerations
involved. These codes and processes are often aimed at mere
compliance with minimum legal standards, the “what can we get away
with” approach to workplace conflict.
Employees do not just want to follow rules and regulations, often
perceived as arbitrary and punitive, they also need to understand, at
least at some basic level, what the purpose and general reasoning
behind such rule or process is. Why are hearings held, what is the
purpose of a written warning, why are people dismissed? These rules
and processes are often simply words in a file in HR’s office, quickly
read and dimly remembered. Poor or ineffective communication,
inconsistent application (in reality or perception), overly strict or
disciplinarian approaches, cultural insensitivities and perceived insults
all contribute to the very place, system and people who are appointed

53
and used to determine, maintain and enforce discipline and good
conduct. This entrenched and hidden-in-plain-sight approach is one of
the main sources and triggers of harmful, repetitive workplace conflict.
This, needless to say, then spills over into bigger and more traditional
concerns such as productivity, performance, workplace harmony and so
on.

These concerns are not disposed of by simply drafting a compliant brand

new disciplinary code. Many examples exist of perfectly fine codes
failing spectacularly because involved staff were not properly trained
in the underlying principles and application thereof, it was applied
inconsistently, workplace culture that was incongruent with such new
code interfered with the implementation thereof, or other more
systemic conflict issues first had to be addressed before such a code
could be implemented. This observable chain of harmful events also
emphasises our earlier discussion about the importance of seeing the
correct and effective causes of these results as being unresolved
conflict, and not the symptoms that we so often focus on.

c. Cultural errors
Employers often create conflict causes and triggers in the workplace
without the intention of doing so, and often with the best motives and
intentions in mind. One of the culprits here are cultural errors, where
a misunderstanding or incorrect assessment of simple cultural
differences lead to significant and repetitive conflict causes and
triggers, often hidden behind requirements of politeness, political
correctness or an inaccurate understanding of how conflict can be dealt
with constructively. Examples here would include how various groups
or individuals view power, the use thereof and their roles in interacting
with such power, face saving requirements, the unconscious repression
of healthy conflict, gender roles and so on. We deal with this topic in
greater depth in chapter 6.

54
d. The use and application of workplace power
Power in the workplace has several sources, and the availability and
application of such power varies across time based on several dynamics
such as the willingness to use such power, commercial and legal
considerations, changes in personnel and leadership/management and
so on. These centres and sources of workplace power, such as individual
leaders, management teams, employee groups, unions, commercial
considerations and the like are seldom studied and analysed by
management in a focused manner and treated as the crucial conflict
dynamics that they are. They are approached as ad hoc obstacles or
brute facts and hardly ever factored into conflict resolution as separate
considerations. This invariably leads to an incorrect assessment of
conflict causes and, with no surprise, then to the solutions and
strategies applied to such conflicts and their consequences being
inadequate or actually further contributing to conflict and suboptimal
performance.
Power centres in the workplace require careful and honest assessment,
understanding and then correct application in addressing workplace
conflict drivers.
Think of a few examples of the causes of conflict in your workplace, or
ask colleagues for a few examples. If we look at the question through a
conflict research and practice lens, we see three main causes, that
being scarce resources, maintaining and promoting a positive view of
the self, and a desire to hold consensually shared and socially validated
opinions and beliefs (relating to values and identities). Getting the
causes wrong gets the solutions wrong.
We see how these outdated practices cause and perpetuate their own
conflicts, which management must then try to deal with, often through
indirect approaches, costs and delays, underperformance and
unnecessary operational challenges. It should consequently be a high
management priority to effectively address these issues.

A constant and often overlooked conflict dynamic in the workplace is

the role that teams and their management requirements play in the
causation and perpetuation of workplace conflicts. We can now turn to

55
a few interesting recent developments in the management of team
conflicts. This is a self-evident arena for management conflict
improvement, and should be seen as part of the abovementioned list of
examples of areas that need to be better understood and managed.
Given the importance of team conflict and the complexities that may
be involved in effectively dealing with it, we can focus on that aspect
of effective conflict management under its own heading.

Recent developments in workplace team conflict

Conflict research continues to do exciting work in workplace conflict

management, with a particular interest for me in workplace team
conflicts. Here the word conflict denotes the more visible forms of it,
but also those more hidden and unacknowledged ones leading to
underperformance, poor staff retention at higher team levels, subtle
task sabotage efforts and polarization.
Particularly interesting insights have, and continue to be gained using
modern conflict research tools such as neuro-biology, neuro-
psychology, game theory (the Prisoner’s Dilemma amongst others) and
other multi-disciplinary inputs. These case studies (and practical
applications) give us a significantly better understanding of team
interdependencies, in-group/out-group thought processes and
motivations, misalignments of individual, group and organizational
goals.
One of the immediately practical and valuable insights gained from this
conflict work has been the crucial distinction between resource
conflicts and value or identity based conflicts (see Chapter 4), the
different conflict skills that these contrasting workplace scenarios
would need, and the harm that comes from using the wrong conflict
strategies in managing these distinctive categories, especially in the
workplace.
Once we know and understand these important differences the
seemingly intractable workplace conflicts, strikes and impasse of
various intensity that we see on our media screens and in our streets
become a lot more understandable, predictable and manageable. These

56
conflict principles and their accompanying strategies are essential
management tools to understand and lead the modern team.
Recent research also shows that team conflict can often be addressed
very successfully simply by engineering and encouraging internal
discussion and strategically directed discourse among team members
themselves, without the need for external and possibly intrusive
leadership intervention. A word of warning on this strategy though: if it
succeeds early it can lead to an increase in team coherence, spirit,
conflict confidence and problem solving outcomes. If it does not
succeed, or if it takes too long to succeed, it can do lasting damage not
to the internal team dynamics, but also perceptions of the team
regarding involved management. We will return to this important topic
below.

Improving workplace conflict competency and outcomes can be

intricate, large-scale management strategies or smaller improvements
to existing systems and skill levels. Let’s look at a few of these
immediate available workplace conflict strategies.

Suggested workplace conflict improvements

a. Design an adequate workplace conflict system

This sounds more onerous than what it needs be in practice. A conflict

system is a simple blueprint for how conflict gets managed in that
specific workplace, and deals with rules, systems and processes that
align with the larger economic and brand goals of a specific business.
Such a workplace conflict system can retain the best parts of a
traditional disciplinary process, such as a warning system, disciplinary
hearings etc. but also include updated and more efficient conflict
approaches and systems, such as we will see a few examples of in this
chapter. Such a conflict system can be designed quickly and cost
effectively, with as much transparency and confidentiality as required,
with input from relevant role-players, and a good system will include
internal mechanisms for control, upgrades and improvements required
by expansion so as to prevent constant revision or amendments.

57
Chapter 11 deals extensively with the conflict options available for
these efficiency upgrades. The most important understanding in this
discussion is to realize that the modern efficient workplace should not
see a dichotomy of conflict management versus traditional HR and
workplace discipline practices, but that the effective management of
conflict is the bedrock of those more traditional HR and disciplinary
processes, and also that this approach to conflict is a superior
management tool that carries across multiple business management
disciplines and parameters.

b. Start approaching various workplace challenges as caused or

triggered by conflict, and understand conflict as the driver of
such challenges
South African workplaces are still generally dealing with the symptoms
of workplace conflict, such as strikes, poor performance, misconduct,
poor staff retention, litigation, certain aspects of brand management
and so on, as opposed to understanding and managing the underlying
cause of such symptoms, that being unresolved or poorly managed
conflict. This important leadership blindspot dooms that workplace to
perpetually being on the receiving end of such symptoms.
Modern management should ensure a change of focus to understand
that all of these symptoms come from a source higher upstream, that
these symptoms can be constructively addressed and minimized or even
prevented. This requires a change of focus from a reactive problem
managing philosophy to a far richer, constructive and pro-active
problem solving approach, one which again has measurable and
manageable goals and results. Understand the power and potential of
conflict, see how it manifests in these symptoms, learn to harness that
potential and reap the rewards of conflict, as opposed to avoiding or
mismanaging it. Armed with this change in focus management can see
that dealing with conflict causes are more helpful, more cost efficient
and more productive than continuing to deal with the symptoms of such
conflict causes. Through this lens poor timekeeping can be seen to have
more to do with socio-economic factors than proof of poor discipline,

58
misconduct can be understood as relationship failures rather than
attacks on the business and so on.
While this refocusing may seem like, and actually entails more work in
the short term for designated management teams or individuals,
dealing with conflict structurally and holistically as opposed to
symptomatically will show positive returns in time and money saved on
dealing with the above symptoms. The organizational benefits of this
shift in focus deals not just with avoiding negatives, but also becoming
able to derive benefits from the positive consequences of such a
paradigm shift.

c. Implement a mediation level

Correctly understood and applied (see Chapter 7 and resources cited
below), mediation is a very powerful and beneficial management tool.
It has all the benefits of a hard discipline approach, but comes with
several other benefits with real-world value, such as a measurable
saving in time and costs, a more productive and creative option to
resolve conflict, the possible retention or improvement of important
workplace relationships, improved information gathering and sharing,
an increase in trust across groups or teams and an increase in
constructive workplace harmony.
Research and actual onsite experience, across a wide range of
industries and professions, show the abovementioned benefits, as well
as a reduction in legalistic disciplinary processes, less conflict rigidity
experienced by all involved parties, a reduction in real and perceived
threats and insults among participants, and a feeling among employees
that they have more options than just the fight or resign traditional
choice. This often leads to more open communication and information
sharing, an easier and earlier acceptance of culpability by employees,
and a reduction of legal and procedural challenges such as evidence
gathering, the onus resting on the employer to prove culpability and so
on. Mediation can also serve to clear the decks of disciplinary hearing
processes for otherwise more contentious and important disputes.
Workplace conflicts often start with small conflicts, misunderstandings
and poor communications simply not identified or dealt with. Victims

59
real or perceived are often quite satisfied with resolutions that allow
them to be heard and respectfully recognized. Senior staff involved in
the mediation level process have also reported a feeling of increased
moral and ethical options resulting from this option.
Mediation is also not, when done properly, a compromise solution.
Modern conflict resolution research and case studies all promote
creative solutions over “meet you in the middle” compromises, and the
mediation process in the hands of a skilled operator is thing of creative
power and beauty. Mediation often brings solutions that simply are not
available to the more conventional disciplinary processes.
Employers can obtain all of the benefits of the internal mediation
system without losing any of the real or perceived benefits of a more
traditional workplace disciplinary system by simply integrating such a
mediation system into its existing disciplinary system, with minimal
tweaks in procedure. After an initial training regimen this mediation
system can be run as a completely internal process, with one or two
employees (who can be a part of the already existing structure) being
appropriately trained. This mediation level should be a fully
transferable skill, but in a properly designed system management
controls any instances where any of these functions should be
outsourced to adequately trained and experienced consultants, such as
the seniority of affected employees, team disputes and so on.
Care should be taken to fully integrate such a mediation level solution,
as research shows that an ad hoc application of mediation in the
workplace is unlikely to transform the culture of conflict management
in an organization. A structured and integrative approach is necessary
to obtain all of the benefits of workplace mediation. This is certainly
not hard to accomplish, and is often achieved in an initial assessment
and early exploratory discussions.
Having a tailor-made mediation level as part of an employer’s
workplace conflict system shows an employer that is willing to
understand and work with workplace conflict, an impression that has
several other benefits in the branding and marketing spheres. It is the
modern, and highly efficient, way to manage workplace conflict.

60
d. Monitor and regulate your workplace culture
A workplace culture can be defined as the prevailing informal collection
of attitudes, views and methods found in a workplace or workplace area
that prescribes or determines how more formal workplace policies,
disputes and developments are dealt with at the level of the various
employees influenced by that culture. These spheres of influence can
greatly affect all other decisions and strategies, and it is often the
foundation from which all else on the policy front flows, often unseen
or misunderstood. It is also a crucial dynamic in understanding, shaping
and directing most if not all workplace conflicts, from conflict
avoidance, gossip campaigns, misinformation, industrial action,
misconduct and performance issues, trust and respect levels and so
much more. I am currently running a few informal experiments with
national clients in training selected employees in a basic conflict
program, which will teach these employees to manage and resolve most
of their own workplace conflicts as they arise, which should have far-
reaching benefits across a spectrum of key areas. This has a direct
influence on these workplace cultures. They need to be understood and
included in any conflict or employment strategies.
In addition to any other campaigns and improvements, employers
should see to it that their workplace cultures (the real one, not the
slogan) align properly with such goals and programs. Misalignment, or a
toxic workplace culture, will make effective workplace conflict
management unnecessarily difficult, if not impossible. Departments,
teams and combinations of employees and service providers can exhibit
these cultures in smaller form, and any effective conflict strategy
should be aware of such subculture. A company’s workplace culture can
be a relatively easy place to start a better and more efficient
understanding and management of workplace conflict.

e. Workplace dignity
Modern conflict management has recognized the integral part that the
dignity of all participants in workplace interactions play, and how this,
in its presence or absence, is a very important driver of such workplace
conflicts. It is the bedrock of perceptions of fairness, consistency,

61
power disparities and whether people should be trusted, and research
shows that people are prepared to harm their own best interests if they
perceive unwarranted impairment of their dignity. Actual field
observations show clearly that a recognition of dignity in the workplace
brings about a series of other important results, such as meaningful
increases in loyalty, productivity and staff retention.
Often perceived as either a given not worthy of further attention or an
irritating impediment by employers and leaders, the importance of the
study and understanding the role of dignity in a specific workplace and
its direct and indirect impact on workplace conflict cannot be over-
emphasized.
This requires an assessment wider than mere compliance and box-
ticking, and this aspect should be thoroughly understood before an
employer can begin to believe that it is adequately managing its
conflicts. It is also a potent argument in favour of a workplace
mediation system, as such an option often allows parties to address
joint problems with increased focus on mutual dignity considerations,
without limiting or prejudicing operational standards. Properly
understood and applied dignity is not a fuzzy concept designed to make
everyone feel better, but an actual, efficient tool in management’s
hands.

f. The way we negotiate

The causes and triggers of our various workplace disputes, especially on
the macro level (involving strikes, lockouts, wage disputes and so on)
are easily assessed and understood. One important conflict driver which
we often leave out of this mix is the way in which we negotiate.
This observation has nothing to do with politeness or hurt feelings, but
with operational efficiency. While boardroom lore quite correctly tells
us of bad faith negotiations launched by trade unions or employee
groups on occasion, a deeper investigation shows a concerning level of
outdated conflict and negotiation applications used by some employers.
Here the understanding and use of power, the crucial use of facts in
identity and value conflicts (see chapter 4), cultural and gender

62
ignorance, the refusal to understand and correctly apply face saving
strategies and many others, simply (and demonstrably) make matters
worse and inevitably, and predictably, lead to conflict rigidity and
cyclical conflicts.
Many of these strategies and techniques can be learned and become an
internally transferable skillset (see e.g. chapter 5), and has to do with
management’s conflict competency. Modern responsible leadership
owes it to itself and its shareholders to get this important conflict
upgrade.

Under the heading of practical strategies I would also like to include, in

simple summarised, point by point form, a ten point workplace conflict
strategy proposed by Kenneth Cloke and Joan Goldsmith in their book
“Resolving Conflicts at Work”, a strategy that proved so popular in
some of my own practical work and seminars that I believe it deserves
a mention here.

The ten points are reasonably self-explanatory, and readers who need
more details can of course consult the book (see reference section
below), or contact me for our seminar notes on the topic.

Cloke and Goldsmith then sets out the following sequence for improved
workplace conflict management:
(1) Understand the culture and dynamics of conflict
(2) Listen empathetically and responsively
(3) Search beneath the surface for hidden meanings
(4) Acknowledge and reframe emotions
(5) Separate what matters from what gets in the way
(6) Solve problems paradoxically and creatively
(7) Learn from difficult behaviours
(8) Lead and coach for transformation
(9) Explore resistance and negotiate collaboratively
(10) Mediate and design systems for prevention

63
 A further note on workplace mediation as management tool

The research and suggested section at the end of this essay contains a
link to a more detailed article I wrote on workplace mediation, but for
our purposes here we can add the following considerations.
Workplace mediation can be a rather difficult conflict tool to measure.
When are we dealing with success in mediation, for example? Is it when
conflict is reduced, is it when it increases but gets resolved in a more
lasting manner? Is it when costs are saved, or relationships improved?
As we have seen earlier, workplace mediation offers a wealth of very
real benefits and conflict management tools, but I still suggest that
each workplace conducts their own set of measurements and
impressions to gauge the success or failure of their own workplace
mediation system, using their own goals and operational assessments as
integrated with their brand values and aspirations.
With that said, there are some international statistics that can give us
some indication of the benefits of workplace mediation.
UK statistics, for example, show that the costs of resolving workplace
conflict through other, more conventional measures can be up to five
times higher than using workplace mediation. This seems to be caused
at least in part by the fact that workplace mediation can get to and
deal with workplace conflict so early on. A number of workplace
mediation programs in the US show high rates of resolution and
satisfaction among parties, and in one particular instance (the USPS
Redress scheme) 90% of participants were satisfied with the mediation
outcomes, with specifically 64% of employees and 70% of supervisors
being satisfied. Importantly also, informal workplace grievances and
complaints fell by 30% after the introduction of the program. Several
other US studies mirror these general findings. In New Zealand the
settlement figures of these mediations have been as high as 81%, while
UK settlement figures have been recorded as high as 90%, with
corresponding levels of satisfaction among participants. These studies
also show how workplace relationships benefit from workplace
mediation, how staff retention rates (including high level employees)
are improved, an increase in productivity and job satisfaction,
grievances being aired in a less confrontational manner, cathartic and

64
healing outcomes that would not have been possible through more
adversarial systems, a healthier exchange of different perspectives and
many other pertinent workplace assets.
Workplace mediation, at least in its South African context, works very
well and if it is introduced with the benefits of even a basic DSD
framework it shows a long list of measurable and manageable workplace
benefits. Small challenges, such as mid-level managers being sceptical
of losing perceived control in this process, the integration of the process
in existing disciplinary processes and management feedback, and so on,
exist but can all be addressed in the design and implementation phase
of the decision.
Workplace mediation also raises the interesting management question
as to whether to use external mediators or to train and use internal
mediators. Studies show that success in resolution is often higher with
external mediators, partly because they may be seen as being more
impartial and credible than internal staff, but that these benefits are
counterbalanced by the use of internal mediators showing better
returns on costs and time delays as compared to the use of external
mediators. My own advice on this is that the bulk of internal conflicts
can, and should, be dealt with by internal mediators, with only a few
of the more complex and potentially problematic ones being referred
for external mediation.
An interesting observation noticed by several organizations and
practitioners is the subtle way in which the very existence of a
workplace mediation program can influence conflict in a particular
workplace. If this is comprehensively and skilfully introduced, it often
creates a heightened sense of conflict competency among all levels of
employees. Staff may feel more empowered, managers believe that
operational and other conflict related problems will be dealt with
speedier and more efficiently, and there may come to exist a new
culture of increased problem solving and mutual respect.
Workplace mediation is normally quite popular with trade unions, and
toxic relationships across the workplace spectrum can be improved or
healed using this mechanism. Mediation often teaches people, at deep
and subtle levels, how to change their own conflict behaviour, how to
show increased respect and how to acknowledge the dignity of

65
opponents, how to raise and resolve their own problems, and it removes
the fear and reluctance of harsh sanctions and harmful processes. In
brief, it opens people up, and improves their workplace conduct and
attitudes. These seeds can have wider transformative results in the
workplace.
We can also consider a few important specialized topics that can impact
our management and conflict strategies. These are:

Applied team dynamics and conflict

Modern conflict research, especially the specialised workplace areas

thereof, focuses heavily on team dynamics, given the significant impact
this type of conflict can have on so many commercial and operational
considerations. We have considered some of these considerations
earlier on, and any application of these principles to a specific team
should be finalised only after a unique, team-specific assessment has
been done.
For purposes of our study here of these team dynamics we need to
understand three categories of such team conflicts. They are task
conflict, where team members have real or potential conflict directly
related to a given task or target, some operational goal and so on,
relationship conflict, where the conflict is really about the relationship
and not the task, and process conflict, where there may be
disagreement as to how decisions are made.
There is sound evidence available that, when properly managed, task
conflict can improve team performance and outcomes. Relationship
conflict, on the other hand, primarily leads to negative performance
and outcomes, and should be treated differently, and avoided where
possible. Process conflict, when identified and resolved early on can
lead to positive outcomes, while the converse is true if undetected or
dealt with too late in team conflicts. These factors are crucial items of
information for our later discussions of effective DSD programs.

66
 Dissent in teams – the hidden performance enhancer

I have observed a rather unhelpful dichotomy in South African

workplaces, where dissent, especially in group and team contexts, is
either seen as an asset, or as a negative conflict outcome that should
be avoided as far as possible.
As our brief specialized note will show, both of these approaches are
unfortunately incorrect, with some very well hidden costs and
consequences flowing from that misunderstanding. This dissent should
be distinguished from our previous heading, that dealing with actual
conflict in teams. Here we are talking about simple disagreement that
may or may not lead to actual conflict, even in its widest sense.
We can start by accepting the conventional wisdom that dissent does
enhance creativity and performance, but we have to add “when
properly understood and managed”.
From management’s perspective this type of conflict management, in
the sense that potential conflict is managed while it is still in the
dissent phase, requires a few tweaks to ordinary team management, as
it is understood and practiced by the majority of workplaces.
A few of these adjustments and revised applications would include the
following:
- Management should create a continuous atmosphere of constructive
controversy, or meaningful dissent. Team members should know
that dissent is valued and that it contributes to perspectives,
solutions and performance. It is when people dissent and that
background, that implied understanding of the value and role of
dissent is not understood by all, that dissent turns into resentment,
repression, escalation and other conflict markers. Management and
senior team members should understand what constructive dissent
is, and this should then be applied in the everyday team operational
tasks and goals.
- Research shows that minority dissent stimulates and improves
creativity in a team, regardless of whether the minority is correct
or not. This supports a team culture of dissent regardless of
accuracy, and an absence of adverse consequences for being wrong

67
 in these discussions (please note the difference between allowing
inaccurate dissent as a management tool and performance value).
- Research shows emphatically that in complex problems, where a
correct solution may not be apparent in the beginning, team
decision quality benefits from dissent. This finding should again
encourage such dissent, and ease management’s concerns over
getting the right solution immediately. This often leads to team
tensions and the resultant conflict escalation.
- There is a difference between majority dissent and minority
dissent, and they should be managed differently. Team dissent has
an activating effect on the manner in which information is
processed and how it is shared. Interestingly, research shows that
in these types of situations team members may understand a
dissenter’s point of view clearer than they understand the team
members with whose opinion they agree. This is as a result of this
activating effect. Issues are now discussed at a different level, and
often more intensely so. It is here again where management walks
a thin line between reaping the benefits of dissent and descending
into unnecessary and unproductive conflict. Remedies and team
goals could include a team culture of problem solving and the actual
valuing of constructive dissent. Although this leads to different
strategies, the simplest takeaway from this research is that
exposure to minority dissent is more likely to enhance individual
creativity and performance than exposure to majority dissent. This
is not the case with individual performance, which increases with
either majority or minority dissent, but only if a direct application
of what the majority proposes leads to actual success. Again, a
practical example of why management should understand the tools
that can provide this higher level of benefit.
- Management should control these realities by way of establishing
an understanding and comfort with dissent among senior
management members involved in the managing of these teams,
with the transformation of dissent and the use of dialectical tools
to get the best out of this dissent.

68
- It follows that, where creativity and solution quality is concerned,
management should seek to maximize dissent when forming teams.
Management should be alert to the fact that dissent, for all its
values referred to in the examples above, must be expressed and
properly reacted to. This may also require a level of initial coaching
and management supervision.

These requirements may not be as self-evident as they may appear at

first. Minority formations or individuals in a team often do not express
dissent, due to factors unique to the team or company culture, or even
their own personal views and concerns. Dissent that is not expressed
has no value. The same goes for the team reactions to such dissent. If
people do not react to such dissent, due to disrespect, fear of speaking
out or being wrong, or one of several other observed reasons, the value
of dissent in team management is similarly lost or minimized. Both of
these requirements suffer or gain by the extent to which the team
leader(s) use a dialectical style of conversation during such dissent, in
other words where dissent is encouraged, where viewpoints are drawn
out, consequences and applications to the problem at hand are
considered, and generally where people feel safe to participate,
including the possibility to be wrong. This is also a juncture where a
team leader’s insistence on always being right shuts down such
benefits, and where those team members have taken some big first
steps towards team conflict.
Management should guard against perceptions, quite prevalent in South
African workplaces, that dissenters are disloyal or troublemakers.
Management should ensure that such dissent is sincere, as mimicking
dissent leads to all sorts of other conflicts and challenges such as
information withholding and conflict rigidity.
Dissent being enduringly absent in a team should give management
some cause for concern.

69
 Conflict and virtual teams

Developments during and after the Covid pandemic have led to a few
very important new conflict frontiers becoming worthy of attention.
These include the different conflict outcomes and strategies necessary
to deal with virtual teams (VT), as they may be variously structured and
applied in the modern workplace.
These virtual teams have been quite popular even before the pandemic,
and some of the early studies of these groups show some interesting
dynamics that mirror in-person team conflicts to an extent, but also
show some important divergences. This is caused by inter alia the fact
that these teams are often geographically dispersed, they comprise of
various intermittent subgroups and they show different work practices
and cultural backgrounds. These are all potential conflict causes and
triggers.
At this stage of the research, we notice that virtual teams generally
experience higher degrees of conflict than traditional teams. Virtual
teams show these increased conflict potentials as a result of several of
these unique characteristics of the virtual nature of their working
relationship itself. An early marker is an inability to develop mutual
understanding and shared knowledge, which in turn may cause
misunderstandings, misinterpretations, misattributions and the
resultant trust challenges, conflict escalation and conflict rigidity,
including decreases in creativity and performance.
One of the influences on these conflicts that gives rise to increased
conflict potential is the communication medium itself. This is borne out
by some of the complaints in these studies that show complaints (and
conflict causes) arising from events such as not answering emails and
text messages, perceived inconsiderate use of such media, and soon,
following on this, in-group polarization and stereotyping. The absence
or limitation of interpersonal contact, nonverbal cues and a few other
causes of conflicts can be observed in these studies. They present clear
management challenges, and should be approached as the specialised
areas of conflict management that they are.

70
These studies also however show some positive conflict potential in
virtual teams. Here facets of their communication, such as a decreased
potential for communication errors in email, the absence of accents in
some electronic communication and a few other virtual team specifics
may lead to a breakdown of perceived differences and an easier
acceptance of similarities, leading to better group cohesion.
Once conflict has commenced in a VT, the communication media brings
its own unique conflict challenges. Studies show that it is more difficult
to rebuild consensus in a VT, but that the interactive nature of some
communication media may in fact lead to easier and earlier
differentiation. VT also seem to over time, and if managed correctly,
build conflict resolution capabilities and priorities into their work
routines, leading to a neutralization of these conflict negatives if the
group can stay together long enough, with an expected increase in their
conflict competency.
These studies also confirm that, just as with other in-person teams,
diversity, if not managed correctly in a VT, can be an important source
of conflict, and that how the group handles that conflict impacts
whether there are positive or negative conflict outcomes.
Where possible, let a VT meet each other in person early on, and spend
some time together, both in a work and social context. This could
possibly establish trust and a personal connection.
These nuances in conflict management should be borne in mind when
designing management strategies involving these virtual teams.

A few personal workplace conflict safeguards

While this essay concentrates mostly on conflict from the employer’s

perspective, there are quite a few general strategies and techniques
that we can make use of to protect ourselves on an entirely personal
level in these workplace conflicts as well. A few of these would include:

- Try to keep a healthy perspective about these workplace conflicts.

Throwing together business needs, commercial pressures and a
variety of personalities and agendas on a daily basis, is bound to

71
 lead to conflict. It is hardly ever about you. These conflicts
generally stem from resource and interests competition, and
although these conflicts may seem personal and hurtful, they are
more often than not just the result of these frictions.
- Modern conflict management teaches us that the managing of
interpersonal conflicts, both as far as our own responses as well as
our conduct and behaviour towards others, is a much more
productive and realistic endeavour, especially in the workplace,
than trying to meaningfully change people. Try to ascertain the true
cause and trigger of a particular conflict, but do not expect to
necessarily change people. Try to change behaviour, at the very
least. Often this is all that you need.
- Build and maintain your workplace boundaries. Workplace conflicts
are often either caused or exacerbated by personal boundaries not
being established, made clear, maintained or enforced. Find your
realistic comfort levels and use those boundaries.
- Document the important events. Modern workplace conflict can be
prevented or improved by simple habits of documentation, such as
confirming important events or discussions with a simple email.
- A workplace can be a rather confined space, with small groups,
cliques and power structures that we are not always aware of. Be
careful to mind the dividing line between a warm, healthy and
productive working relationship with colleagues and a harmful,
toxic workplace situation. Try to keep a healthy, balanced
perspective.

Miscellaneous modern workplace conflict issues

Trade unions

In line with global trends, if not always for the same reasons, workplace
conflict in South Africa is at present marked and influenced by the
current decline of trade unions’ power and influence. This leads to
certain increased efficiencies in dealing with workplace conflict, but
also a potentially concerning power disparity between management and

72
the workers, an imbalance which serves no one well. This decline in
union fortunes may be halted or reversed, but for now workplace
conflict assessments and programs should bear this in mind.
It has always been my preference and advice, throughout the last thirty
years, to where possible and necessary, rather foster and encourage a
strong and robust working relationship with a union than to be without
such an organized front. Constructive engagement with a union(s) at
the workplace, if correctly understood and implemented, has several
areas of benefit for the employer, such as increased efficiency in
communication and information exchange, accountability, uniformity
in acceptance, implementation and monitoring of policies, better
conflict management and several other industry specific areas.
The reluctance to fully allow union participation and their full
integration in workplace conflict management is based on a few
outdated myths (such as that this leads to increased conflict, legalistic
obstacles and labour unrest among union members and employees), and
these unnecessary but understandable concerns are easily dispersed by
management’s own experience and measurable observations.

Work from home

The fascinating work from home (WFH) debate generated mainly by the
Covid-19 pandemic has brought about new causes and triggers for
workplace conflict. New parameters and questions regarding
productivity, monitoring and workplace cultures must be debated and
established in many new areas, and several interesting workplace
experiments are being conducted globally. Hybrid forms of workplace
determination, for example, will bring about at least short-term
management challenges of its own.

Some of these new questions (and potential conflicts) involve people’s

sense of identity, safety and self-worth, and this is bound to create
some complex conflicts, especially when these concerns collide with
management’s requirements around monitoring and profitability.

73
As new as these conflicts may appear, they run on the same underlying
concerns as other, older workplace conflicts, and should be approached
as such. This new frontier also gives all involved parties some wonderful
opportunities to design creative new solutions for their specific
workplace environment. This is a modern example of the potential that
conflict, correctly managed, has to bring innovation and improvement
to the workplace.

Organizational democracy

Workplace leadership structures are often faced with ongoing internal

conflicts about the content, implementation and limitations of what we
can loosely refer to as its organizational democracy. This may be even
more so in the South African workplace, where several practices and
thought processes of the past have left quite a few dysfunctional
leadership practices in place.
While there may seem to be a general understanding by management
that a certain level of workplace freedom and a democratic culture has
its commercial benefits, this impulse is seldom properly assessed and
implemented for the particular workplace and its culture, or it is
haphazardly applied with insufficient planning and ability, or seen as a
once-off project reluctantly attempted. The result is often a cobbled
together, disjointed project that would make Frankenstein’s monster
feel whole and complete.
Workplace cultures, bureaucracy, silos and practices can create
seemingly intractable conflicts, and in a very operationally real sense a
workplace democracy can be seen as a system designed to prevent,
mitigate and manage those conflicts.
Synchronizing such a project is crucially necessary, and needs focused
and competent leadership. How such a workplace democracy gets
brought down from lofty slogans to workplace reality is often the main
source and driver of endless workplace conflicts, which then ends in
ineffective downstream rules, processes, frustration and wasted costs.
A healthy synergy between understanding conflict, its drivers and how
this feeds in to the company’s specific commercial needs and projects

74
must be found and institutionalized. This proactively prevents many
destructive sources of conflict, it mitigates unavoidable ones, and it
brings several cost-effective, measurable creative solutions to
management on several levels.
Again, the creation and managing of such a modern workplace
democracy has nothing to do with slogans, political correctness or
appeasement, and everything to do with modern leadership and
commercial efficiency.

Transgender workplace conflict

Despite our generally sophisticated legislative frameworks regulating

the various questions and disputes arising from the protection and
implementation of transgender rights in the South African workplace,
some high level causes and triggers of workplace conflict in this area
remain. Anecdotally I can report that most industries and professions
have made some meaningful and inspiring progress with what could be
a very difficult and complex topic, although I would like to see more
focused research and statistics on the accurate position of transgender
employees in the South African workplace.
The resource section below contains a link to an article I have written
on these questions, including a few practical suggestions on how these
potential conflicts can be managed.

Workplace aggression and conflict – a specialized consideration

Important work is being done in workplace conflict research on the

triggers of workplace aggression, and how that impacts on employees
and employers.
A working definition of workplace aggression would refer to any form
of behaviour that is exhibited towards the goal of harming one or more
person (or the organization itself) in the workplace. This manifests in
examples of workplace conflict such as employee norm deviant
behaviour, revenge, retaliatory behaviour, workplace violence or

75
bullying, emotional abuse, uncivility, abusive supervision, social media
attacks and other forms of conflict.
These conflicts are triggered by a variety of events and causes, which
can most helpfully be divided into individual drivers, such as a
propensity to violence, personality types, domestic problems,
tendencies towards personal instability and substance or alcohol abuse,
and organizational drivers such as company cultures that create or
encourage such behaviour, ineffective conflict management systems,
perceptions of unfair conduct from management, inconsistencies and
others.
Research clearly shows a direct link between the experience of
workplace aggression and psychological and physiological outcomes,
negative job attitudes and, in turn, further negative work-related
conduct. This includes depression, anxiety, stress, helplessness, low
self-esteem, lower energy levels and exhaustion, somatic complaints
and absenteeism, decreased levels of workplace loyalty and team
commitment, and a range of conflict propensities that extend to a
blurring of work-family conflicts.
Any modern leadership and management team must be aware of these
conflicts and the harm they cause, and integrate such facts into any
workplace strategies, even ones that have a commercial or operational
focus. Conflict research here delivers a few insights of great practical
importance. We see, for instance, that management that uses
inappropriately accommodating or avoidant strategies to deal with such
workplace violence actually end up unwittingly contributing to the
victimization of employees. Ineffective conflict resolution strategies
here involves the employer in what may have been an individual
conflict, with victim employees resorting to a variety of negative
conflict outcomes, such as retaliation, avoidance, leaving the
organization or entering in conflict with the employer through avenues
such as litigation.

76
 Line management objections

Experience in national conflict management systems show an

understandable level of resistance and pushback from some line
managers and HR personnel against any meaningful conflict
management changes or dispute system design (DSD) strategies (see
Chapter 11).

Concerns and complaints, if they are raised at all, include sensitivities

around implied criticism of their previous work, a perceived loss of
managerial control and authority, perceptions of an increase in training
and workload, insecurities about the mastering of new skills, the loss of
established power structures and a few others. These concerns, if not
addressed and integrated sufficiently, can lead to subsequent
resentment, polarization or even significant levels of program
sabotage.
Some of these concerns, such as those relating to less than optimal
workplace cultures, the creation or perpetuation of conflict causes or
triggers and so on should best be faced and eradicated. Other concerns
are more justified and buy-in and commitment must be carefully
managed by the early inclusion of decision makers, transparency and a
clear vision transfer to those involved. Assurances of support and clarity
around the benefits of these new conflict systems should complete such
a process.

Conclusion

Modern businesses, especially in South Africa, often operate on the

finest of edges, with mistakes and avoidable costs potentially proving
fatal to the prosperity or the very existence of a business. Nearly all of
these risks, results and strategies can be traced back to one topic,
whether it involves commercial negotiations, pricing and supply chain
concerns, employee and performance issues, or profit and loss, and that
is human conflict, specifically at the workplace.

77
The South African workplace has in the last two or three years shown
some promising signs that it may be willing to change some of these
harmful and outdated internal practices and processes, but much work
needs to be done.

The reading suggestion section below contains links to several more in-
depth articles on some of the topics that we have started investigating
in this essay.

REFERENCES AND READING SUGGESTIONS

(Chapter 3)
1. My in-depth article on workplace mediation can be found at
WORKPLACE MEDIATION - An overdue innovation - The Conflict
Conversations (conflict-conversations.co.za)
2. Dignity, by Donna Hicks, Yale University Press (2011)
3. My City Press article on the role of dignity in conflict can be found
here: The role of dignity in conflict resolution - My City Press
article - The Conflict Conversations (conflict-conversations.co.za)
4. Radical Transformation and Sustainability for an advanced
manufacturing industry, by Richard Noor and others, Reach
Publishers (2020)
5. My article setting out some strategies for labour union negotiations
can be found at MANAGING CONFLICT DURING LABOUR UNION
NEGOTIATIONS - The Conflict Conversations (conflict-
conversations.co.za)
6. Resolving Organizational Conflicts, by Kenneth Cloke and Joan
Goldsmith, Good Mmedia Press (2021)
7. The Psychology of Conflict and Conflict Management in
Organizations, edited by Carsten De Dreu et all, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates (2008)
8. Resolving conflicts at work, by Kenneth Cloke and Joan Goldsmith,
Jossey-Bass (2011)

78
9. Sage Handbook of Conflict Communication (2nd edition), edited by
John G Oetzel and Stella Ting-Toomey, Sage Publications (2013)
10. For an excellent study on the nuances and management
complexities inherent in properly managing dissent in teams, the
chapter Dissent as Facilitator: Individual and Group Level Effects
on Creativity and Performance by Stefan Schulz-Hardt, Andreas
Mojzisch and Frank Vogelsang in The Psychology of Conflict supra
is highly recommended.
11. My article considering a few practical strategies for potential
transgender related workplace conflict can be found at
Transgender prejudice in the workplace - The Conflict
Conversations (conflict-conversations.co.za) or the article for
News24 at OPINION | Andre Vlok: Dealing with prejudice against
trans co-workers | News24

79
 CHAPTER 4: IDENTITY AND VALUE CONFLICTS
A need for new conflict strategies

Anyone who sits for an hour in a court of law, listening to

arguments from both sides, would concur. Facts can always be
used to bolster one opinion over the other, but they’re not
necessarily the truth.

Mphuthumi Ntabeni

How do you eradicate contempt, especially when that contempt is

founded on nothing more substantial than differences in table
manners, variations in the structure of the eyelid?

J.M. Coetzee

Values may easily clash within the breast of a single individual;

and it does not follow that, if they do, some must be true and
others false.

Isaiah Berlin

80
 Introduction

One of the most important developments and strategic refinements in

recent conflict case studies and research is an understanding of the
crucial difference between factual arguments and those involving value
or identity based disputes. To the casual observer, arguments are
arguments, only distinguished by their levels of shrillness and intensity.
But this identification of identity arguments, as we will see, is far more
than a mere academic point of interest, as research clearly shows that
using what appears to be conventional conflict and persuasion
strategies in the identity based conflicts can and do have unintended
and very adverse consequences, and where your best efforts and fact-
based spreadsheets and YouTube videos simply serve to entrench your
opponent in his views, where conflict rigidity and polarization is
increased and, on a balance sheet, these efforts of yours have actually
made things worse. In other words, with these conflicts, the harder you
try to convince your opponent, the more damage you are doing to your
argument. This has obvious and very real consequences for our personal
and professional conflicts.

Most of us would have had the experience, professionally or personally,

of being unable to persuade someone of, what appeared to us, a
perfectly simple, logical proposition, based on the facts that we have
gathered and presented. Some of these arguments even show that the
other party will be prejudiced if they do not accept our argument, and
yet they persist with their refusal to see these obvious truths. These
types of scenarios were on daily display on global social media platforms
(and at family dinner tables) during the 2020 US elections, the Covid-
19 pandemic and the vaccination debates. Various interest groups had
their arguments presented with charts, scientific evidence, panels of
experts and all sorts of seemingly objective facts, and yet they had no
discernible influence on the majority of their opponents, and if
anything, these loud conflicts simply grew in shrillness and
commitment.

81
Is it sheer stubbornness or a lack of reading capacity that makes it so
difficult or impossible for some people to accept what appears to be
objective, proven facts? Is it maybe some intellectual shortcoming or
hidden agenda that makes them so obstinate, so unreasonable? The
answer is a bit more complex than mere labelling or easy answers, and
as we will see, this important question lies at the very heart of our
efficiency in many of our professional or personal conflicts.

We can start with a rather blunt assessment from Dr Mark Goulston, a

highly qualified psychiatrist:
“What we see as resistance to change, these people see as
persistence. They persist in knowing what they know and believing
what they believe, no matter how unhelpful or unrelated to
reality. In effect, they are guarding the only territory they have.”

This is descriptive, but still not really a workable explanation of why

this is so. The key to this crucial conflict understanding lies in the
distinction between fact-based conflicts, and those involving our
identity or value bases. We gather from this that in the latter type of
conflicts we are dealing with people’s identities, which are not a purely
fact-based environment. We can identify individual and group
identities, and as we will see, they are key to our understanding of and
dealing with these identity based conflicts. Celia Cook-Huffman defines
these identities as:
“Identities are complex, historically bound, socially constructed,
and thus ever moving. They may be transitory in some cases, and
rigid and inflexible in others as they are constituted in specific
lived realities, bound and shared through story, myth, history,
and legend.”

The need for a different set of tools in certain conflicts is well put by
Amanda Ripley, who refers to these (and a few other) examples of
conflict as “high conflict”:

82
 Wishing your opponent will finally see the light is a fool’s errand.
It will only lead to heartbreak. Counting up the other side’s
wrongs is a hobby that can last a lifetime. Obsessing over the next
election is a delay tactic. Telling people to reject hate and choose
love will not work. Because people swept up in high conflict do not
think of themselves as full of hate, even if they are. They think of
themselves as right. Hate is an important emotion. But it is a
symptom, conflict is the cause. And high conflict is a system, not a
feeling.”

Fact based arguments vs identity/value based arguments

Some of our disputes involve simple matters of fact, where the

objective veracity of a proposition can be tested with relative ease, and
where such result is accepted on face value. If we argue about last
Sunday’s Manchester United result, we can consult various reputable
sources and the argument can be settled authoritatively. We can quite
easily establish “right” and “wrong”. The consequences of such disputes
normally follow a simple and linear course from such assessment, with
predictable and objective results, for instance a bet is won or lost, a
test score is affected and so on. This distinction may hold even where
the absolute correctness of a proposition may not be capable of
absolute confirmation, such as a statement of more relative fact
regarding a product’s performance, comparisons between products or
services and so on. Reasonable people normally agree on such an
objective fact, regardless of any argumentation (the calendar date on
a specific place and time, a speed limit, measurements), and these
standards and information are used in our everyday lives without much
contention, from making travel arrangements to landing on faraway
planets.

Let us, in passing, note that these objective facts (whether they are in
fact such objective facts or not) are of particular importance to most
of us, at some deep emotional level. The “truth”, “facts”, reality as we
perceive it shapes and guides our worlds, it gives us a sense of place
and belonging, we can make sense of things around us, we can make

83
decisions if we know where the lines run. We often find ourselves only
in relation to those things. But, as we will see, these lines of objective
versus subjective fact are not always that clear when it comes to our
deepest selves, our identities.
Opposed to these relatively easily managed set of objective facts lie
those facts and statements that have a direct bearing on our values,
our core identities. This category often has many of the same
characteristics as the fact based disputes, but they have a very
important extra layer – these arguments and the facts involved – matter
to us on a deeply personal level, and they affect our very being, our
sense and experience of ourselves as the human beings that we know.
These conflicts also, on the face of it, deal with factual arguments, but
they are often less capable of easy and objective assessment, or for
that matter, falsification. The truths (or, as is often the case, “Truths”)
involved here reflect on us personally, on how we see ourselves.
Examples would include arguments about parenting, about the practical
value of BEE programs in the workplace, about our religious faith or lack
thereof, of the morality of voting for a certain political party or the
necessity of getting vaccinated against Covid-19. People do not
generally experience these matters as just cold, hard factual
discussions, but as emotional and important topics, questions that
determine (to them) who they are, what is “good”, “bad” and a range
of other values that have the subjective force of facts, but which are
not universally held as such.

The practical importance of the distinction

Factual arguments run on far simpler tracks, regardless of the

complexity of the facts involved. An argument between two friends
over coffee about the wisdom of investing in a particular share offering
may involve very complex arguments, the management of huge sets of
facts and various technical complexities, but it may, at the level of a
factual argument simply remain that: an argument about facts. The
consequences of getting these facts wrong may be of minor or even
more serious consequence (losing money on the investment, for
example) but if it remains at the level of a simple factual dispute it

84
remains in the relatively simple factual conflict arena, where we deal
with such conflict on that basis.

Let’s say, however, that in our scenario above these facts were
exchanged not between two friends having a dispute about shares over
coffee, but that the one advising the investment was a professional
financial consultant. The dispute is now not just about an interesting
discussion but it involves the consultant’s views as to her own integrity
and competency, her skills and experience. The resultant conflict has
now changed from an exchange of facts to facts which involve a deeper,
second level of meaning, those dealing with at least the consultant’s
sense of values, her identity.

This subtle but important distinction moves the dispute from merely
getting a set of facts wrong or right, to a process affecting the values,
the personal identity of those involved. This, as we will see, has far-
reaching consequences for these conflicts.

A brief look at our cognitive processes used during conflict

Research shows how our intuitions, including our moral intuitions, arise
first, almost automatically, and then our strategic reasoning follow.
Practically important is the fact that this sequence results in our first
intuitions tending to drive our later reasoning. For purposes of being
more effective at conflict this is a crucial realization. South African
society is replete with stereotypes, perceptions, past experiences and
other examples of these intuitions.
We tend to often develop post hoc moral arguments simply to bolster
our already assumed and preferred intuitions, and these intuitions are
then defended by the moral reasoning results for a variety of strategic
reasons. We like or dislike an idea, or a person, for a variety of intuitive
reasons, and then create after the fact rationalizations to support our
intuition.

85
Moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt uses the wonderful image of the
elephant (our intuitions) being steered and controlled by the more
rational rider (our conscious reasoning).
This result from cognitive science leads us to a somewhat disturbing, if
necessary for purposes of conflict management, realization: we are far
less rational than what we may want to believe.
There are other, more intuitive and less traditionally rational influences
at play. This does not mean that thoughts and their resultant conflict
are uncontrollable forces that cannot be shaped, guided and managed,
but it does mean that our exalted view of rational thought needs to be
revised and updated, that rationality in conflict has its limitations, and
that in certain types of conflicts there are other, more effective tools
than mere rationality. As Celia Cook-Hufmann states, people use the
raw materials of their lives to “make” themselves, their identities, how
they see themselves. Identities are symbols of meaning, created by
ongoing social interaction.
This does not remove anything from the sheer beauty and power of
rational thought, but it does mean that in our conflicts we need to
understand rationality, and its related forces, better and at a greater
depth. To those that may balk at the very idea of any limitation to
rationality (such as us chess players) I offer the comfort that in coming
to this realization, in seeing the limitations and new possibilities of
rationality, you are enhancing rational thought, not diminishing it. It is
also, as we will see, a requirement for becoming effective in
identity/value based conflicts.

The philosopher David Hume was already, as far back as 1739, onto
some of this truth when he wrote that “…reason is, and ought only to
be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office
than to serve and obey them.” For our purposes this means that in
correctly understanding, and dealing with the decisions and persuasions
found in conflict, we need to acknowledge and respect the mechanics
of the heart, emotions, and feelings.
This has nothing to do with sentimentality or current political
correctness, and everything to do with current conflict and evolutionary

86
psychology research and best practices. Further on in this chapter we
will deal with some suggested techniques in these particular conflicts,
and for that you will need this basic understanding of these distinctions,
and the psychological minefields these conflicts are often situated in.

Mari Fitzduff sums up what we would expect versus what we see in the
real world when we start looking for examples of pure rationality
dominating our lives:
“How can so many of us be so ignorant-or so blind-to
actual facts that seem so important? Generally, it is because
it is our emotions that are controlling our beliefs and not our
rational intelligence, as many of us would hope or believe.
In other words, we often rationalize our beliefs-but usually
only after what our guts tell us.
Our beliefs in many cases appear to be determined to
a large extent not by facts or by the “truth” but by our
own bio-tendencies.”

A few modern examples of this realization

Professor Howard Margolis (University of Chicago) was puzzled by the

fact that people’s political beliefs are often poorly connected to
objective facts. His work was important in noticing the rapid intuitive
judgments we make based on non-rational observations and factors,
and importantly, that while the intuition launched the reasoning, the
intuition did not depend on the success or failure of the reasoning. This
explains how, in politics, pandemic debates, sport support, religion, our
love or emotional relationships we do moral reasoning to find the best
reason why we have already arrived at a conclusion, and why someone
else should join us in our judgment. In these conflicts our moral
reasoning often serves a purpose: to justify (to ourselves and to others)
a decision that we have already taken based on other considerations.
Our intuitions, especially the moral ones, are very subtle, and they do
not really rise to the level of emotions, but they are the best way to
understand the hundreds of quick, effortless and often indiscernible
moral judgments and decisions that we make every day.

87
These intuitions are shaped by a long list of factors including genetics,
previous experiences and our own social propaganda sources. Haidt’s
work shows convincingly how quick we are to make those intuitive
jumps, and how dreadful we are at seeking and evaluating evidence
that may disconfirm those initial judgments. While most of us would
like to think that we follow our own internal moral compass, social
psychology research clearly shows that we are enormously influenced
by other people in what they like or dislike, and that this social
influence can make us do things that may disagree with a conventional
moral decision making template. These intuitions (the “elephant”) are
a type of cognition, but they are not reasoning in the conventional
sense.
We find the presence of little flashes of positive or negative feelings
that condition us to approach or avoid certain people or things (called
affective primacy) in psychology and conflict studies, and this forms an
important part of our intuitions. We seem to be generally attracted to
familiar things and are more cautious towards unfamiliar things (a
principle used in advertising, for example). These flashes causes our
minds to lean in particular directions. You may, for example, like the
company of older black women, dislike red cars, love the smell of
coffee, distrust salesmen and tend to fear financial commitments.
These are subtle but very real intuitions, and they play a direct role in
your assessments of trust, willingness to listen or co-operate, ability to
compete and other conflict markers. Work done by Alex Todorov and
others show that we form these intuitions very quickly, often in well
under a second.

How are our beliefs formed?

Our intuitions and beliefs are, to the great frustration of fans of rational
thinking, often not formed by way of rational, or solely rational,
thought processes. Research clearly shows that few people form their
beliefs on the basis of rigorous consideration of reasoned arguments.
The elephant leads the rider. We focus on confirming what we already
believe, or want to believe. To add to the complexity (and frustration),

88
we tend to believe that we do have such confirming evidence. It is not
that people consciously lie to themselves during the process.
How often have you liked a movie, song or recipe, Googled it and
preferred the first result that confirmed a tendency, a subtle leaning
into a certain direction? This is how we form those initial beliefs – we
have an intuition, we search for and find, evidence that seems to be
objective but which is really just good old confirmation bias. All of that
happens without us even being aware of what just happened.
The French cognitive scientists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber have
concluded that reasoning at this level has evolved not to help us find
the truth, but to engage in arguments, persuasion and manipulation of
others. We use reason not to find the truth, but to find arguments that
support our views.
A study using fMRI (Westen et al) has shown, for example, that people
faced with logical contradictions (say an expert’s opinion) to these
deeply held beliefs may experience negative emotions, but there is no
meaningful increase in their reasoning cortex. A subsequent fMRI study
(Harris et al) highlights participants who, when faced with statements
contradicting their deeply held beliefs, show negative emotional
reactions similar to disgust, while statements that agreed with their
beliefs were met with positive responses.
Take religion as an example, or art, or the values of a particular
political party or figure. Or vaccination debates, or abortion research,
climate wars, migration developments…. How easy is it nowadays to
find ostensibly credible evidence to slate or support Christianity, pro-
life arguments, climate hoaxes, vaccination conspiracies positions or
the relative virtues of the 45th president of the US. Our initial leanings
get confirmed by evidence that are either contentious, completely
bogus but hard to prove to be such, or instances where the objective
truth is impossible to prove objectively. Our intuitions make us lean in
a certain direction, our rational processes now find evidence of some
sort, and we end up in social media or other silos where everything from
algorithms to social support make us feel comfortable about our
seemingly rational decisions. Bear in mind that most people arrive at
their beliefs in this way, so you now have an intuition (which could have
nothing to do with morality or facts), leading to a subsequent

89
rationalization process, which then gets bolstered and regularly
confirmed by social and group acceptance. This is now this person’s
reality, their values, a very real part of their identity.

This does not mean that people allow themselves to believe things that
are deliberately false, but it shows us powerfully how we are swayed
by our own emotional processes and biases.

An important difference between conservative and liberal thinkers

While the concepts of “conservative” and “liberal” thought have all but
dissipated into meaninglessness due to various socio-political
developments in recent years, it still has some practical value for our
purposes, and that broad distinction can provide us with further tools
in identity conflicts, especially when it involves politics, religion, family
matters or any dispute that can meaningfully be divided into a
conservative or liberal distinction. This distinction has nothing to do
with the respective strengths or weaknesses of these distinctions, but
is simply of practical value in assessing identity conflicts.

Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues have devised six categories of values
identification, that being Care, Authority, Fairness, Loyalty, Sanctity
and Liberty/Oppression. Liberals strongly value Liberty/ Oppression,
Care and Fairness, while conservatives value all six more or less equally.
These value categories translate into real world realities like tradition,
community life, public order, faith and so on. This importantly leads to
completely different moral visions of what a good person does and
believes, what an appropriate resolution to a conflict is, and so on.
These causes and triggers are often simply ignored or misunderstood,
leading to the application of completely inappropriate and ineffective
conflict strategies. Keep this distinction in mind when you work with
the nine step program we discuss below.

90
 The need for certainty as a driver of conflict

Research shows us that people differ in their genetic dispositions

towards accepting or tolerating ambiguity and the need for certainty.
Presented on a spectrum the one end shows people who need and
demand certainty, clear and immediate answers and as little ambiguity
as possible. On the other end of the spectrum we find people who are
more open to nuance, ambiguity and who are comfortable with
currently unresolved questions or open-ended situations. This includes
such a person’s ability and willingness to receive and work with new
information or ideas. It is called integrative complexity in conflict
studies, and people with various capacities may have very different
approaches to the same set of facts by which conflict parties are
confronted. This again highlights how simple “facts” and right/wrong
arguments have their limitations when they run up against our
neurobiological complexities. A person with a need for immediate
clarity and a “final answer” tends to look at sets of facts, chooses one
and then freezes on that fact, accepting it as The Truth. Other parties
may be more open to more information or nuance. As we have seen
earlier, this “freezing” of “the truth” has important implications for
our conflict work.

Understanding and applying the practical difference in

factual vs identity conflicts: what is wrong with facts?

In real world terms this means that in value/identity based conflicts we

need to speak to people’s intuitions (their “elephants”) effectively.
Simply approaching a conflict from what appears to us to be an
objectively based foundation is not enough, and can, as we will show,
actually become a destructive strategy, leading to a further deepening
or entrenching of the very belief that we want to change.
Many of us have a naïve confidence in facts, and we believe them to be
easily ascertainable, inarguable, incontrovertible, objective and the
ways things are. If this was that easy, the world would be in agreement
on these topics such as religion, politics and a seemingly endless list of
arguments. And we are not. So what is wrong with the use of facts?

91
Before we all slide into a dark world of moral relativity, we need to
remind ourselves what we are doing here. We are studying the human
mind so as to better understand how beliefs and opinions are formed,
beliefs and opinions that cause conflicts, and beliefs and opinions that
we hope to change if we are involved in those conflicts. Facts are
beautiful things, of great value, and you can retain all the important
facts that have value to you. To be really effective in conflict involving
values and identities you simply need to see the piano wires, know
where the buttons and the levers are. Facts are supreme in factual
arguments, and even here in value based conflicts there is a time for
them, as we will see.
Let us return then to our hypothetical person above, who has now
arrived at a set of value or identity based beliefs in the way that we
have described. These beliefs, because they form, shape and confirm
our identities to us, become far more than just the apparent parameters
of that debate. A person’s views on gender parity, for example, may
have been formed in the manner which we have looked at, and this
belief now gets confirmed in a myriad of ways. It extends far wider than
just a closely held fact (“Women should receive equal pay for equal
work”), but this becomes a part of that person’s identity, of who he is,
how he sees himself. This now becomes an example of how good,
responsible people see the world. Our identities confirm and protect
us, and our beliefs play a very important role in the identity
maintenance necessary for our mental wellbeing and even survival.
What may seem to that person to be a rationally arrived at belief, often
confirmed socially and by the group, may not be any of that to someone
else.
And here lies the true harm and danger that people bring about in these
conflicts, some of which have global importance and implications, as
we have seen during the Covid pandemic, for example. Research clearly
shows that any attack, even and especially with facts, simply seems to
deepen that belief for the holder thereof. We start understanding this
when we realize that such a factual argument (“vaccinations are
unnecessary and harmful, and driven by a worldwide cabal”) is now not
just an argument about the facts, such as they may be, but they involve

92
the very value systems that the protagonists hold dear, their very
identities are involved on a very real level.
An argument setting out the latest scientific findings of say the value
and benefit of vaccinations is now an attack on the opponent’s identity,
and an avalanche of psychological triggers and defence mechanisms
kick in to complicate the intended persuasion process. At a very real
level, this person’s self is under attack.
A few examples should further highlight the problem. The held belief
probably feels rationally arrived at to that person, so now disconfirming
evidence brings about reactions of doubt. How many of us are
comfortable even with the possibility of being wrong, especially on an
important topic? Add to this the months or years of social confirmation
(those likes on Facebook do more than just keep us happy), the danger
of losing your position in a social group (even a loosely defined virtual
one), and the person may viscerally experience such an argument as an
attack on their very identity. These values underpin who we are, how
we see ourselves, and they are often accompanied by generalizations
such as “Good people think this way” or social structures and
personalities and careers are built on such identities. Even a superficial
understanding of the problem clearly shows us that we are no longer
arguing about the facts as they may appear in the YouTube video or the
latest scientific paper. The opponent does not want to look foolish, they
may have invested a lot of time and even money in a particular position,
and every fact (as you see them) simply causes a reaction.

Our opponent may have, for example, grown up with years of direct
statements, evidence of various degrees of accuracy and confirmations
and reaffirmations on important social levels, that abortion is wrong in
all instances, no exceptions. To this person, this is what good people
believe, this is what his community believed since he can remember,
his parents held that view, his religious community believe this and so
on. An argument, even one bolstered with an objectively impressive
array of evidence to the contrary, is now not just a question of the
weighing up of a set of cold facts, it is quite literally an attack on his
worldview, his values, his sense of identity. With every new fact comes
a further polarization, a further retreat into the known, safe identity

93
that the person has lived in, possibly for all his life. All of this most
probably happens subconsciously and in an instant. These are strong
elephants to move, especially when the rider does not want to change.
In addition to this perceived existential threat (because on a very real
level it is just that), the messenger now often makes additional conflict
mistakes. Insults, sneering doubt about the person’s intellectual
capabilities and moral strength all simply serve to cast the attack into
a very real threat, easily dismissed and countered by similar insulting
behaviour, alternative facts (which seemingly are never in short supply)
and it becomes a battle of survival of that way of life, those values,
that identity, and not an exchange of facts.

Research shows also that the harmful effect of such an unskilled conflict
does not end there. Once the “attack” ends and the person survives
intact, this is often experienced as validation and confirmation of the
original set of beliefs. Any possible initial cognitive dissonance caused
by a consideration of alternative facts now gets smoothed over by the
“victory”, and life returns to as it was. Your spirited campaign to
convince the “fool” and the “idiot” of your “obviously” correct position
has now resulted in him being even more convinced of his position than
he was before.
Please also note that this process, and the result, happens regardless
of whether your argument is in fact correct or not. This observation
does not deal in objective reality as set out if these facts, it deals with
people’s reality as they experience them. So, if you feel like shouting
at people on Twitter, go ahead but do not expect to change many
minds. Sport or efficiency – those are the choices.
On social media we find an additional level of polarization and belief
protection, and that is the clear and raucous support that often
accompanies these conflicts. The previously held belief often gets
supported, even if only by likes, shrillness, insults and in-group versus
out-group behaviour, and this dopamine reward system further
entrenches the earlier held belief.

94
Technically, it leads to a phenomenon known in conflict studies as the
“backfire effect”. Simply put, using facts incorrectly in a value based
conflict causes the backfire effect. The use of seemingly objective facts
in these specific conflicts sets off the experience in the receiver of
being attacked in a significant manner. The defence mechanisms and
counterattacks mentioned now follow, all leading to a confirmation and
even deepening of the originally held belief. As frustrating and
inconceivable as this may be to the proponent of the new fact, this
makes perfect sense if we understand the mechanism at work. A
person’s values and identity are attacked, and such attack (however
well researched and presented) is neutralized by a confirmation of
one’s values and identity. The recipient does not need to re-evaluate
their own competencies or values, any cognitive dissonance is dispelled,
the existing us-vs-them grouping is confirmed, social standing is
confirmed or enhanced and all is well with the world. The attacked
belief survived, and is in a very real sense confirmed to be correct.
This explains what we see on social media where, in these identity
arguments, the best laid out evidence simply fails to change minds, and
how the counterarguments simply get shriller and more entrenched. It
is also noticeable in certain of these conflicts (just watch those
comments sections) how facts, stated as facts, can do more harm than
good.
The use of these “fact wars”, which really just turns into a battle about
various results from “doing your own research”, is then an opportunity
for your opponent to defend her views.

It is clear from this study that in these identity or value conflicts a

completely different set of conflict tools will be necessary.

The enormous importance of social groups

It is clear from the above study that social groupings play an enormously
important role in our beliefs, our identities and, indirectly, in our
conflicts. Our social identities, our views of ourselves, are put together
by our belonging to a wide variety of socially constructed groups, not
just in which groups we belong to, but involving those that we do not

95
belong to. In this way a person can identify as an American, black,
medical specialist, female, tennis player, not a Republican, or a South
African, male, bus driver, Pirates fan and not a smoker.
People care deeply about these groups, and this props up their identity.
Even if you identify as an anti-social hermit, then that places you inside
a certain group, outside others and it becomes your identity. These
groups, in addition to creating parts of our identities and values,
become a form of shorthand communication that tells people, at a
number of subtle levels, what they believe and how they should act.
Members of the EFF believe this, Catholics do not accept that, and it
also starts to prescribe labels and truisms about other groups, such as
what patriotic South Africans should believe and accept about migrating
Zimbabweans.
We end up with very clear in-groups and out-groups, us and them. While
membership of these social groups have always demanded some level
of compliance and visible loyalty, modern social media makes these
tokens of belonging more strenuous, easier to monitor and for
punishment of breaches to be exacted. Several of these groups, at least
in their online forms, now demand uniformity of belief, a limitation of
the public expression of dissent or questioning of decisions and
leadership, and some very harsh sanctions can follow on transgressions,
such as we see with cancel culture and public shaming of such non-
conformists. If you have any doubt as to the power of these mechanisms
consider asking the “wrong questions” in your social media sphere or
even WhatsApp group.

This interweaving of identity and social groups continues imperceptibly

and powerfully. A lot of people are quite uncomfortable with this, and
they would deny that they are affected by such processes. This is easily
falsified. We are all affected by our social groups and their support,
even if we are not involved in social media. Our friends, our families,
our colleagues, social or sporting affiliations, our communities all form
a part of and shape our identities. The views that we hold are often not
a unique view, but the view of ANC members, or plumbers, or
Methodists or one of thousands of social distinctions that we feel
comfortable with. For us to change our mind, and to do so publicly,

96
could have far-reaching implications for us, our membership of such
groups, our careers and community life.

To this we must also add the conflict studies in perceptions about our
ideologies and beliefs as contrasted to those of our opponents. A 2014
joint research study by Boston College, the University of Melbourne and
Northwestern University showed our conflict tendencies in a
phenomenon called motive attribution asymmetry, which means that
we tend to ascribe our own beliefs and ideologies as being grounded in
good concepts such as love, fairness and so on, while accepting that our
opponent’s ideologies and motives are born from hate and other
negative considerations. This subtle but strong bias immediately makes
communication and conflict resolution that is not aware of this rather
futile and counter-productive.

Motive attribution asymmetry furthermore leads to a very significant

conflict cause, one that is as difficult to notice as it is to dislodge.
Ascribing these motives to our opponent, often rather quickly, nearly
automatically and often without much evidence, leads to hold that
person, group or position in contempt. While emotions such as anger,
frustration and fear often signify that a party wants to work towards
understanding and resolution, contempt seeks to close the door,
contempt has finished listening, contempt does not want resolution.
In an identity and value based conflict this further leads to the very
start of an attempt at resolution simply being stillborn or causing more
harm than good, simply because the underlying causes and drivers of
that conflict was not understood, and the wrong strategies then used.
Professor John Gottman of the University of Washington calls contempt
“sulphuric acid for love”, and he goes so far as to point out how
contempt causes a comprehensive degradation of human immune
systems, damages self-esteem, changes conflict behaviour and,
importantly for our purposes, impairs cognitive processing.

These are the crucial self-limitations that we bring to our conflicts in

general, and these important identity conflicts in particular.

97
 Deflection or denial of identity threats

We often observe how these identity conflicts take a turn, after a few
rounds, to where one party may either shift the goalposts and indicate
some other issue as the “real issue”, or deny that there is a conflict at
all.
This is not surprising, given the enormously high stakes at play. Celia
Cook-Huffman explains the link as follows:
“Denial of identity threats often results in a rigid focus on
alternative issues as the “true” issue, or alternatively the denial
that the conflict exists at all, not because issues are unimportant,
but because a loss in the conflict would equal a loss of face.”

Extreme conflict forms and violence

To highlight our discussion on the limits of a merely and purportedly

rational approach to conflicts and the changing of opinions, we can
consider the difficulties in bridging some of these conflicts, such as
political and religious conflicts, which as we have seen are specific
forms of identity and value based conflicts.
Conflict researchers Eidelson and Eidelson have identified five beliefs,
forming integral parts of a person or group’s values and identity, that
have the potential that can lead to extreme forms of conflict, such as
violence, terrorism and so on. In their simplest forms, these five beliefs
are superiority, injustice, vulnerability, distrust and helplessness.
Superiority is the belief that a person or group is better than others in
unique ways. Societal rules and conventions are often, under this
belief, held to not apply fully or at all to these individuals or groups.
Injustice is the belief that the individual or group has been mistreated
or prejudiced in an unfair manner. Important for our considerations is
the result that this sense of unfairness becomes the centre of sense
making for that person(s), and becomes a “debilitating or immobilizing
preoccupation”. Vulnerability is a belief that the welfare and best
interests of the group is in the hands of powerful others and an

98
exaggerated sense of current or impending dangers. Distrust is a belief
that others are intending or in the process of harming the individual or
group holding such belief, and helplessness is the belief that even the
individual or group’s best efforts will not achieve positive results, that
harm is all but inevitable, and no difference can really be made by
conventional means and processes.
Even a cursory glance at the list of beliefs show us how prevalent they
are in the modern world. It is here where this insight from the field of
conflict management takes on such a practical importance.
Using traditional conflict tools such as collaboration or compromise for
these social clashes are not only ineffective, but actually
counterproductive (see e.g. research by Pearce and Littlejohn). That is
why the identification of identity based conflicts and the strategies and
techniques referred to in this essay is such an important distinction on
a practical level for global, national, workplace and personal conflict
considerations.
As these examples show, a frontal attack using your shiny new facts may
just be the worst possible conflict strategy, especially when persuasion
or management of the situation is an important outcome.

So if facts fail to change minds in identity conflicts, should we stop

using facts? What then is a better strategy?

An effective strategy for identity conflicts

Objective facts still have a real and important place in identity

conflicts, but they need to be used in conjunction with other tools and
strategies, and at the right time. As we have considered earlier on in
the book, sequence and timing in working with conflict can be of critical
importance.
We need to build on our understanding of how beliefs are formed and
how identity conflicts tend to protect beliefs and opinions, and from
that knowledge design a strategy that works with those facts in order
to be effective in these particular conflicts. We need to understand how
our opponent’s sense of morality relates to their personal identity.

99
What do “good people” believe? How would others in this group deal
with this problem?

Every specific identity conflict situation of importance deserves its own

tailor-made solution, but the following is a distilled and practical step-
by-step program that works well. It is complex and, given the various
dynamics involved, positive results are not guaranteed. It remains
however, in these situations, your only viable conflict strategy. It may
take some practice, and conflict coaching sessions in simulated
conditions are advised.

This framework is presented here as a step-by-step process, but

experience of course will teach us that these heated arguments do not
play by any rulebook, and that we should approach them ready to revisit
or skip a step in the prescribed process, or changing the sequence of
application depending on the dynamics of the situation.

When we have then determined that it is indeed necessary or

unavoidable to have one of these complex identity / value conflicts,
and that we are required to change minds on something, we can broadly
follow the following steps.

1. You need to accurately assess that this is the type of conflict that
you are in fact having to deal with.
Arguments about most objective facts, questions of history, commercial
or economic figures and those not involving a person’s identity and
values should still be addressed using facts and logic as your primary
tools. Your assessment is key – get that wrong and you will be using the
wrong tools for the job. Indicators that may assist you would be views
that seem irrational to you, opinions that are strongly and forcefully
expressed, and often these views find themselves embedded in
political, religious or family settings. They are often views that are not
open to objective verification and they elicit strong pushback when
they are challenged. In defending these facts people often use terms
describing “good” or “bad” people and what society or specific groups
expect them to do or believe.

100
2. Create a safe environment for the discussion to come.
Remind yourself that you are, at least in their perception, attacking
this person’s value system. Research and experience show that people
are simply not brow-beaten out of these opinions. A change of heart in
these categories come at great cost to the person changing their views,
both as far as their own view of themselves are concerned (we like to
think of ourselves as consistent), as well as their public image. You can
accept that your success in this minefield will depend heavily on
securing the other person’s self-worth and then helping to reach the
new, desired conclusion in a manner that, to them, feels as if they
arrived there themselves. Any coercion will bring up the defences and
you will start arguing against yourself. At this stage you need to rather
clearly acknowledge their good intentions and affirm that they are, and
that you regard them as, a good, moral person (“John, I know that you
are a fair guy, but…”). Also make sure that this type of discussion does
not take place in a hurried manner, in an uncomfortable place, or at a
time when either of you may be more irritable than usual. See to it that
these discussions also do not come across as patronizing or dismissive
of their beliefs. Weeks of work can be undone with one aggressive reply.

3. Change the lenses through which the conflict is being

experienced.
We often make our conflicts harder and more contentious than what
they need to be simply by the words we use to try and describe them.
Arguments that may have been unskilfully verbalised in earlier forms,
or specifically crafted to create conflict by the media or politicians,
may seem very different arguments once we have considered the
language that we are using. This crucial stage requires you to skilfully
change the harmful terminology and associations to the underlying
values involved. So we need to change a conflict about black / white
people to one about South Africans, we change a “vax/anti-vax”
argument to how to best ensure the safety of people, and so on. This
stage highlights also the fact that you need to think about your
approach before you stumble into a shrill screaming match. Do some

101
preparation, find out what this is about, read something espousing the
opposite view.
Example: “Tell me why ANC people are so stubborn” versus “I would
like to understand why you support Mrs. Dlamini as your ward
candidate”.

4. Start and develop the conversation

This is the hard work part of the process. Here we have the actual
conversation. We should be mindful of not at this stage being seen as
critical or accusatory. Instead of arguing in the standard confrontational
manner, we ask open-ended questions (“How then do we ensure that
innocent people are not harmed by allowing personal choice to be
paramount?”). We avoid aggressive or negative non-verbal
contributions from our side, we avoid the joys of a gotcha moment,
sneering at arguments, eye-rolling, denigrating opposing experts.
Acknowledge progress and fair positions, re-inforce their views of
themselves (“I know you to be involved in social welfare work, so ….”
or “I know that you would never stand up for an injustice”). Work with
shared human values such as fairness, compassion, respect and where
appropriate, also bring in values important to the specific person, such
as religious, political or family values (remember Haidt’s categories).
Keep an eye on the practical distinction between descriptive beliefs
(“Women are kinder than men”) against prescriptive beliefs (“Children
must subject themselves to the discipline of their parents”). Here you
may start to use information that you may regard as objective, such as
books, articles, opinions (see next step) without such information being
presented as better or more valuable simply because you say so. Using
“real data” can, if used as a comprehensive strategy as discussed here,
have some influence in diluting or even changing some of these identity
values (especially the five beliefs discussed above), or in rarer
instances, even changing distorted realities.
Remember that all of this must happen as a conversation, not a fight.
Constantly check your tone of voice, your demeanour. Are you starting
to warm to the fight? This is where things go wrong and slip back into

102
right / wrong dichotomies. Remind yourself that the prize is to change
this person’s mind, not to win a right / wrong competition.

5. Slowly escalate the discussion, start inducing doubt in their

moral epistemology
You have now reached the engine room of this technique. Briefly put,
you need to create doubt around the strongly held worldview, you need
to weaken or sever the link between that belief and the identification
that this person has with her identity and values. This may be as easy
as showing her an alternative way of thinking, an acceptable alternative
to that first view. This can result in a thought process finding that “A
good person believes A, but people who believe B are also good
people.” Remind yourself that the person will only change their mind
in a sustainable manner if they arrive at this conclusion themselves, and
that your job is to aid in that process. Make sure that you listen
attentively, that you are not perceived as being judgmental.
This doubt is created in several ways, the best method being a
questioning of their moral epistemology – how do they arrive at those
conclusions. Here we find the very prevalent phenomenon of people
(including ourselves) holding some very important and strong views….
based on some very flimsy evidence and thought processes. These
received wisdoms are often to be found linked to statements such as
“Everyone knows this”, “People say”, “It has always been this way” and
a clear struggle to explain why this view is held. We find these “truths”
in worldviews such as “Christianity is better than Islam”, “Women are
more emotional than men”, “White people work harder than black
people” and “Vaccinations are harmful”. Here we ask exploratory
questions for the person to examine their own processes. Examples of
such questions, delivered in a non-judgmental and neutral manner, as
a joint problem solving exercise, would include “How do you know
that?”, “Other than your own experience, have you had any experience
outside that group?”, “Are there other scientists in the field that may
hold different views?” and a link between a “bad” view and a “good”
person, in other words “I understand that you believe ABC, as far as I
know Mr. Jackson believes DEF, do you believe that he is a hateful
person?”. Once that tenuous link is exposed (“Well, I have seen three

103
YouTube videos that all confirm my position”) much of your work is
done. An effective way of raising this type of doubt is to ask what
evidence would disconfirm the current belief.
Example: “You believe that UFO’s are real and visiting earth, I
understand that. Is there anything that would make you change your
mind?” The answer is not really important, the magic lies in the
question, and the person’s own mind may start raising some doubts as
to the process by which the belief was arrived at.
You are not judging, you are asking questions. If these questions are
seen as judgmental or setting the person up for failure, the defensive
mechanisms will come up again within seconds of you making a mistake.
This is why the value of this section lies in the questions, the start of a
process of doubt, not in the answers. Do not turn the answers into an
argument, do not judge or argue about the answers. All you need to do
is to light the fires of doubt and the person should do the rest
themselves. It is here also where you can start to introduce more actual
objective facts, not as weapons but as alternatives to consider.
Example: “I have seen those videos, and I believe that Dr. Kwetana of
Cambridge has written a book that holds a very different view.” Try to
disrupt their well-rehearsed rote answers. Instead of asking “Why will
/ won’t you be vaccinated?” ask more general questions dealing with
the underlying morals involved in the debate, such as “What makes for
a good citizen in a time of a pandemic?” and “How can we contribute
to our community’s safety during times like these?”.
For those readers who may be uncomfortable in getting this close to
what they may hold to be harmful untruths (“But it’s just not true”),
please remember the conflict goal that you may have in changing the
person’s mind, and that having this discussion in this way in no way
means that you are agreeing with the person.
It is a particularly toxic opinion, often found in social media circles,
that the mere discussion of something with The Other is to be avoided
and criticized. You are fully entitled to have these discussions, and your
conflict goal is the only real concern here. If you prefer to argue with
people in these situations, and possibly entrench them in their

104
worldviews then do so, but let’s not call that conflict management. You
are contributing to polarisation and these views existing or spreading.
If you believe that this step may be too philosophical or theoretical,
have a fun little test with your own views. Pick one or two of your most
cherished beliefs, say those involving religion, political affiliations,
family values. How did you get to hold those views? Can you even
discern or remember that? What were the sources of your beliefs? Are
there other beliefs? Why do you accept the one above the other? See
the cracks appearing? Most of us have very fragile foundations for our
own moral epistemology.

6. Try to sever the link between their view and the process that
brought them there, and the conclusions they may have formed
about both that position and its alternatives.
As we will see just now, this process may require days, weeks or
months. Once you are satisfied that sufficient doubt has been created
and that the person has started questioning their own views (as a
spontaneous process, not because you told them to do so), you can start
testing the boundaries by being a little firmer on the conclusions and
alternatives. Once someone accepts alternatives as viable and
acceptable to them, they will most probably start doing the work
themselves in either changing their minds or at least in being more open
and accepting of those alternatives. See your challenges as ranging on
a scale, and not a binary proposition. If you can move someone from a
strongly held “All good people reject divorce” to a more gently held
“Good people do not get divorced, but I understand that it is difficult
for some people, and that some good people do end up divorced” you
have already moved a mountain.
Ask questions highlighting this shift, including statements (see the
concept of “golden bridges” below).

7. Be patient
You may need months or more to meaningfully change someone’s
worldview in this category of identities and values. Some of these views

105
may be so ingrained as to have actually become a part of that person’s
personality. It is scary to leave these comfortable views behind, and to
accept new ones. Be patient, respectful, and compassionate. Revisit
some of the earlier processes, make sure that the process is still a
conversation, one where respect and a safe exchange of ideas remain
of paramount value.

8. Learn to build golden bridges

We think of ourselves as consistent beings, we value that, and in some
cultures a change of heart is seen as actual weakness. Here lies a very
strong challenge if you really wish to convince this person. If your
progress is going to be perceived as a “win” for you, you will lose every
yard of progress and probably end up making things worse than when
you started. No one likes to be wrong, especially on important views.
Someone who held a particularly nasty view of a specific race group,
and who even have become known for such views, will have additional
difficulties in being a proverbial new person. Such a change can be
liberating, of course, but that new view can also have public and social
consequences. Your work with one person will probably not have much
effect on that person’s friends and family who all still hold the previous
view.

This is where a lifeline, a golden bridge from that side to this side must
be built into your process. The result is not arrived at because the
person is stupid or wrong, or because you are brilliant. It was a joint
process where everybody learned a lot, a process where that person
must be allowed to save face in his or her community. Make specific
allowance for this. This is the important concept of face and face
saving, so important in certain modern conflict practices. You are
creating a healthy and positive self-narrative for the opponent, one that
they can live with, one that is better than a continuation of destructive
conflict.

106
9. Respect boundaries, and if you have tried to make these changes
and they do not work, walk away
It is naïve to think that we can (or even should) change everyone’s mind,
even when it comes to harmful worldviews, even when doing so would
be in their best interests. To turn this technique into another weapon
in the arguments we have would be to spectacularly miss the point.
Continued efforts may simply serve to make matters worse. Not every
relationship can, or should be saved and changed. If you have done your
best and it does not work, learn to walk away with grace and goodwill.
If this happens in a workplace or marriage, for example, there may be
other options available to the involved parties, and they can pursue
those alternatives depending on how important and potentially harmful
the divergent opinions may be.

This nine step program, appropriately adapted where necessary, could

help you improve your identity based conflict outcomes. It is a complex
process, designed to deal with the complexity of the human mind, so
practice where you can, be patient (with others and with yourself), and
monitor your progress. Be alert to the fact that here the process itself
is very important, it is important to use the process to get your timing
and sequence correct. Focus on the process, not the result.

The process itself may prove to be tiring and frustrating, and that is
why you need to be clear on the minds that you really need to change.
This is normally not a popular hobby. You do not need to change the
minds of people on Twitter. Pick your proverbial battles, and limit these
procedures to professional or personal relationships that really matter
on some important level. Different views are a communal good in most
instances, and we should guard against being Conformity Crusaders for
its own sake. These are moral beliefs that you are dealing with, and
they are important to those involved. If the apparent irrationality of
the origin of some of these beliefs bother you, bear in mind that the
emotional processes involved is the way that the subconscious mind
communicates ideas and decisions to the conscious mind.

107
 Retain focus during these conflicts

It is important to not be too disorientated by the process and the

sometimes counterintuitive techniques we have learned here in the
identity based conflict category. These are often some of life’s most
important conflicts, when we clash with others on issues close to our
hearts. Try to remember that with very few exceptions, people do not
purposefully hold these seemingly irrational positions in order to irritate
you or the world at large. They really do believe what they say. Some
of your most cherished “facts” may seem quite irrational to others. As
Ben Goldacre reminds us, “You cannot reason people out of positions
that they didn’t reason themselves into.”

While I would insert the word “easily” after the “cannot” in Ben’s
quote, the point stands: these conflicts are not rationality and facts
versus irrationality and falsehoods, as social media so often wants to
simplify it into, but the true, lived objective realities of people with
opposing views. We interact with our opponents where they are, not
where we imagine they are, or where we want them to be. When
working with people in conflict, we should pay close attention to issues
of stability and confidence, as this helps them to set aside their
defences and consider more calmly, more accurately what it is that you
seek to convince them of. In conflict, meaningful change often happens
step by step. We need to break down the process of conflict into
manageable steps, and with a complex conflict such as identity conflicts
these steps must be measured and often very patiently managed.
Remember Dr. Szabo’s reminder that we should not fall into the
Coherence Trap (simplifying complex conflicts at the cost of essential
information – see chapter 2).

“But they’re so wrong…”

We find in practice and in our online course students the occasional

resentment at the “wrongness” of the opponent’s view. This is
understandable and, if the dispute is not an important one, you can
argue that on the face of it. But, as the process discussed above clearly
shows, if your primary goal is to change minds and effectively deal with

108
the conflict, then you need to
“wrongness”. You are not agreeing
conceding that his position has the
being effective. You are “selling”
primarily the head.
look away from such apparent
with your opponent, you are not
same (or any value), but you are
your solution to the heart, not

Conclusion

There are limits to rationality, and even that which we often regard as
rational thought processes are tainted by bias, and what Daniel
Kahneman calls information “noise”, where personnel evaluations,
custody disputes and a long list of purportedly rational and objective
processes end up being affected by influences, some of which we are
often not even aware. Hold your appreciation of rationality lightly, see
its limits, and accept that in these identity conflicts a purely fact-based
strategy is not the wise option. Use those objective facts where they
really count.
Our emotions are associated and linked to our actual ability to listen
and assess options. Emotional states affect cognitive processes, and
cognitive processes affect emotional states. We are not solely rational
beings, and learning to make this crucial distinction in our important
conflicts is an essential modern skill.
This interplay between the “need” (and the fun) to be right (especially
on social media), or to be the defender of our cherished views and
conflict competency can often be avoided by simply picking our battles.
If you want to argue the merits of your political or other worldview, do
so. In those hopefully rare situations where we however need to work
or live with someone whose worldview and identity concerns are at
stake, we need to make a choice as to whether these advanced conflict
tools may not be our best option.

Many of these observations and strategies link naturally to cutting edge

work being done in the fields of conflict resolution, neurobiology and
psychology, and readers who are interested in an even more in-depth
study of this work and its new best practices can consult the suggested
reading sources in the reference section below.

109
REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READING MATERIAL
(Chapter 4)

1. How to have impossible conversations, by Peter Boghossian and

James Lindsay, Lifelong Books (2019)
2. The Righteous Mind, by Jonathan Haidt, Penguin Books (2012)
3. Influence and Persuasion, various contributing authors, in the
Harvard Business Review series, published by HBR Press (2017)
4. Maxims for thinking analytically, by Dan Levy, published by
author (2021)
5. Noise, by Daniel Kahneman, Olivier Sibony and Cass R. Sunstein,
William Collins Publishers (2021)
6. Building agreement, by Roger Fischer and Daniel Shapiro,
Random House Business Books (2007)
7. Embodied Conflict, by Tim Hicks, Routledge (2018)
8. Our brains at war, by Mari Fitzduff, Oxford University Press
(2021)
9. The dynamics of persuasion (7th edition), by Richard M Perloff,
Routledge (2021)
10. Essay “The role of identity in conflict” by Celia Cook-Hufmann,
Handbook of Conflict Analysis, edited by Sandole, Byrne and
others, Routledge (2015)
11. The Power of Us, Jay van Bayvel and Dominic J. Packer, Wildfire
Publishers (2021)

110
 CHAPTER 5: BOARDROOM BATTLEGROUNDS
- A specialized arena

Leading through conflict means believing in the possibility of what

does not yet exist. It requires focusing on the luminous
opportunity that lies at the end of the tunnel of obstacles.

Mark Gerzon

Negotiation is a strategy for productively managing conflict.

Roy J. Lewicki

Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered, those

who are skilled at winning do not become afraid. Thus the wise
win before they fight, while the ignorant fight to win.

Sun Tzu (Art of War, also commented on by Zhuge Liang)

Compassion without accountability gets you nowhere.

Accountability without compassion gets you alienated. Blending
the two is the essence of leadership.

Nate Regier

111
 Introduction

It continues to amaze me how many South African senior business

leaders continue to operate in the high conflict environment that is
South African business armed with the most rudimentary training and
understanding of conflict, its causes, triggers and potential. Their
training in conflict, if we can call it that, generally consists of their own
experience, anecdotes, maybe a self-help book or two, and a morning
seminar ten years ago.

These business leaders are more often than not superbly educated and
experienced in their own fields, and even a few peripherally related
topics, but not in the one discipline that underlies it all: human conflict
and its levers and pulleys. Why is this so?

I think that there are two main reasons for this anomalous situation.
Firstly, we live and work in a country where conflict, especially the
aggressive and loud versions of the concept, is all too prevalent and
visible. We have grown up with several conflict tropes that tell us that
we should stand up for our rights, that we should not be pushovers, that
we must not “take nonsense”. These items of advice are mostly right,
but no-one ever tells us how to achieve it. Often conventional wisdom
teaches us that the loudest person in the boardroom wins, that
compromise is the way to resolve differences, and that litigation is
always just over the horizon as a viable solution. We see conflict and
its consequences in its simplified forms, and we adapt our own conflict
knowledge and skills according to what we believe is the prevailing
conflict wisdom. Aggression, conflict avoidance, compromise – all these
outdated or incomplete strategies seem to work for others, so why fix
what is not broken, right?
Secondly, I do not believe that senior managers and business leaders
are always aware of the depth and power of available conflict best
practices, and how much of a fully transferable skill 80%+ of this modern

112
approach to conflict actually is. We tend to either allow ourselves to
passively be led by circumstances and events that we like to see as
outside our control, or we fail to understand and, importantly, to use
the best practices available to us. It is here that conflict management
at its best is a sword and not a shield, a management tool that should
be used to maximize your business interests.
We see, for example, an over-reliance on at-the-table negotiation in
our more important business negotiations, whether at the level of
conflict or not (in my view all negotiations are examples of conflict…).
As the negotiation guru James K Sebenius reminds us, this strategic
limitation loses sight of the imaginative conflict strategies that are
available beyond the conventional negotiating table. While these at-
the-table strategies will always be our primary strategy, they can and
should be enhanced with other, significant and effective conflict
strategies.

This potential is highlighted with particular clarity when we consider

the overlaps between conflict in its conventional forms and commercial
negotiation, which in my view is one of the modern business world’s
best examples of high level conflict. This link is not always
acknowledged. Should the modern business leader, at high or
intermediate level, not take every available edge in the marketplace?
Do you not owe this to your shareholders, partners, to yourself?
Would you not, if you could, grab the opportunity to understand what
is happening at the negotiation table better than what your opponent
or competitor is understanding? What if you could have a decisive edge
in predicting responses, outcomes, what if you could prevent or
minimize harmful and unproductive conflicts and do so with
predictability, with measured and reliable tools? What if your level of
conflict competency and conflict confidence enables you to actually
read in the nonverbal communications of your competitors that which
they do not want you to know? To put this in another way, if these skills
and advantages were available, why would you not want to master
them? And these conflict tools and skills are available, it is there for
your development and application. Permanent, life and career

113
enhancing skills at your fingertips. Why would business leaders not
make this an essential part of their skillset?

And it is here where conflict management in the wide sense of the word,
as an advanced management tool, has so far been badly served in South
Africa. It is, for various reasons, still misunderstood and very early in
its South African development, even though that is rapidly changing.
Boardroom understandings of conflict management still often consist of
extremely simplified stereotypes of a few clichés, or something to
quickly run through on a Saturday morning. Of the power and potential
of an advanced understanding of conflict as a senior management
business tool very little has been made available.

Globally conflict studies, in several categories, have taken off and it is

now a well-respected and growing academic and practical field in the
major economies. The techniques, the strategies and tactics, the
measuring tools, the coaching are all there, in manageable,
transferable and transferable formats, and the South African frontier
lies open to those business leaders who take the initiative.

Several global improvements and research have put the power of

understanding and applying conflict principles, whether focused on
personal conflict or the general workplace, in the hands of business
leaders as an advanced skill that can be completely internalized and
engineered for the specific goals and nuances of a company. Because it
is a primary skill it need not (in fact, should not) have separate
workplace practitioners, but advanced levels of conflict skills should
form part of the training (initial and ongoing) of all advanced
management teams. This is not something that only the traditional
frontline troops like HR or internal legal staff need, but everyone that
participates in business can greatly benefit from.

The coaching that is available at the highest level is modular, client-

paced and nearly completely transferable, with practical work and
management monitoring par for the course. Most of such coaching is
also of course a skill that the recipients take with them regardless of

114
their specialized industry related training fields, departments, transfers
or promotions.

This essay will then look at a few selected topics that show how
relevant, how necessary an advanced knowledge and ability in conflict
management is in the modern boardroom. We draw a particular
distinction with the earlier essay on workplace conflict, as here the
specific focus is on the conflict competency of senior management and
business leaders. These brief studies in various aspects of workplace
conflict from management’s perspective should also be of practical
value in your day-to-day work. These selected topics will be:

(a) The use of power in conflict;

(b) A practical understanding of the need for and uses of face
saving considerations;
(c) The role of compromise in business conflicts;
(d) Conflict when you have no power;
(e) Moving from confrontation to collaboration;
(f) The conflict competent leader
(g) A brief study of conflict triggers during negotiation
(h) A few thoughts on conflict negotiation

a) The use of power in conflict

Power does not corrupt people; people corrupt power.

William Gaddis

Various areas of everyday business life, such as marketing, preparation,

product knowledge, contacts and networking, resource application,
timing of important team decisions, supply chain management and a
host of others are all really just effects flowing from one hugely
important consideration: the use of power. Conflict, in all of its modern
and polite guises and forms, is how power manifests and plays out in
the business world. The successful modern businessperson needs to

115
understand power at an advanced level, as those are the levers that
move motivation, persuasion, the limitation or escalation of conflict,
risk management, sequence and timing and other modern boardroom
requirements that would make Sun Tzu and Von Clausewitz feel
inadequate.
This element of power in our conflicts can simply be defined and
understood as the ability to influence or control events relevant to that
conflict.
This power in the context of conflict competency is value neutral, and
can be applied equally well to positive as to negative goals. The study
and skill of conflict competence simply gives you the tools, you must
still decide for yourself what to do with them.
In simplified form, workplace conflicts consist of moves and
countermoves played out by the involved parties. The temporary or
permanent differences between individuals and groups, the various
opposing shifting goals and interests can lead to different phases, from
a latent awareness of differences, to action to reaction, perceptions
and influences, all playing roles in the conflict to various degrees.
Perceptions of incompatible interests and goals may remain latent until
one of the various conflict triggers escalates such potential conflict into
actual conflict. This triggering event (e.g. a verbal altercation, a
dispute about the interpretation of a clause in a contract, the breaking
of a promise) then indicates a transition in the way that the parties
involved think and act about the previously latent conflict. This
triggering event and transition then opens up the various conflict
possibilities to the parties, such as disengagement, cycles of further
conflict, escalation, destructive or harmful behaviour, resolution and
so on, all of which events are examples of conflict power in play.

During the differentiation phase especially, these potentialities and

how they are managed sets off the various power abilities and defects
that the parties may possess from time to time, and strategical conflict
considerations and skills start playing an increasingly relevant and
important role.

116
Once the conflict is triggered, the respective power resources available
to the parties may become apparent, and the types and limits of such
power may be signalled or hidden. At the commencement of the
conflict the parties, through their various strategies, test, define and
redefine their previous assessments of the various elements of power
and its limits.

Endorsement of power

Power in conflict is largely dependent on endorsement of such power

by the other parties. An employer’s threat to dismiss striking workers
may carry much weight with employees who need the work and income
to feed their families, while it carries hardly any weight with employees
who have other incomes or job opportunities. A customer’s threat to
McDonalds to “take my business elsewhere” may be perceived
differently if that customer has a Twitter following of 300 000 people,
than opposed to a customer who has no such influence.
The extent to which we then endorse the perceived power of others in
our workplace conflicts sets up further conflict dynamics that define
and shape the conflict. This relational view of power in conflict in itself
brings about options and nuances that may be utilized, as we will see
below.
Endorsement of conflict power can be a very subtle and unseen process,
and we endorse such power as a result of many factors, some of which
we may not even be fully aware of. We may ascribe or deny power at
some level, for example, to white males, educated females, clergy,
NGO’s, young people, Italians or rural people.

As Richard Emerson reminded us

“The power to control or influence the other resides in control
over the things he values, which may range all the way from oil
resources to ego-support.”

117
The effectiveness of a power source in conflict therefore lies in the
interaction between the involved parties.

Categories of power in conflict

This power architecture in conflict ranges from brute force power use,
where for example a party has the power to induce behaviour from
another party that the latter would not have done had it not been for
such power, to ideologies to social categorization, the use of influence,
commercial power, and a range of other power sources. Just about
anything that a party can use to influence conduct and outcomes in that
conflict is a source of and defining influence in that power category.
Power ideologies are simply systems of ideas, norms and beliefs that
are generally accepted in a society, but which directly or indirectly
favour some social group over another, without this advantage being
too evident. These ideologies are pervasive and can be so subtle that
even beneficiaries of such systems do not see or acknowledge such
benefits. They are clearly showcased in modern arguments about
“privilege”, and these conflicts (often raging online in social media),
and the shaping of the debates in themselves have become an exercise
and development of conflict power. Such power ideologies work best
when they are hidden in other apparent conflicts, where they can
influence outcomes without really being noticed or dealt with.
A few recent examples would be the advantage that men had in the
jobs market due to old-boy networks, racial profiling in the boardroom,
the advantages of Western economies and so on.
A power source that has prevailing and far-reaching effect in South
Africa is the social categorization process, a process that for our present
purposes creates preconceptions about what types of people are usually
powerful and what types are usually weak. Different groups in
themselves are assumed to have or lack power in conflict. We may
therefore assume, in terms of these ideologies, that a CEO of a
corporation has certain power, while the domestic worker has little or
no power.

118
This now very subtly leads to endorsement of those perceived and
assumed power sources. This becomes a self-reinforcing cycle in
conflicts, one that we are not always even aware of. We endorse and
recognize the conflict power of some, and reject that of others, without
much or any thought, and in cycles that affect our conflicts.
Research and case studies show that where people view others as
members of a social group more than as individuals they act more
competitively towards them. This process of deindividuation then
focuses our conflict behaviour on stereotyped views of such a group,
and it is now known that as this conflict escalates so does the
deindividuation process. This in turn leads to a decrease in inhibition
and in-group sanction/approval dynamics, and history and present
global experience continue to show us horrendous examples of what
results from such processes.
Factors such as how the power is displayed, how subtle or crude it is
introduced to the conflict, past experience with that specific or a
generic form of that power and the specific party introducing such
power source may all affect responses to that power. Senior
management needs to understand and apply these principles of power
at an advanced level, and it also here, in our boardrooms, that these
sources of power in conflict is shaped, expanded and directed.

The use of power during conflict interaction

The relational essence and limitations of power then show us some of

the mechanics involved in these conflicts. The use of power enables or
constrains parties in the exercise of their own power and the pursuance
of their goals. Strategies used shape and steer the conflict, makes
certain uses of power possible and other uses difficult or impossible.
This understanding and use of power has very real application in the
boardroom and business environment. Research (well summarized by
Kipnis) shows that people tend to use common sense requests, logic and
reason in these conflicts until resistance is experienced, and then the
beliefs and ideas of power and its use start taking over and directing
the conflict. Power now becomes a currency in conflict, and a
comprehensive understanding of it becomes an inarguable requirement
in the modern boardroom.

119
Current conflict studies traditionally divide these categories of power
into four separate types:
(i) The direct application of power – these strategies are
designed to compel others, and normally consist of physical,
economic or political resources;
(ii) A direct and virtual use of power – here these strategies seek
compliance by referring to potential use of direct power, with
threats and promises being the most prevalent examples;
(iii) The indirect use of power, where tacit and implicit use of
power resources are employed; and
(iv) The hidden use of power – here power is used to hide or
suppress certain issues or discussion points, such as for
example keeping an item off an agenda, limiting criticism on
a controversial project and so on.

Tactics and strategies may use more than one of these power sources,
and their use may change according to prevailing and changing
circumstances, as the conflict develops. Management teams and senior
ranking individuals need to understand these power sources, their
appropriate and best use, and in the process an innate sense and ability
to read the changing winds of conflict fortunes becomes an asset.
Issue control, for example, where the agenda and lenses through which
the relevant issues are controlled by a particular party, requires a well-
developed sense of the application of power, the sequence and timing
of strategies, and how to deal with such strategies on both sides of the
table.

Limitations on the use of power in conflict

While the possession and possible use of power is normally seen as

beneficial, conflict management also teaches us that there are
limitations on the use of such power. We consider three practical
examples.

120
Firstly, a power source that is used becomes eroded. Because, as we
have seen, people must endorse (and continue to endorse) power
sources, repeated use of power can erode those perceptions, and can
cause people to revise or withdraw such endorsement. The manager’s
repeated threats and aggression may be effective at first, but may
become sources of irritation or derision after repeated use. Power used
in a conflict may become exhausted because the actual use of such
power proves to be less damaging or harmful, more tolerable than
expected. The threat of this power may be actually more effective than
its actual use.
A second limitation is the risk of having made a mistake about the
supposedly weaker party’s response. This can have several dynamics
that can lead to harmful escalation, such as the weaker party
responding with a decision to not react as before, a threshold of
weakness that leads to public sympathy and the involvement of more
powerful allies.
Thirdly, the stronger party’s power and demanding stance may convince
the weaker party that it has no viable options, that resolution is not
possible, and this may lead to destructive escalation and options being
exercised, or extreme conflict rigidity setting in.

This shows us the limits of power in conflict, but does that mean that
weakness should become a conflict strategy in itself? While real or
feigned weakness can have advantages insofar as timing and sequence
of conflict events are concerned, weakness in conflict is generally a
self-evidently negative attribute in conflict. We consider a few
examples that may not be apparent.
Weakness may lead to limitations in the setting and pursuance of
agendas, discussion points and goals. If a party’s goals and needs are
not discussed or lost in an avalanche of other issues, that may influence
conflict outcomes that are negative. Issue control is often a less
noticeable, but crucial, result of a party’s other, more obvious
weaknesses.

121
Weakness in conflict can also become self-perpetuating and lead to
learned helplessness in that party, where they regard themselves as
weak and powerless. This causes cyclical conflict patterns, and this can
become generational problems that become increasingly more difficult
to recognize and escape from.

Workplace implications of the use of power in conflict

Changing dynamics and the fluctuating endorsement of power make the

correct diagnosis of workplace power a crucial senior management
asset. Parties are often unable, or unwilling, to show their true views
on conflicts and its outcomes, and an incorrect assessment often leads
to an eventual inability to resolve such conflicts.
As a result, it is often challenging to accurately read the true sources
of power at a given moment. Different assessment tools should be used,
with a proper understanding of the changing influences on the various
power sources. Power resources should be identified, and then you
should identify who holds those resources. This includes an accurate
assessment of obvious resources (money, influence, status) as well as
more subtle resources, such as confidence, social support, conflict
experience and skill, and so on.
Power can also be identified and understood through monitoring its
effects. Whose wishes are normally carried through, whose interests
are best served etc. Another effective example can be the principle of
conservatism, where you monitor who is opposed to changes, as a party
with meaningful power under the status quo will often resist any
conflict where this may be altered.
Power detection prior to or early on in a conflict, as well as the
subsequent accurate monitoring and strategy adaptation where
necessary is an essential but often overlooked modern conflict
requirement.

122
 The timing of the use of power

The understanding and correct use of timing and sequence of conflict

dynamics like power in modern conflicts are still not widely understood
and applied. Power still has to be used at the right time. Power used at
the right time may lead to peace, constructive deal making and an
acceptable balance of power that transcends the conflict or make
creative conflict resolution possible. Power applied too late may, for
example, simply lead to a series of least-worst options or to parties
planning mutual destruction or harm. As Christopher Blattman reminds
us in “Why we fight”, the more powerful the options we bring to a
conflict, the better our chances of peace should be.
This ability to correctly and optimally time the use of power in conflict
depends mainly on two skills: a thorough understanding of all of the
moving parts of a particular conflict, and experience.

The synergies and overlaps between conflict, negotiation

and general strategy

These three disciplines are often studied and applied in a general

mishmash of “strategy”, and in that understandable, and rather popular
approach, a lot of the potential of all three are lost. As Dr. Mark Szabo
points out, we need to however understand the differences between
especially conflict and negotiation, as there are specific conflicts where
such a distinction is of great strategic importance, and where a
misdiagnosis can lead to the adoption of incorrect conflict strategies.
Negotiation can be simply commercial discussions and manoeuvres to
reach our business goals, our strategies can be general plans and tactics
to achieve those goals, and our business conflicts are events opposing
the reaching of those goals. This oversimplified framework nevertheless
gives us a brief overview of the differences in the three areas, and why
they are best viewed as separate but potentially interlinked areas of
focus.

While they are most certainly studied, taught and applied as three
distinctly separate disciplines, a skilled conflict practitioner will have

123
an above average understanding and practical level of skill in all three.
In essence, all three areas are manifestations of conflict. Even the
politest of supply chain negotiations or the most repetitive of business
strategies should be approached as potential conflict.

My ongoing in-depth study and practice of all three disciplines has

taught me to see the three as divisible, but best studied and applied as
complimentary skills forming one powerful, whole and essential
business skill, with a gestalt end result that makes such a combined and
expanded study more than worthwhile.

So much has changed in the business world, from Covid-related ways of

doing business to political and economic challenges, technological and
disruptor driven new frontiers, but the one beating heart at the centre
of it all remains – conflict. Our differences drive the creative engine.
Why would we avoid or minimize such potential? Why would we not
regard this as one of our primary business skills?

b. A practical understanding of the need for and uses of face

saving considerations
Modern conflict research recognizes the strategic importance of the
concept of face, from where the more well-known and popular
reference to face-saving is derived. This theoretical concept is defined
in multidisciplinary literature in a variety of ways, but a simple way of
understanding it is to view it as the recognition that people have public
identities, public personas that they want others to recognize and
share. This is an important part of a person’s identity and value system,
and it plays an often subtle, unrecognized or misunderstood part in
conflicts. It is “the communicator’s claim to be seen as a certain kind
of person” (Folger et al), and the importance of face is known and
studied across all cultures.

124
This face-saving concept played a crucial role in ancient battleground
considerations, but it is in the modern business world where it is most
important, and ironically least successfully applied.
Some of these explanations of the phenomenon divides the need for
face into the need to be included, and the need to be respected. Lim
and Bowers make use of the most useful division, into (a) the need to
be included, or fellowship face, (b) the need to have one’s abilities
respected, or competence face, and (c) the want not to be imposed on,
or autonomy face. These are certainly more than mere academic
divisions, as their assessment and strategies have divergent
components, and getting the assessments wrong can lead to negative
results.

When people’s identity claims (or face interests) are challenged or

ignored they are said to lose face, or that they run the risk to do so.
And it is here where a lot of outdated conflict strategies simply fail to
deal with the realities of conflict. Research shows very clearly that
people are quite willing to retaliate, respond less rationally and suffer
great costs if they anticipate or experience the loss of face and what
accompanies that process. Leaving this essential component out of a
conflict strategy has been the downfall of many a great plan on the
whiteboard. It also reminds us that people are not completely and
always rational creatures, and that the emotional, the less-than-
rational should be included in our conflict strategies and expectations.
The question of face also leads to other important conflict dynamics,
often causing additional problems in an existing conflict. Conflicts can
be redefined and made even more complex, even to the point of
intractability, if face is not properly managed during a conflict. In this
way a conflict on a land dispute, for example, can become redefined
and complicated further by the manner in which face saving concerns
are managed during the conflict about the apparent issues. In addition
to now creating this proverbial second front, it also triggers deep-
seated emotions and reactions, and parties become more rigid in their
conflict responses and expectations, trust levels incur damage, and
destructive self-fulfilling prophecies and ideologies have a more fertile
ground to take root in. It often ends up diverting resources such as time

125
and money away from the primary concerns, and once in place these
face concerns can be very hard to identify and deal with. People are
often quite unaware of the existence of such concerns, in others and in
themselves, and may also be reluctant to openly discuss these concerns,
even when they are aware of them.

It follows then that face is a fragile and most important issue, and that
it needs to play a central role in most conflict strategies. As the
research mentioned earlier indicates, people are quite prepared to
walk away even from an apparently and rationally assessed good offer
if their face concerns have not been adequately addressed.

The assessment of what face concerns are at play in a conflict can be

an important part of earlier meeting rituals and processes, and here the
prudent conflict manager looks for clues as to what those concerns in
the other party may be. Is it important that they be seen as good
business negotiators, as ethical traders, as good providers, as friends?
What are their face needs, and is there anything in the conflict so far
that they may perceive as a face threat?

Here we remind ourselves that none of this has anything to do with

“being nice” or any ethical position (although, of course, it includes
that) and everything to do with being effective in our conflicts.
Someone who has face concerns may not be able to get to the real
issues at hand, to the price negotiations, to the consideration of
commercial concessions, to effectively deal with hard questions. Face
must be dealt with for most people before those commercial concerns
can be addressed. In this way, the mutual acceptance of face becomes
a condition of effective interaction, if not its objective.
These dynamics change slightly when we are dealing with face in group
conflicts, with more subtle considerations necessary in obtaining
accurate input, allowing dissenting opinions and how the opposing
group is to be dealt with.

126
While we are dealing with subtle conflict nuances, it must be
understood also that face concerns may arise even though there is no
overt threat to a person’s face concerns. A party to a conflict may need
to be recognized and validated in, for example an overt appreciation of
her contribution, or of the sacrifice that he has made in taking part in
the negotiations.
The early and accurate assessment of the face concerns is then a very
important skill. Is the opponent worried about threats to his
competency, his dignity, is there simply an unwillingness to be
manipulated or intimidated, to what extent are there earlier events
and experiences (with you or similar persons/groups) that may act as
defensive triggers or how else is such concerns to be framed and
understood? Getting this wrong can set you off on a completely wrong
path. Additional nuances to bear in mind here would be the possibility
of certain cultures and individuals seeing the creation of conflict as
losing face in itself, how parties view power, how they view conflict
itself.
South African society have several groups that can be described as
collectivist or high face cultures, where collaboration, group and family
outcomes and a low-conflict approach are still very highly regarded,
even expected. This must be respected and understood, even though
some of those traditions may not be as strongly entrenched as they used
to be.

Strategies to deal with face concerns can practically be divide into

those where there is still time to prevent such a loss of face, and then
those strategies for when face damage has already been done.
Defensive strategies are mainly alignment strategies, where parties are
assured and affirmed in their views or expectations of themselves and
a reiteration or assurance of those identity needs. The rest of the
conflict or negotiation is then conducted within that understanding of
the face concerns and danger areas. To repair damage already done,
consideration can be given to apologies, concessions, discussions about
a better understanding of such concerns, replacement of problematical
parties involved in the conflict, procedural safeguards and so on.

127
Because face is nearly always potentially an issue, and these concerns
may be threatened by a wrong word or gesture, the early assessment is
not the only phase where this is of importance, and face concerns
remain a major strategical consideration throughout the conflict, and
sometimes even after the apparent conclusion thereof.
Dealing effectively with face concerns during conflict therefor is not a
question of being patronizing to people, or a sign of weakness or
toleration, it is a very real modern strategy that simply respects people
as they see themselves, which acknowledges their dignity and makes
you more efficient in reading and guiding the conflict where you need
it to be. It is not primarily a question then about how much you care
about the face concern of others (as laudable a goal as that may), as
how much you care about your own conflict outcomes.

Practically speaking, management is often faced with a balancing act

between these very clear face saving conflict considerations, and the
understandable human need to be right, to be vindicated, for justice to
be done (and to be seen to be done), even for revenge to be a part of
the consequences of a workplace conflict event. These two forces of
nature can often seem like irreconcilable opposites, with one or the
other being chosen for various reasons.

This can be approached while bearing in mind the following conflict

principles:

- Justice should never be compromised by face saving concerns,

especially in the more serious incidents of this nature. In a clear
instance of say sexual harassment, the face saving concerns of
the offender has little or no value in the balancing up of the
resolution of the matter.
- Management should not be hesitant to make the concerns, rights
and interests of the employer / business clear in such debates.
Parties can insist on quite unreasonable demands during
resolution, and any misplaced idea of accommodating
unreasonable demands simply adds to the conflict. Resolution is
a balancing and integration of reasonable demands and
expectations.

128
 - Be careful not to be drawn into the polar solutions that the
conflicting parties themselves may have come up with in their
own definitions of these face concerns. They may very well see
the situation in these terms (“Either Jack gets fired or I leave”),
but this may not be the only creative solution on the table, and
management may very well be serving everyone’s best interests
by being the creative third party, and coming up with other
constructive solutions. Face concerns are often drawn in stark
terms. This may be an unnecessary limitation of the conflict
parameters.
- These conflicts are often seen as irritating and disruptive.
Management could change their own mind-set and the company
culture in one simple step by seeing such conflicts, and the
question of face concerns, as valuable opportunities for
increased conflict experience and competency all around. Think
of resolution in these instances as something more than just
getting people to keep quiet and getting out the door. What is
done here, at this juncture, affects their relationship in future
and, of course, the business concerns that may be involved, such
as performance and so on.

The importance of face saving is an important component of modern

conflict resolution. It often triggers several other considerations and
complications, as we have seen.

c. The role of compromise in business conflicts

An unfortunate and probably unplanned collaboration between our

childhood educators, outdated conflict strategies and pulp self-help
books has conspired to teach us the received truth that conflict can,
and should, be resolved by way of compromise. We even have a handy
list of clichés to illustrate our willingness to do so. We share and share
alike, we meet each other in the middle, we give and we take, we must
give some to get some, and so on. To compromise, so we are told, is a
sign of fairness, of being reasonable. Conflicts, including that modern

129
battlefield, the sales negotiation, are resolved by setting up two or
more opposing goals, and the haggling towards a real or perceived
middle ground, where both parties can politely claim victory and where
commissions can be earned. We split the difference, right?

But everything from modern conflict research to everyday conflict

experience tells us that there is something wrong with this picture, with
this age-old wisdom. A wonderful definition that I work with in
explaining this idea of compromise is that compromise is when you give
away something that you would have preferred to keep. In that simple
little aphorism we already see the problem: we are expected to give
something away that may have value to us.

And to really raise the suspicions that all is not well with this approach,
we find that research also shows quite clearly that compromise
solutions, such as they are, often lead to much resentment among
conflicting parties, and it is a major cause of unresolved and even
cyclical conflicts.

Compromise solutions are easy to sell. They have so much going for
them – they are relatively quick, they seem cost effective, the nagging
and shouting can stop, the guns are silenced, peace returns, and we can
get on with our Real Work. Or so we tell ourselves. Patched solutions,
quick fixes, hurried promises and naïve assurances that “it will work out
better this time” all just make things worse. Compromise that does not
work out make the next round more difficult, we have less confidence
in each other, in the process, in viable solutions, and maybe even in
ourselves. We become complacent. We would rather have the quick and
nasty solution than no solution at all. We rush to a perceived solution,
we trade long term interests for short term gains.

While compromise has its role in our conflicts, and while “sharing is
caring”, compromise must never be a primary strategy, especially for a
businessperson. Conflict, correctly understood and applied, is a

130
creative energy, a stimulus for new thought and new creative solutions,
for clarity, for a renewal of trust, of processes, of abilities and
potential.
The obvious, and tried and tested converse of compromise, a strategy
well-beloved in certain parts of the South African business world, is the
aggressive and tough fighter type of conflict behaviour, and this has its
equal (if not worse) downside and drawbacks, and is as outdated and
potentially harmful a conflict strategy as compromise is. This
philosophy generally, and certainly in the long term, leads to harm to,
or destruction of, business and other relationships, a decrease in
necessary trust levels, and as research shows us incontrovertibly, also
an overall decrease in all of the important business parameters.

What should our approach to conflict and compromise then be as

businesspeople?

An above average understanding of conflict, its buttons and levers, its

potential and dangers, should be our first stop. Conflict studies across
a multidisciplinary field involving conflict resolution, psychology,
neurobiology, social science and others, have left us with such a rich
body of practical understanding of conflict and how to manage it
effectively that it is becoming increasingly difficult for senior
management not to have a solid and comprehensive grounding in
conflict management.
This understanding and skillset will then enable us to see, and create,
solutions that far exceed the staid fight or compromise options that
seem to some to encompass their conflict options. We should make
peace with the ubiquitous nature of conflict, welcome it into the
workplace and the boardroom, and embrace it as the fuel that opens
doors that may very well remain closed to those that do not decide to
grow into their business conflicts. Creating value, seeing hidden options
and solutions, all follow on understanding, and being comfortable with,
conflict.

131
Mastering this skill actually creates unique value in the business world,
and contests become shared missions, shared opportunities. The
handling of information, the mapping of goals, all are handled and
managed differently, and conflicts become opportunities as opposed to
survival exercises. Conflict experts like Bill Sanders have created value
mapping checklists that tap into these new ways of dealing with
business conflicts, and as is always important in the business world,
these strategies can be measured and managed.

We discuss a few additional specific strategies below in the section on

the conflict competent leader.

e. Conflict when you have no power

In the section above on the use of power in our conflicts we briefly

looked at a few of the limitations on power. We know from our business
experience that there are situations where we have little to no power,
a sense of having no or very few viable options. How should we approach
such conflicts in the business world?
As this section will hopefully show, the instantaneous reflex of “settle
or run” are really not the only or best options. A sense of powerlessness
is a poison that sets us off in cyclical negative thinking, we become rigid
in our assessments, our interactions with others and this starts feeding
off itself in a downward spiral.
A practical point of departure here is to remember that you never have
no options. You may be in a terrible situation, one with very few or
even all rather horrible options, but there are still strategies to
consider, choices to be made, creative solutions that may lie below the
surface. This is not, as my earlier promise recorded, a cheerleader
speech. It is a reminder of your conflict realities. Let us put this under
the microscope.

When you reach this stage of the conflict, where you realize the limits
or deficiencies of your power, whether that is early or late in such
process, a first step is to sweep everything off the table and start over.

132
Have you skipped anything in the preparation for the conflict? Do you
have all the puzzle pieces? All the current relevant information, or are
you working off outdated information? Have you accurately assessed
your opponent’s goals, strengths, weaknesses – the real ones, not the
assumed ones? Have you included all parties involved in the conflict, all
decision makers, not just those at the table? Reassess your BATNA
(chapter 2), reassess theirs.
We want to be alert to the developing picture, we want to continue to
participate in it fully, not become a victim being dragged behind events
that affect us. We aim to do so while being authentic to our goals, our
selves. Conflict can have a marked paralyzing effect on us, especially
when we start contemplating failure, consequences and impressions.

Let’s look at a few specific strategies that we can follow when we have
our backs against these walls.

(i) Keep on asking questions, of yourself, your team, your

opponents. Conflicts run on information, keep on lifting those
rocks.
(ii) Align reality with your situation. Are you in this spot because
you were trying to do the impossible, were your goals
realistic, is there a better way to resolve this now that you
have the updated facts?
(iii) Are you focusing on the position in this conflict only? Are
there not wider, longer term considerations that may be
important to your opponent? We often unwittingly create
lenses through which all involved in that conflict then view
the conflict, which may lose its utility once we are in a bad
position strategically. Can these lenses be reshaped, can the
conflict be recast into a different focus? Can the strike about
wage increases become a discussion about mutual benefit? If
you are about to lose the pricing war, will it change the
prognosis if the debate includes long term co-operation,
specific exclusive deals, volume or production concessions?

133
 (iv) Create conditions that may improve your chances of
surviving, even thriving in this conflict. Meet parties in person
as opposed to electronic communication, make sure that you
understand their position, their options. Continue to act with
integrity and authenticity. Consider the long term
implications.
(v) See this moment as an exercise in learning to live with
conflict, even with radical disagreement, as Oliver
Ramsbotham calls it. Not all conflicts can, or should, be
resolved. Consider how this position can act as a catalyst for
other improvements, positive changes, improved or new
business relationships and collaborations.

If you work with this concept long enough, you come to realize that,
sometimes, having little or no power is power.

f. Moving from confrontation to collaboration

A surprisingly prevalent concern among business leaders is the fear that

concessions or signals of co-operation will be seen as weakness or that
such efforts will be abused.
This then often sets up a self-perpetuating cycle of conflict where
parties rather stick to perceived simple strategies of aggression, first
strikes, subterfuge and overt displays of what is seen as power in
boardroom strategies.
As this book shows, there is ample evidence that, when used correctly,
a conflict system built on constructive collaboration is the overall most
effective conflict strategy. Power and more aggressive conflict styles
such as competition have their place in conflicts, especially business
ones, but it ultimately boils down to using the correct conflict strategy
for a particular conflict. How then to be flexible enough to efficiently
move from say competition and the more aggressive styles of conflict
to collaboration without that strategy making you vulnerable to
misconceptions or abuse?

134
The main approach is to make a conciliatory step(s) but not to do so in
a manner that leaves you too vulnerable, and to then build from there,
to move from the current hostile conflict environment (such as a
boardroom negotiation situation) to a more co-operative setting,
without getting hurt or being seen as weak. This is known as
experimental integration, and can be a very effective tool when used
correctly. We can look at two main strategies or types of experimental
integration, both of which could be easily applied in boardroom and
commercial strategies, and which strategies should form a part of any
middle to senior level negotiator’s arsenal.

The first of these is the so-called GRIT system (Graduated and

Reciprocal Initiatives in Tension Reduction). Designed by Charles
Osgood, this system was originally designed for international conflicts
(used in principle by Kennedy and Krushchev after the Cuban Missile
Crisis), but it can be used very effectively in more localized conflicts.

Apply the following steps in the GRIT system:

(i) Set the climate by making a general statement of intent that the
current tensions should be reduced (Example: “This is really
getting us nowhere, we need to try something different. Let me
suggest the following.”).
(ii) Announce your next step clearly, your opponent must know that
this is what you are doing (Example: “I have been very hard on
the end of June time for delivery so far. I am wondering what a
slight extension of that deadline will bring to the table, whether
that would help us to make progress.”).
(iii) Each such step, such concession, should invite reciprocation from
the other side (Example: “If we make progress on that, would
there be any of the quality concerns that you have raised that
would be open for reconsideration?”).
(iv) Do not demand reciprocation, simply create the framework for
that to happen. This means that there should be no overtly
conditional offers at this stage (“If a give you this, then I want
that”). You are still trying to persuade, not force.

135
(v) Continue with these small initiatives for a while (two or three at
most) even though your opponent is not responding favourably.
Your strategy may have caught your opponent off guard, and she
may be trying to decide how to respond. Collaboration takes time
to filter through.
(vi) Your initiatives must be strong, meaningful (but not fatal to your
interests), and they must be capable of verification in future.
Remember that at this stage trust levels may be very low.
(vi) Keep an eye on that balance: you are making a gesture, an
invitation if you will, you are not exposing yourself to
unwarranted risk. Not all of these offers will lead to increased
collaboration.
(viii) Keep any momentum going. If your opponent reciprocates in a
meaningful manner, keep the initiatives going until the tension
has subsided and you are both in collaborative mode.

If your opponent does not reciprocate you have given it your best shot,
you have learned something important about your opponent, and you
can now with full justification revert to your previous, more
competitive style of dealing with the conflict negotiation. Given the
above manner in which you have proceeded with those steps, your
opponent will be aware of the fact that he has refused an opportunity
and that there are consequences, that you were available to collaborate
but that he has now lost that opportunity. You have tried to use the
principle of reciprocity to everyone’s advantage.

The second strategy is the wonderfully named reformed sinner

strategy, where you seek to achieve the same experimental integration
outcome. This strategy is a lot simpler than the GRIT strategy, but it
can be equally successful.

Here you compete as before for a period of time (aggression, hard

demands, refusal to compromise, deadlines and threats – all the more
usual negotiation toolkit items, and then you switch to collaboration /
co-operation). Here you simply use the carrot and stick throughout the

136
negotiation process: concessions reciprocated gets rewarded with
further concessions and collaborative behaviour, failures to do so get
met with a return to the earlier competitive negotiating style and
approach. Keep these offer-and-reaction on short time cycles, offer and
reaction get dealt with immediately. This can be kept up without
comment, and even the slowest of opponents will very quickly spot the
pattern.

Research and case studies show that these strategies work, and work
well. In competitive conflict environments respect is a currency, and
these two strategies show, through their combination of fairness, a
willingness to collaborate but also an ability to return to conflict, a
measure of steel that does earn that respect. Often this is exactly what
is necessary to make that more constructive environment possible. A
lot of people will prefer, and start to try and take advantage of an
opponent before they resort to other, fairer strategies. These solutions
give you that power to change these environments.

It also works because it contrasts (often within the space of a few

minutes) to your opponent the disadvantages of a confrontational
conflict style with the benefits of a collaborative conflict style.

This is conflict tightrope walking, but it can have wonderful results, and
can completely transform an entire relationship.

g. The conflict competent leader

Development is, foremost, dependent on how much you get out of

the one resource that is truly under your own command and
control-namely, yourself.

Peter Drucker

137
 Effective leaders hold themselves accountable for establishing
work environments that provide safety and respect while helping
the organization meet business and financial goals.
Effectively handling conflict encompasses both of
these objectives.

Craig E. Runde and Tim A. Flanagan

In any situation, the person who can most accurately describe

reality will emerge as the leader, whether designated or not.

Edwin Friedman

As this essay so far has shown, the mastering of conflict, in as many of

its facets as is possible, is far more than a nice-to-have, more than
something that you add to your CV over the course of a weekend
workshop. Nearly every important facet of modern business life, from
overt conflicts, commercial negotiation, strategy, staff and team
management, interaction with service providers and clients,
compliance issues, online conflicts, brand management, performance
and a range of other essential business skills all have one thing in
common: actual or potential conflict, and how the management of that
actual or potential conflict influences and affects the business’
existence and performance.
Conflict authors Michele Gelfand and Ya’akov Gal (see their work in The
Psychology of Negotiations in the 21st century workplace in the
Research and Suggested Reading section below) eloquently point out
the modern role of leaders in workplace conflict negotiation and their
impact on workplace conflict:
“Leaders have long been argued to have a large impact on
behaviour in organizations, in part through their influence on
organizational culture, as discussed, but also in their direct
influence through their own moral values, ideals and behavioural
role modelling. Indeed, early studies show a direct link between
leadership and conflict dynamics.”

138
Globally we see how a comprehensive study of conflict, across a wide
range of disciplines, is becoming the norm in the business world, from
middle to senior leadership, involving individuals and teams.
Specialized courses (in person or distance learning) and inclusion of
conflict management skills in business management and leadership
courses and programs have become an essential part of the complete
training of the high end business person.

In South Africa this is also slowly starting to happen, with changes from
the previous approaches to business and conflict to this more effective
strategy becoming more apparent and established practice. The link
between a thorough understanding and mastery of conflict principles
and techniques are understood and valued by an increasing number of
business and political leaders. Our own six month distance learning
course has attracted a few hundred business and political leaders and
several senior figures in the legal profession. Several workplaces are in
the process of designing specialized conflict coaching programs and
processes for selected members of their various teams and
departments.

The summarized conflict efficiency goal that a business or individual

should be striving for is a term known as conflict competency. Runde
and Flanagan define such conflict competence as
“… the ability to develop and use cognitive, emotional and
behavioural skills that enhance productive outcomes of conflict
while reducing the likelihood of escalation or harm.”

This oversimplified definition gives us a strong sense of the essential

nature of conflict competency, and should at the very least cause the
modern responsible business leader to take stock of their own conflict
competency, both on a personal and an organizational level.
Competency leads to confidence. Once you are conflict competent, you
will become conflict confident. This should deal with the technical
knowledge of conflict, as relevant to your industry and your business,
and also with psychological aspects of such conflict training, conflict
styles, conflict fear or avoidance, and other practical applications of

139
conflict in your workplace. Such training should be practical, relevant
and preferably an eventual in-house program, with expansion and
continued learning possibilities built into such program. In this process,
one of the significant benefits that we achieve is to realise that we do
not have those difficult conflicts because they are now easy, but
because they are worth it, that there is meaningful benefit in them for
us. A purely mercenary approach to the motivations for such conflict
competency is perfectly in order (and popular).

For the rest of this essay we will then look at a few selected conflict
concepts the knowledge of which will be of practical benefit to senior
business leaders, and which concepts may give you a hint of the business
potential of true conflict competency. While the business leader can
benefit from every essay and topic covered in the book, these examples
are segments of what conflict coaching will initially be dealing with.

Wicked problems

This quirky concept is of great practical value to middle and senior

management, and the mere understanding of the concept already
should assist with some complex conflicts. We see via several examples
referred to throughout this book how unwise it is to rush to solutions
with some conflicts, especially the complex ones, and how proper
differentiation and analysis is often a crucial tool in these conflicts. The
Coherence Trap (see Chapter 2) reminds us of the need to go slow and
steady in these circumstances, at least until we have sufficient
information. This is maybe the more so to be internalized in the
workplace, where the stakes are often higher than in our personal lives.
A very helpful concept to bear in mind, whether in our conflicts or just
in our everyday working lives, is the idea of certain problems being
Wicked Problems.

The originator of the idea, Horst Rittel, has set out a few descriptions
of these wicked problems, as that tends to describe it more efficiently
than a definition would, and of course, it may be quite difficult and

140
unhelpful to have too much of a strict definition. The idea nevertheless
appears clearly from these descriptions.
Wicked problems all have the following characteristics:
(i) You do not understand the problem until you have developed
a solution;
(ii) Wicked problems have no stopping rule, that is they do not
necessarily have a final end moment clearly defined;
(iii) Solutions to wicked problems are not right or wrong, we
simply work with “better”, “worse” or “good enough” types
of solutions;
(iv) Every wicked problem is essentially unique and novel;
(v) Every solution to a wicked problem is essentially a “one shot”
operation;
(vi) Wicked problems do not have given alternative solutions.

Conflicts and business problems such as urban planning, resource

allocation, how to deal with crime and violence in schools, the content
of a mission statement and so on are all examples of wicked problems.
An understanding of the problem brings about a different problem
solving mind-set to conflicts, with an understanding firstly that linear
problem solving does not always bring about the solutions to these
complex problems, and also that some of these problems require human
relationships and social interactions are to be put at the centre of these
conflicts and their solutions.
Rittel’s work led to his design of the well-known IBIS (issue based
information system) approach, from which flowed the equally well-
known and helpful dialogue mapping philosophy, of which there is no
better proponent than Jeff Conklin and his wonderful little book,
“Dialogue Mapping”. Readers who want to consider this conflict and
management tool are referred to the book, and I regularly suggest to
conflict mediators that they study this book, as it sets out Rittel and
Conklin’s work succinctly.
For our purposes here I am simply pointing out to readers that the mere
understanding, and being aware of the concepts discussed, that is the

141
Coherence Trap and the presence of wicked problems, already gives
them an advantage of those who rush where angels fear to tread.

Escalation of conflict

The escalation of a conflict, where emotions start taking over, insults

and threats start flying, where frustrations and fears start making
decisions and generally where the parties start moving away from each
other, is generally a negative development in a conflict, especially in
the business world where relationships are more voluntary (than say
family ones), and where a few inconsiderate seconds can cause
irreparable harm to a business relationship. Throughout the book we
guard against uncontrolled escalation, which especially during the
differentiation phase of a complex conflict can derail or harm our
conflict management strategies.
There are however rare instances of conflict where the dispute should
be escalated, even by artificial interventions if need be. Your increased
conflict competence and experience will guide you in walking these fine
lines. Some conflicts need a nudge to get out of ruts caused by
misplaced politeness, conflict avoidant behaviour by the parties, fear
of errors or management disapproval and so on. This locks those
disputants in an unhealthy cycle of either unproductive or avoidant
conflict behaviour, such as repetitive fruitless meetings, a breakdown
in communication and so on.

These conflict situations, where the behaviour and options have

become stale and unproductive, may require some strategic conflict
escalation. This is often a risky strategy, but it also may lead to a
breaking of deadlocks, a better understanding of each other’s position
and a resetting of priorities. This can often be achieved by breaking
down existing comfort zones and behaviour patterns, changing the
personal dynamics in teams by adding or removing selected team
members (even for ad hoc events) or proposing new solutions and then
allowing debate (and arguments) about that to clear the air.

142
This should be seen as a rather advanced conflict technique, and should
only be used when you have reached a high level of conflict
competence. Inexperienced conflict parties generally lose control of
important dynamics once a conflict starts to escalate, and it is
sometimes very difficult, if not impossible, to regain solid footing after
that.
Conflict in the modern workplace – specifically from senior
management’s perspective

We have briefly looked at some of the costs of conflict. Conflict in the

modern workplace may run on the same principles that have been
around since decades or centuries ago, but our understanding of
conflict (and a range of related fields) have changed drastically in the
last few years, as have the various technology-based or generated
conflicts, new challenges and best conflict practices to manage such
conflicts.
Technology, especially social media, has brought about new frontiers in
these conflicts, new challenges requiring new responses. Employees
and clients have near-instantaneous access to a wide range of
knowledge, pseudo-knowledge and pure fabrication. Expectations have
changed, communication rules have changed, and a single person with
a smart-phone can take on a corporation, with real or imagined
complaints, as phenomena like cancel culture and various social media
campaigns so vividly illustrate.
As these public examples also unfortunately illustrate, very few
businesses are really adequately trained to deal with such campaigns.
The nuances of modern conflict management are simply not understood
and consequently not applied. Workplace conflicts, from social media
attacks to union negotiations to competitor conduct are all approached
on a largely haphazard, case by case basis, often on a wing and a prayer,
and relying on past experience and with a fair amount of hope as a
strategy. These are preventable, measurable, manageable situations,
and should be effectively internalized by the modern business.
The complexity of modern workplace conflict can very adequately be
met by the tools provided by modern conflict management best
practices. Workplace conflict system design, individual and team

143
conflict coaching, workplace mediation and a range of other responses
and interventions, including the effective understanding and managing
of external conflict communication during a brand crisis, all arm the
modern management team with all they need.

Staying with conflict

Over time, often even the most qualified and educated business leader
develop an aversion to sustained conflict. This manifests in concerns
about profitability, productivity and, an unspoken and often unnoticed
concern, that of our personal comfort. We become tired of all the
emotions and symptoms that we have come to associate with conflict.
We start to avoid and supress conflict in the workplace, we subtly start
delegating high conflict decisions and processes, and we start guarding
our comfort zones. To an extent this is of course good and to be
expected. But it is a fine line between successfully dealing with (even
reducing harmful or unproductive conflict) and depriving ourselves and
our management teams of those conflicts that can stimulate and teach
us to grow, to craft solutions and to come out stronger and better
leaders on the other side of them.
The modern leader should see one of the benefits of conflict
competence as being confident enough so as to not avoid or supress
constructive conflicts, to even seek them out as the areas of growth
and progress that they can be, especially in the workplace. Learn to
stay with uncertainty, with a “not yet” answer, with a patient and
skilful application of your conflict knowledge. One of the conflict
problems that we often notice in conflict coaching is that impatience
with enduring conflict, that management rush to solutions and the end
of the problem, often at great cost insofar as the assessment of the
correct facts, the options and solutions available and with adverse
results as to conflict confidence.
It speaks for itself that the quicker and most cost effectively we can
resolve conflicts the better, but experience in the business world shows
that there are some conflicts that endure, that reoccur either as an
ongoing conflict or as a cyclical conflict that arises when certain
conditions and triggers are met. Here the wise business leader will do

144
what can be done to end or mitigate those causes and triggers, but also
make provision for long-term conflicts if they cannot be avoided
without harm. This entails strategic decisions such as the wise use of
power, support for people in decision making positions in that conflict,
aiming for incremental gains rather than those once-off victories, and
generally confronting conflict avoidance in all its subtle manifestations.
This requires, and leads to, an increase in your conflict competence as
well as the conflict competence of your teams.
In head to head conflicts in the business world it is often the leader that
can stay with all those uncomfortable side-effects of a pending conflict
that carries the day. As hard as it may be, try to add this skill to your
conflict abilities.

What can the busy and focused business leader then practically do to
become conflict competent, either as an individual or to extend that
skill to her or his business environment and teams? Let us consider a
few practical and already existing solutions. These strategies are all
user-controlled, modular and can be tailor-made for the most specific
individual, business or brand requirements.

Some practical considerations to become conflict competent

(i) Acquiring conflict skills adequate to your business or personal
requirements is of course an important first step. Conflict
coaching, the design and implementation of personal or team
programs, and the necessary transference of these skills to
relevant people or departments must be carefully designed and
implemented as a point of departure. This should however not
be a box ticking exercise, but one that is designed into the very
essence and spirit of the corporation. Care must be taken to
make this conflict competency a part of the very culture of at
least senior management. Any existing organizational obstacles
to the inculcation of such a conflict competency culture should
be established and resolved.

145
(ii) Design this company conflict culture to be dynamic and flexible.
If this is done correctly every conflict event will act as a stimulus
to personal and organizational improvement, to a monitoring and
upgrading of systems and processes, and every conflict event will
bring an advantage to the business. Start using some of the
modern conflict best practices such as conflict mapping, DSD and
team coaching to give your business a measurable edge in
workplace competition, commercial negotiation and
interpersonal conflict. Make these habits and processes an
intrinsic part of your business practices.
(iii) Find your own level of confidence and comfort with training and
coaching. Within an organization these competency levels can be
gauged and monitored rather easily, as they should be aligned
with management goals and results, but on a personal level there
is more scope for the occasional blind spot or area of resistance,
such as conflict avoidance. If necessary, let a conflict
professional or even a colleague assist you with your personal
profile as far as conflict is concerned, and design your conflict
program from there.
(iv) Approach workplace conflict as holistically as possible.
Traditional approaches to these conflicts seek to reduce
workplace conflicts to issues such as wages, profits, us and them.
Even a moderate level of conflict competency will teach you the
intense psychological and neurobiological causes and triggers of
conflict, and will both make you more proficient in dealing with
conflict and also how to see these conflicts as a comprehensive
human experience. This has positive outcomes as far as certain
consequences and risks not always associated with workplace
conflicts, such as motivation, self-worth, energy levels,
performance and so on. An adequate level of conflict training
should also put you in greater control of your emotions, which is
a component of the conflict confidence goal. Proficiency at
workplace conflict of course also spills over into personal conflict
competency, a skill that is always handy to have around. Begin
to see conflict as an asset.

146
(v) Set up sufficient organizational reminders and structures to
ensure ongoing upgrading and improvement of your company’s
conflict competency structures. This will keep you on the cutting
edge of local and global best practices. See if it possible to
remove this from the control of a single person, so that continuity
and a guaranteed sharp focus can be ensured.
(vi) Make conflict competency a valued skill, not another
management enforced fad, with this advanced understanding
becoming as much a part of existing systems and procedures as
deemed necessary. An HR practitioner, for example, should
become conflict competent as a natural and organic consequence
of her work requirement and best performance considerations,
not as another management whim or improvement program.
(vii) Try to raise the conflict literacy of the company as high as
possible, through ongoing and department appropriate conflict
programs, workshops and a pervasive culture where such conflict
competency is rewarded or acknowledged. Imagine the benefits
to your business if people are able to efficiently resolve their
more minor conflicts with each other, where respect and dignity
can be a hallmark of conflicts, and where not every real or
imagined slight turns into an extensive drama that involves
several other parties.
(viii) If you regard it as appropriate, consider enabling select staff
members to become conflict competent as (amongst other goals)
an aid in their personal lives as well. South Africa is beset by a
dizzying range of conflicts, most of which impact the everyday
citizen, and where conflict competency can be a crucial life skill.
Here, maybe even more than in other instances, even a simple
level of conflict competency learned at the workplace can have
very real, very positive benefits for employees.
(ix) If you run a business, or are involved in management level
decisions, consider and investigate the obvious benefits of the
Dispute System Design (DSD) option to bring conflict competence
to individuals, teams and workplaces (see Chapter 9).

147
 Conflict resolution and creativity

While most people spend their conflict resolution time mostly in the
science of that discipline, there is also most assuredly an art to
effective conflict resolution. Business leaders and teams that I work
with often express surprise (and surprised joy) at the creative powers
unleashed at times by understanding and managing conflict at an
advanced level. What appeared as mere drudgery or operational
headaches at times can take on new and exciting dimensions, and
problems and uncertainties become assets and possibilities.
So as to not interfere with our more scientifically minded readers I will
not divert us onto those more creative paths, save in firstly pointing out
that those more creative conflict solutions have a very solid scientific
and empirical foundation and are therefore as viable and as much
economically justifiable as the other more literal options, and secondly
I would heartily refer the reader interested in such an expansion of her
or his conflict resolution abilities to two books, the first being Visual
Intelligence by Amy Herman (although her follow-up book, Fixed is also
worthwhile) and the second being Creativity and Conflict Resolution by
Tatsushi Arai (full references in suggested reading section at the end of
this essay).

Leadership and complex conflicts

One of the category distinctions that effective leadership needs to be

able to make is to distinguish between ordinary conflicts and complex
conflicts. As Mark Szabo illustrates, there is a difference between a
complex conflict and a complicated one. This has a different focus and
application than the note on Wicked Problems we looked at earlier.
Something that is complex has a lot of uncertainty about it, something
complicated has not. A complex problem and conflict, for our purposes
then, involves conflict that has elements of uncertainty and
unpredictability. A complicated conflict may have a lot of moving parts,
but little or no uncertainty.

148
This is an important distinction that requires an entirely different set
of strategies and tactics, and conflict competent leadership will use this
distinction as one of the most important initial categorisations.

h. A brief study of conflict triggers during negotiation

Conflict, especially in the business world, has a habit of sneaking up on
us. A fair offer clearly causes our opponent some distress and anger, a
simple negotiation that is in the proverbial bag falls apart for no
apparent reason, an innocent comment causes offense and threatens
months of hard work. People, right? Can’t predict them.
Well, it turns out that conflict research helps us to understand, predict,
minimize and even avoid some of these unexpected conflicts. Let’s have
a look at a few of these practical applications of the research, some of
these being quite counter-intuitive.
As we have seen earlier in the book (Chapter 4), we are less rational,
especially during stressful conflict events, than what we may have
thought to be the case. This is nothing to be concerned about, and as
we will consider throughout the book, our knowledge of these triggers
and our awareness of how conflict gets caused will tend to turn the dial
back to the predictable, rational side of things. This does require that
we understand our emotions a little better, that we properly
understand their role and benefit in our business world, and how they
affect and guide our conflicts. As we will see, some of these emotions
are very well hidden from us, and we react to impulses and conditioning
that we may not always be aware of. And, as this section will show,
neither do our business opponents.
We can start our brief excursion with a look at the role of fairness, or
justice if you will, and how it plays a very important part in our
conflicts, often triggering unexpected conflict outcomes.
Social psychologists, and their work as seen through a conflict
management lens, have shown that people have emotional responses to
their perceptions of justice and fairness around them. Specifically, if
these people perceive themselves as victims of unfairness or injustice,
this generates anger in them. As we start to then understand conflict

149
management not only as winning our battles but also doing so in a
manner in which we (at times) look after the relationship involved (of
particular importance in the business world), we need to understand as
a point of departure that it is not just the substantive outcomes of our
negotiations that are important, but also the perceptions of fairness
and justice (in result and process) in the minds of our opponents.
Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has, as we have looked at earlier in
the book, done extensive studies on so-called innate moral values, of
which he originally found five (fairness, care for others (compassion, if
you will), respect for authority, loyalty to one’s group and
purity/sanctity). He later added liberty (the description of these
categories differ, and interpretations of what they consist of also lead
to slight differences, but they remain of great practical use). Of these
six human moral values, the first two, i.e. fairness and care for others,
were found to be universally present in nearly all humans at some level
or another. We are genetically programmed to believe in the value of
fairness.
Research clearly shows that people are prepared to refuse negotiation
outcomes if they perceive that to be the result of unfairness or
injustice. This underscores two important consequences of these
studies, of particular importance for our practical day-to-day business
lives, and that is that our negotiations remain social interactions, and
that most people place a high premium on the social implications of
negotiation outcomes.
It follows from this that our opponents do not just expect fair outcomes
in negotiations, but that they expect and monitor fair processes used
during such negotiations. Remember throughout that this, with most
people, is an important but probably subconscious process, one that
they may not be aware of. Conflict research and material refers to this
phenomenon as “interactional justice”.
Related to this requirement of fairness is of course the crucial
importance of the face concerns that we looked at earlier in this essay.
This shows us the interrelated nature of conflict and its various
dynamics. We are, in these negotiations, not just balancing the
financial columns, but also the conflict variables.

150
When such transactional or interactional injustice is then perceived by
a party, and she also believes that you are (a) in control of your actions
and (b) morally responsible for them, we have just seen the creation of
anger, a deep-seated, emotionally based anger that can cause a lot of
harm, may be hard to trace back to its source, and which emotion could
quite easily lead to not just conflict, but conflict escalation, cyclical
conflict, distrust and a few other symptoms.
This anger, once triggered, has a hormonal component, and this can
easily start feeding on itself. The initial (unintended, unacknowledged)
insult, followed by something like “Are you serious?” can start in motion
a conflict snowball effect.
And this has nothing to do with boardroom tantrums which will come
and go. This research also shows how people now have to create a
coherent and (to them) acceptable narrative to explain this event, and
this can in a very brief time lead to polarisation and a good/bad
dichotomy. Once these positions have been taken up by the opponent
a series of emotional conflict processes easily cause a hardening of
these perceptions, from which it becomes incredibly difficult to really
move them. This is the more so because, once we have scripted this us
versus them narrative, we see all efforts to even dislodge that through
that lens, and defensive barriers come up that complicate further
efforts at resolution.
This sets off a potentially endless self-feeding loop where the person
has a negative impression of another, even positive efforts or
information is seen sceptically and through a negative filter, which in
turn simply reinforces the original bad impression.
But wait, it can get worse. Research shows a multiplier effect in these
situations, where a person’s negative views and anger can actually
serve to influence and convince members of that team or group of the
justification of such anger, and for them to share it without
independent verification or cause. This further causes damage and a
cycle of conflict. Studies show how the likelihood of settlement is
actually negatively impacted by these processes.
This can directly lead to several conflict outcomes that you may not
have intended and do not need around, that is a sense of moral outrage

151
and a need to retaliate by this person, the person now becomes (as the
research disturbingly shows) willing to forego their own material goals
and best interests, and such a person becomes less empathetic, less
willing to consider alternatives and solutions, conflict rigidity sets in,
and maybe most harmful of all, the unsuccessful conclusion of the
negotiations and the perceptions created now in all likelihood will cause
permanent damage to the relationship. While this is happening “over
there” you and your team may be undergoing much of the same conflict
triggers on your side, with each side acting on what they think are
provocations and negative behaviour from the other side.
Successful strategies to counter this catastrophic process will start
with avoiding setting off such unintended cascades of conflict in the
first place. Ensure visible and clear procedural fairness, and be open to
discuss perceptions of unfairness (remember it is not about objective
unfairness, it is all about their perceptions of such unfairness). Do not
react defensively to such enquiries, and take sufficient time to iron out
any misconceptions. Make creative amendments where necessary, and
do not move on before this is resolved.
As a silver lining we can add that a growing body of research also shows
that positive emotions regarding such issues (fairness) can enhance the
chances of resolution.

(i) A few thoughts on conflict negotiation

The modern business leader or manager needs to be able to understand
conflict and negotiation at a significantly more advanced level than the
recent past, when commercial negotiations were often played out
mainly along lines of minimum prices and cost considerations. A more
comprehensive understanding of the modern business concerns in
general and conflict in particular shows that there are more to the
process than just an oversimplified debate about price.
Our negotiations, often ostensibly about simple issues and without any
hint of conflict, can however play significant roles in conflicts that may
be more difficult to trace and understand. A commercial opponent may
accept your price, but be resentful about other issues away from the
table, team members may go through the motions as a result of

152
unresolved conflicts, clients or potential clients may leave without a
word as a result of the consequences of unrelated and often unnoticed
conflicts between employees, and so on.
It is therefore often helpful for senior management and business
leadership to understand the general principles of negotiation and how
that may influence these unnecessary and harmful conflicts. We can
use a framework that conflict expert Bernard Mayer often uses to give
us a helpful understanding of this limited overlap between negotiation
and conflict principles.
At the outset we can look at the difference between distributive and
integrative negotiation. While these negotiations often cannot be
neatly divided into categories, it is strategically helpful to know the
difference between them, to know when which category is playing out
and how to change from the one to the other and why this should be
so. There is no “correct” strategy, and this depends on the dynamics of
the particular situation.
Distributive negotiation is characterized by an approach where we try
to maximize the gains from such negotiation for ourselves or the parties
that we represent. Issues here are often framed along lines of
compromise, power is used (sometimes rather openly), alternatives are
used as leverage, and we seek to influence other parties to see the
alternatives as we want them to do. During this process information is
used mainly to influence these alternatives and to arrive at our desired
outcome, or as close to that as possible.
Distributive negotiation need not be adversarial, and it is very popular
in the South African business world, often as the one method that most
commercial negotiators have experience with. Possible negative
outcomes resulting from distributive negotiation include the potential
for quick escalation of a conflict, a tendency not to properly share
information or to really canvass the issues other than that seen from
the very narrow perspective of the parties, it can adversely affect the
long term relationship between the parties, and if there are any
lingering and unresolved conflicts between the negotiating parties this
approach may increase these divisions. The limited approach also often
leaves parties with decreased options when an impasse is eventually

153
reached, and possible creative solutions and value creation often
suffers as a result of this strategy.
Integrative negotiation aims to increase the value on the table by way
of creative and co-operative solutions. This strategy is characterised by
an increased exchange of information, and also by a difference in the
quality and depth of such information exchanges. Here we are no longer
simply trying to selectively share information in order to persuade, we
are using information as a tool to enhance value, options and solutions.
We see this type of negotiation in its best form when the parties
discover a joint interest, such as found in management/union joint
interests, parents during a divorce and so on. These joint interests are
however often only found as a result of that free flow of information.
Integrative negotiation is about building relationships, whether for this
particular project or for a more enduring timeframe or series of
projects. It requires effective communication, and this often implies an
understanding of the stages of such a process, where information is used
to build trust, where solutions are gradually built and arrived at as a
result of such a process. Integrative negotiations are, by their nature,
also more focused on procedural fairness, the psychological impact of
what is occurring and problem solving. The parties here do not just
focus on the substantive issues to the exclusion of all else. It requires a
fine line being walked between sharing too much information and
sharing too little, and it needs some level of partnership to be built
between the parties.
These two main categories of negotiation can often be found in the
same negotiation, and it is a reasonably common occurrence to see a
distributive style being followed by a more integrative one. The conflict
competent leader monitors these developments and uses the most
appropriate option, depending on the changing needs of the situation.
This distinction is also more practically helpful than the standard as
proposed in the original formats by people like Fischer and Ury, such as
the difference between interests and positions. These two aspects
(interests and positions) are often not that far apart in practice, and
using that as the two options often fails to really let all options and
solutions surface, ending in a de facto distributive scenario.

154
Negotiation and conflict can helpfully be viewed as complex, adaptive
systems of interaction, and a practical understanding of and experience
with these concepts during negotiation and the potential or realisation
of conflict as a result thereof should be an important business skill.

Conclusion

Modern leadership is challenged by perpetual conflict. Dealing with

direct and indirect conflict, its apparent and hidden costs, building
coalitions and using the various energies and potential of those conflicts
has become the foundational requirement, and test, of effective
leadership. Too often though we still find that leaders are trained in
the secondary manifestations of such conflict, without having a
sufficiently solid and modern foundational training in understanding and
mastering conflict as a business tool. Setting conflict competency as an
important goal, and then achieving that, changes everything.

REFERENCES AND READING SUGGESTIONS

(Chapter 5)

1. My extensive article on conflict coaching (personal and teams) can

be found at CONFLICT COACHING - The Conflict Conversations
(conflict-conversations.co.za) The article also featured in Business
Talk during 2022
2. Working through conflict, by Joseph P. Folger and others,
Routledge (2021)
3. Why we fight, by Christopher Blattman, Penguin Books (2022)
4. Creative Conflict, by Bill Sanders and Frank Mobus, Harvard
Business Review Press (2021)
5. My article about Conflict at the Negotiating Table – turning swords
into shares, can be found at CONFLICT AT THE NEGOTIATING
TABLE - The Conflict Conversations (conflict-conversations.co.za)

155
6. Hostage at the table, by George Kohlrieser, Jossey-Bass (2006)
7. When conflict resolution fails, by Oliver Ramsbotham, Polity Press
(2017)
8. Becoming a conflict competent leader, by Craig Runde and Tim
Flanagan, Jossey-Bass (2013)
9. Leading through conflict, by Mark Gerzon, Harvard Business School
Press (2006)
10. Radical transformation and sustainability, by Richard Noor and
others, Reach Publishers (2020)
11. Negotiation, by Roy J. Lewicki and others, McGraw-Hill (2020)
12. Dispute Systems Design, by Lisa Blomgren Amsler et all, Stanford
University Press (2020)
13. Dialogue Mapping, by Jeff Conklin, John Wiley and Sons (2006)
14. Staying with conflict, by Bernard Mayer, Jossey-Bass (2009)
15. The five percent, by Peter Coleman, Public Affairs Publishing
(2011)
16. Conflict without casualties, by Nate Regier, Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, Inc (2017)
17. The psychology of conflict and conflict management, by Carsten
De Dreu and others, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (2008)
18. The Oxford Handbook of Conflict Management in Organizations,
edited by Roche, Teague and Colvin, Oxford University Press
(2014)
19. The psychology of negotiations in the 21st century workplace,
edited by Barry Goldman and Debra Shapiro, Routledge (2012)
20. Visual intelligence, by Amy Herman, Mariner Books (2016)
21. Creativity and conflict resolution, by Tatsushi Arai, Routledge
(2009)
22. Fight Different, by Dr. Mark Szabo, Szabo+Partners Ltd (2020)
23. Chapter Emotions of Conflict in Negotiation Theory and Strategy
(3rd edition) by Russell Korobkin, Aspen Publishing (2014)
24. The dynamics of conflict, by Bernard Mayer, (2nd edition), Jossey-
Bass Publishing (2012)

156
 CHAPTER 6: CONFLICT AND WORKPLACE
DIVERSITY
Conflict at work

It is no longer good enough to say “diversity is an asset”. Leaders

are expected to lead the way of inclusion, to live the values and
to define the DNA of their organization in more visible ways with
their head, heart and hands.”
Bongani Nqwababa (joint president and CEO, Sasol Ltd)

Those I’ve known who’ve most changed the world exhibit a

voracious curiosity about the world and other people, and a
willingness to listen and empathize with those unlike them.

Jacqueline Novogratz

They misconstrue or ignore what abundant research has now made

clear: Increasing the numbers of traditionally underrepresented
people in your workforce does not automatically produce benefits.
Taking an “add diversity and stir” approach, while business
continues as usual, will not spur leaps in your firm’s effectiveness
or financial performance.

Robin J. Ely and David A. Thomas

157
Morality is the capacity to care for others. It is a journey beyond
the self.

Jonathan Sacks

The country will not change until it re-examines itself and

discovers what it really means by freedom.

James Baldwin

Sometimes change doesn’t require more horsepower. Sometimes

we just need to unlock the parking brake.

Jonah Berger

Beating inequality cannot be achieved by one great leader, one

organization, or even one sector, alone; the future we build needs
to be leaderful and collaborative.

Ben Phillips

Practicing honest diversity, we listen without having to agree, we

cultivate common ground even as we stand our ground, we act
from a place of grace.

Irshad Manji

158
 Introduction

Diversity in the South African workplace has unfortunately, like in the

rest of South African and several other societies, largely lost its power
and potential to create, to heal, to inspire and to transform.
For mostly good and understandable reasons, ranging from politeness
to compliance, from corruption to historical conditioning, we have
stripped this wonderful engine of change and turned it into a box-
ticking, compliance exercise. We have thrown away the gift of diversity
and are now playing with the box that it came in. As frustrating as these
under-achievements can be, the good news about workplace diversity
potential is that it can be achieved in a very brief period of time, with
minimal cost outlay and with fully transferable skills as part of those
benefits.
Over the last three decades we have, mostly by way of our so-called
BEE programs (in its many iterations), become accustomed to certain
processes, standards and outcomes, and these bad habits will have to
be unlearned before we acquire the tools necessary to really reach the
potential that diversity, properly managed, can bring. As is becoming
increasingly apparent even to the most ardent supporters of these
formal BEE programs, the program is one thing and the application quite
another.
Most, if not all, of these formal legislative workplace diversity programs
have up to now been regarded as abject failures, often causing far more
harm than good. This is not so because of the core idea (that workplace
playing fields need levelling), but in the application thereof. A failure
to understand the operating principles of true workplace diversity,
including the most important conflict causes and triggers, corruption,
nepotism and a long list of disappointing causes have now left us staring
at the pieces of what was supposed to be the mechanism of repair,
healing and mutual prosperity.
This has led to understandable scepticism and open hostility towards
the general BEE principles, in the wide sense of the term. As we will
consider in this essay, there is very little wrong with the principle
behind these efforts, and workplace diversity is a healthy, commercially

159
viable and defensible strategy, whether on moral, ethical or even just
plainly financial terms.

An important understanding necessary in effectively dealing with

workplace diversity conflicts is to realize that these conflicts can be
extremely subtle in appearance and yet have very harmful and wide-
ranging consequences. In a recent workplace gender study, Michael
Haselhuhn and Laura Kray show, for instance, that mere existence of
stereotypes can cause workplace problems.

“Regardless of whether the stereotype is believed to be true,

the mere knowledge that a negative stereotype exists
about a social group can create a self-fulfilling prophecy
for its members.”

Gender diversity can, for instance, lead to unexpected and harmful

workplace conflicts based on the subtlest of distinctions and
perceptions. For example. while a number of conflict studies show
convincingly that men and women do not meaningfully differ in the
tactics and styles they use during conflict, there are far more real
distinctions in how the genders are expected to act and think, with the
stereotype telling us that women value relationships more and men
value task orientated results more during such conflicts. This is simply
not borne out by the research, and can quite easily lead to management
miscalculations (assessment of efficiency, for example) and
resentment, all forerunners of workplace conflict.
This subtlety can inadvertently lead to these conflict causes and
triggers, or it can simply be manipulated with full knowledge and
understanding of these principles, at various levels of management.
Research, for example, clearly shows how those benefiting from
diversity disparities will justify (sometimes to themselves) how there is
no problem, no conflict. Evidence shows how subordinate groups at
times participate in and contribute to their own subordination.
Societal, community and even workplace cultures create and
perpetuate legitimizing myths that provide apparently moral and
intellectual justification for diversity prejudices, and as a result we

160
observe that workplace teams and groups may be in conflict with each
other without either group really being consciously aware of this.

Those of us working with diversity, especially in the workplace, have

also come to know and use the term DEI (diversity, equity and
inclusion), and we will make use of this helpful concept from time to
time in our discussion.

Diversity defined

What is this diversity, particularly as it is applied to the workplace? Why

do we need to understand it better in the first place?

A rather helpful approach to a simple, working definition can be found

in the work of JT Garner and MS Poole, who make the following
distinction:
“In workgroup research, diversity has been conceptualized
both in terms of observable characteristics such as gender,
age, and race and also in terms of underlying characteristics
such as beliefs, perspectives, values, functional specialty,
profession and experience.”

On a popular level it is understood as difference, as distinctions often

drawn on the basis of societal norms and preferences. It has narrow
applications (for most people diversity debates really equate to race
and gender concerns) or wide categories (differences in sports
affiliations, physical appearance, intellectual or social distinctions).
Everyone knows what it is and few will agree on what exactly that is.
In legal terms there are of course, especially in some of our legislation,
certain definitions as to some of these diversity understandings
(previously disadvantaged, aged) and these definitions in turn drive the
more compliance focused aspects of our diversity efforts, such as we
see in so-called workplace quotas, employment, improvement programs
and so on.

161
In its simplest terms then diversity is simply a reference to our
differences – in gender, race and ethnicity, sexual identities, other
identity concerns, religious affiliations and so on. A comprehensive
study of diversity in the workplace should also include a consideration
of our cultural differences, as these can prove to be remarkably strong
drivers of conflict.

Insofar as a further working definition of culture, in its consideration as

relevant to workplace conflict and diversity is concerned, Kevin Avruch
provides a helpful distinction between generic culture (universally held
characteristics of humanity) and local culture, defined as “complex
systems of meanings created, shared and transmitted by individuals
and in particular social groups.” Culture shapes and guides our
collective identity and behaviour, and even in a modern, globalised
world it can be regarded as a precious asset in a community and by
individuals.
In addition to the rather nebulous character of attempts to define these
concepts, it also has different emotional connotations for different
individuals and groups. For some diversity means a reminder of
differences that have adverse consequences for their economic lives,
for some it is a term of hope and potential, for some it is a meaningless
label that simply means one more empty set of promises or another
management bauble, here today, forgotten tomorrow. It has been used
as a driver of obscene levels of corruption and poor leadership, and for
some it features prominently in the seemingly ubiquitous culture wars.
This in itself may cause several conflict barriers that need to be dealt
with in workplace conflicts.

Diversity as conflict

Conflict, seen its wide context, is not always apparent and visible
conflict in its traditional and well-known manifestations. Diversity in
the workplace that is not managed and applied correctly can lead to
conflict, either of an overt or covert nature, and conflict at any level
can create an unpleasant, uncomfortable workplace environment,
negatively affecting teamwork, performance and job satisfaction. To

162
highlight the magnitude of the task that awaits the workplace
leadership that seeks to effectively work with diversity and conflict,
the research across different diversity markers (such as age, race,
gender) show different results in different types of conflicts, requiring
different (and differently timed) conflict management strategies.
It takes some convincing for some to understand that businesspeople,
politely competing with each other in the marketplace, are involved in
a subtle form of conflict. Conflict, as we have seen in the definition
section (see chapter 2), can include competition for resources,
perceived incompatibilities in interests, potential disputes, past
conflict histories that may span generations and not include currently
involved individuals, these past conflicts may have created
communication and trust deficits, and unresolved conflicts may have
direct or indirect influences on current commercial realities. It is
therefore my submission that diversity, especially workplace diversity,
could fruitfully be studied and approached through the lenses of
conflict theory and practice, and that much can be gained for future
dialogue and workplace conflict strategies in the process. This can be
done by retaining all of its traditional (and necessary) political and
economic connotations and considerations, and adding the specialized
conflict management knowledge to addressing the debate in more
fruitful and focused terms than is often the case.

Considerable work done on intercultural conflict by Stella Ting-Toomey

and John Oetzel shows seven important aspects of intercultural conflict
that can, early on in this essay, give us a sense of some of the
complexities of this work, here as it relates to cultural conflict. These
seven aspects can be summarised as:
(i) Intercultural conflict involved emotional frustrations or
mismatched expectations that stem, in part, from cultural
group membership differences. This is a very prevalent cause
and trigger of South African workplace conflict – the different
expectations we have of each other’s behaviour.
(ii) Intercultural conflict involves varying degrees of biased
intergroup perceptions and attributions in assessing what
transpires in an ongoing conflict episode. We tend to not

163
 acknowledge cultural differences and ascribe behaviour to
malice or intent, even though the person so acting would not
agree with our assessment.
(iii) Intercultural conflict involves different face needs. This
involves our different assessments and understandings (and
practices) of matters relating to honour and respect, and how
we want and expect to be treated according to those
understandings and values. This creates deep-seated
experiences and perceptions of disrespect and other negative
conflict outcomes, with other conflict consequences than
may have been intended.
(iv) Intercultural conflict involves multiple goals, and the goals
people have largely depend on how they define the conflict
episode. Different cultures value and set different goals,
which may lead to essentially different conflicts being
pursued based on the same set of facts. One culture set on
individual goals may be arguing for a salary increase to better
herself, while a more collectivist culture may seek to better
a community or mutual support through their conflict goals.
(v) Intercultural conflicts involves divergent procedures and
styles in approaching the various development phases of the
conflict. This manifests in, for example, individual versus
group conflict management styles and strategies, and could
have implications for communication and timeframes, and
their management during the conflict.
(vi) Intercultural conflict is a situationally dependent
phenomenon. As this work illustrates so clearly, conflict
never happens in the abstract. Here conflicts can be greatly
affected by nuanced or barely visible influences and dynamics
such as whether the conflicting parties are married or not,
colleagues, age, community standing and so on.
(vii) Competent intercultural conflict management demands
systems thinking. This requires a paradigm shift from a
restricted cultural view and a modern, conflict competent
view of various interrelated conflict dynamics.

164
 Diversity – let’s not talk about it?

While some may argue that we talk about diversity too much in South
Africa, our diversity (DEI, if you will) lacks a certain sincerity, and
pervasiveness at that sincere level. The word itself is everywhere, and
we all have some idea what it is. But, as this essay shows, diversity, and
its conflict potential and solutions, is at once a fascinating but also
complex topic. We need to understand diversity better, and we need to
have better conversations about it.

Why is there a reluctance or unwillingness to truly bring DEI into the

sunshine? Martine Kalaw, a DEI strategist, suggests a very helpful list of
ten such reasons.
(i) We position it as a cause, not as a priority
(ii) We don’t give people permission to tie it to money or return
on investment (we flinch when we start talking about its
business implications)
(iii) We only make it about race, gender, sexual orientation or
ethnicity
(iv) We’re conditioned not to acknowledge differences
(v) We don’t give people permission to ask questions or make
mistakes
(vi) There’s the assumption that there’s only one right way to talk
about it
(vii) There’s pressure to fix things fast
(viii) We feel uncomfortable
(ix) It feels like a lot of work
(x) It’s personal to us

And right there is one very practical, zero cost improvement that we
can bring about in our workplaces. Talk about DEI constructively,
intelligently and with integrity.

165
 Workplace diversity – the problem examined

South African society, one of the most unequal in the world, beset by
the direct and indirect legacies and dysfunctionalities of our apartheid
past, burdened by economical fault-lines, educational and employment
disparities, were, especially in our workplaces, told authoritatively that
we were the rainbow nation, that we should smile and play nice, that
diversity is a good and wonderful thing. The problem is that no one
really showed us why and how this diversity was supposed to be applied,
how it would be the solution to so many of our practical, real life
problems. The wearing of a rugby jersey by a president did not always
translate into the same magic in the workplace, and soon these
workplaces were overrun by outdated, impractical strategies in order
to graft diversity onto existing systems and processes, foreign programs,
solutions and clichés were applied to the uniquely South African
workplace and, to no one’s real surprise, this often led (and continues
to lead) to unfair outcomes, resentment, motivational and performance
problems, distrust and a plethora of preventable serious workplace
problems, all creating or perpetuating conflicts that manifest in poor
workforce retention, intergroup tension, performance and production
conflicts, and so on.

Garner and Poole sums up some of the current research findings on

workplace diversity conflict as follows:
“Overall, the studies on diversity and conflict suggest that
diversity in terms of characteristics directly related to the work
of the group, such as informational diversity and functional
diversity, promotes task conflict and may increase group
performance. On the other hand, diversity in terms of
characteristics more distally related to the group’s work-racial,
age, gender, value and job tenure diversity-is associated with
relational and emotional conflict and may have negative effects
on performance if not managed effectively.”

166
It is a fascinating, if generally depressing, exercise to ask South African
businesspeople to make the case for a comprehensive application of
true workplace diversity. A long list of clichés, received and clearly
unexamined wisdoms and wishful thinking usually follows such a
question. These range from “it is the right thing to do” to “that is what
the law requires”, from “my HR department says that is what we must
do” to “diversity is necessary for political redress”. While all of these
explanations carry a kernel of truth in them, they do not get to the real
essence, and potential, of the challenge.

What does workplace diversity, stripped of all its reflexive, compliance-

based pablum look like? Is there a valid case to be made for the proper
understanding and application of workplace diversity? If not, what are
we to do with that fact, and if there is a case to be made for the proper
application of workplace diversity where do we fall short and how do
we repair that? Specifically, to what extent is the improper application
of workplace diversity actually creating and triggering workplace
conflict? How can approaching workplace diversity viewed through a
conflict management framework bring to the improvement of our
current results?

Conflict insights into the problem with some DEI programs

Conflict studies, including social identity theory, have been showing us

some of the conflict causes and triggers exacerbated by some of the
debates and legislative requirements of affirmative action programs in
their various guises and iterations. This shows us some of the complexity
involved in the workplace diversity challenges, the disturbing levels of
misinformation, conflict rigidity and polarization that exists because of
past and current mismanagement, and why events like the 2022 Clicks
SA employment policies leak caused such an uproar even now.
In addition to these policies being beset by corruption seemingly from
their inception, there are other, deeper conflict principles at play and
which seem to hardly ever get taken into consideration, either by our
political leaders or business management. The fact that these programs

167
are as contentious as they are globally gives us a hint that there is more
at play here than just corruption or bad legislation.

In an important sense, these policies and debates are about resources.

A wide range of research and case studies show conflict over resources
to be a major driver of serious conflict in organizations. The very
mechanism designed to achieve parity and fairness can now become a
source of conflict. Humans are generally very sensitive to distributive
fairness norms, or the fairness of perceived results, such as it may be
perceived. Previously disadvantaged groups often resent the perceived
unfairness of certain individuals or groups having benefitted unfairly
from past disparities and systems, and current beneficiaries of these
policies may in turn be seen as benefitting unfairly from such policies,
leading to both “sides” believing that the other has broken these
distributive fairness norms.

These perceptions, factually based or otherwise, now lead to other

conflict triggers. Feelings of being unfairly treated may lead to a loss
of motivation, a loss of trust in management or team members, a loss
of confidence in systems, resentment, inappropriately asserting
perceived superiority and so on. These perceptions may now lead to
intragroup difficulties, task and process conflicts and communication
challenges. This inevitably leads to performance and even misconduct
events, and management easily misreads these causes and triggers.
Diversity experts, government programs and legislation, management
initiatives – all try to get the mix right, while leaving out the most
important component of the challenge: the specialized conflict
understanding necessary to effectively address the causes of what we
are dealing with.

Modern conflict studies give us all the facts and hints that we need. The
puzzle pieces are, generally, plainly understood, we just do not get the
combinations wrong because we fail to see it along conflict lines, or if
we start along that route we fail to follow through with these dynamics,
getting lost in the political and economic long grass along the way.

168
These diversity studies also show a plethora of other hidden conflict
triggers, hidden just under the surface. Conflict studies have, as an
example, identified a theory of relative deprivation, showing that a
sense of injustice can arise when a person compares their benefits and
achievements to others in a competitive environment, and notices that
they are receiving less. This perception, a perceived lack of fairness
and its consequences, is often overlooked in conflict management, or
treated as symptoms and not as causes.

This shows us that diversity driven conflicts need their own

understanding, their own nuanced approach and planning, and their
own set of conflict tools honed by that understanding. As this essay
shows, even the standby explanation of “diversity brings about positive
conflict in that it provides different perspectives and experiences”
cannot be accepted and applied without reservation and qualification,
followed by some wise management skills.

Workplace diversity and workplace racism, as example

There is considerable overlap, and some strategic confusion, regarding

these two very separate concepts in some workplaces and decision
making centres. As a simple point of departure, if a workplace has racist
practices this will undoubtedly affect their workplace diversity
practices and environment. In more insidious form, however, we find
that workplaces may have racism firmly under control, and yet still have
ineffective diversity implementation. The concepts are not the same in
practical terms, and yet there is this measure of confusion. Racism is a
destructive choice, diversity correctly applied can be a creative force.

Some important expanded conflict research and

its impact on workplace diversity

Let us consider some of this specialized information then. Diversity in

its true sense, at least for our study of its potential as a workplace
conflict driver, is often a question of group and team composition. In
this specialised sense diversity should not be seen as the simplistic

169
binary balancing act that our BEE policies and other interventions seek
to make of it, but as an understanding and application of multiple
demographic characteristics across the members of the focus group.
Instead of using this research we insist on effectively negating diversity
by way of focusing on balancing numbers. For example, evolutionary
psychology tells us that gender is the most influential diversity marker
between humans, as it appeared earliest in human societies. Instead of
applying this fact as a spark for creativity and growth in our workplaces,
by understanding it and positively applying it in conflicts and resolution,
we collect and balance the numbers and then sit back, believing that
we achieved our diversity goals.
From this understanding we find the application of faultline theory in
workplace conflict research. Faultline theory is a dynamic and very
practical conflict tool that studies and addresses these hypothetical
faultlines as dividing lines that split a group into subgroups based on
demographic alignments or attributes. This is relatively easy and
practical to work with in actual workplace situations, and it takes into
consideration the nuanced variety of these alignments found in the real
world, as opposed to just a race or gender division. Diversity is a
complex function of aligned demographic characteristics, and we need
to understand and work with this if we are going to address workplace
diversity effectively.

The reference to a “faultline” stems from the practical realisation that

these potential conflicts exist and, if left unmanaged, they can escalate
into workplace conflict that may or may not be observably linked to
their true causes. This conflict theory also realistically respects that
individuals have multiple dimensions and identities, and that true
diversity work should acknowledge and apply that. Correctly
understood and applied faultline theory is a spectacularly effective tool
in team conflict management.

170
 Aspects of cultural diversity that impacts our conflicts

Geert Hofstede, a foremost organizational anthropologist, gives us five

cultural dimensions that impacts on how conflicts develop, and in turn
how we should design our strategies in dealing with them. These five
categories or dimensions can be summarised as follows:

(i) Power distance – this difference relates to how different

cultural groups relate to power differences, and can be
observed in differences in how people are persuaded, the
degree of deference shown to various role players in a
conflict, group vs single interests and how disputes are
framed.
(ii) Collectivism vs Individualism – this refers to the relative
emphasis placed on the needs and aspirations of the
individual as gauged against those of the community or
society, and has implications for conflict dynamics such as the
agenda set, the framing of conflicts and solutions, who should
be included in the decision making process and so on.
(iii) Masculinity vs femininity – while most societies have made
progress in patriarchal ways of thinking in this category,
Hofstede is correct to leave that on the list for now. There is
still a difference in how genders are perceived and treated
during conflicts, and this ranges from crude distinctions and
exclusions to far more subtle (and prevalent) but influential
expectations as to assertiveness and competence.
(iv) Uncertainty avoidance – this often overlooked cultural
difference simply relates to, in practice, a culture’s approach
to the handling and acceptance of ambiguity and uncertainty.
This has far-reaching practical implications for conflict
negotiations and strategic planning, from the nuances used
during negotiation, to timeframes, deadlines, open-ended
processes, the documentation of agreements and trust
between the parties.

171
 (v) Long term vs short term orientation - Here Hofstede’s work
has provided conflict research with a valuable tool in
removing some of the Western bias inherent in conflict
research for so long. The difference in cultures between their
respective views on long term vs short term goals translates
into markedly different conflict behaviour and ways of
thinking about conflict.

Hofstede’s work is, especially for our purposes, complemented by the

work done by Milton Bennett, who proposes six stages of development
in our acceptance and tolerance of this cultural diversity, and these six
stages can, with relative ease, be monitored in the workplace.
In summarised form, Bennett’s six stages of cultural diversity
acceptance would be:
(i) Denial – here people are totally ignorant of other cultures,
regard their own culture as the only worthwhile and superior
culture. Even at this stage, and maybe because of those
reasons, there may still be a denial of intolerance.
(ii) Defense – here people have some awareness of other cultures
and their values, but we still believe in the superiority of our
own culture and the inferiority of other cultures.
(iii) Minimization – here the person still believes in the
superiority of their own culture, but has a decreased need to
criticize and judge other cultures. There is a strong argument
to be made that most people would be in this category.
(iv) Acceptance – here the person accepts that different people
see things differently, that the world is a complex place, and
that there is no need to judge people for their differences.
(v) Adaptation – in this category people are better at seeing
shared realities through different lenses and frameworks, and
a value cultural diversity, including the ability to learn and
benefit from others is understood and accepted.

172
 (vi) Integration – here people have become comfortable with the
various strengths and benefits of other cultures, and can
comfortably move among those cultures, context becomes an
important part of assessments and such people can see
themselves belonging to or occupying more than one culture.

It follows that where we fall on this spectrum will have an important

role to play in our conflicts, even at a value or identity based level, and
this may predispose us to certain views and thought processes. As we
have seen, this should also play an important role in how conflict
strategies and even processes are designed and applied.

Intergroup relations – current conflict studies and strategies

designed to improve such relations

Global conflict strategies designed to improve intergroup relations,

both on a national, regional and workplace level, can generally be
divided into three main strategies. These three categories, in
summarised format, are:

(a) Recategorisation – here efforts are directed at creating a new

social identity for groups that have previously been in conflict
with each other. Conflict research clearly shows that, especially
with deep divisions and lingering, unresolved conflicts, this is a
rather unrealistic strategy, and that it can in fact lead to greater
insecurity, increased threat assessments and defensive behaviour
from these groups. South African efforts at creating the “rainbow
nation” can arguably be viewed through this research.
(b) Decategorisation – here existing group categories are simply de-
emphasized, without specifically trying to create a new group
identity. Research on this category does show some positive
results.

173
 (c) Salient categorisation – this strategy emphasizes group
membership but on more than one dimension sat the same time.
This would mean a focus and emphasis on say nationality and
ethnicity, rather than just one of these features. This model
shows some meaningful challenges, and it can lead to intergroup
anxieties, bias and distrust. Positive results are only shown if
both intergroup as well as interpersonal contact is effectively
implemented.

The most positive conflict theory in this regard is generally known as

the contact theory or contact hypothesis. Extensive research however
shows severe limitations on the success of this theory, with a result that
contact (interpersonal and intergroup) will only be effective if a
positive attitude towards the out-group as a whole can successfully be
generated.
Work is being done (globally and in South Africa) with inclusive
education, problem-solving workshops, radio programs and so on, with
mixed results, largely dependent on how successfully local histories and
conflict dynamics are understood and incorporated into such strategies.

The case for South African workplace diversity

One of the most jarring of realizations once you start examining

workplace attitudes towards diversity is a general sense that diversity
in itself is a magic solution to our societal and workplace problems. All
you need to do is appoint two of these and three of those, and all will
be well.
Research, case studies and the South African practical experience show,
however, that this is simply not true. There is no inherent magic in
diversity on its own. In fact, diversity badly applied and poorly managed
is a recognized driver of workplace conflict. This miscalculation would
have been bad enough in itself, but it has an added toxic outcome. Far
from questioning the original assumption as to the automatic benefits
of diversity and going back to the proverbial drawing board, several
South African businesses have, at some level, adopted a cynical view of

174
workplace diversity. The sense is that “We have tried it and it does not
work”. Add now the onerous legal and compliance requirements, and
the foundations of a resentful, cyclical conflict all over that workplace
become apparent.

Conflict research on the implications and results of diversity (especially

in the workplace) has been mixed. In a broad overview, the negative
effects of diversity have been attributed to perceived differences
between team members which interfered with performance, while
positive effects have been linked to cognitive resource diversity
resulting from a breadth of perspectives that can enhance performance.
Inconsistent empirical results and competing theoretical models have
led to a lack of consensus for understanding workplace diversity.
Faultline theory, as we have discussed earlier, has shown that the
nature of subgroups, and a proper understanding of them, is crucial to
the correct and optimal functioning of these groups and teams. This is
at once a more complex, more nuanced as well as more realistic
application of diversity. The simplistic and clumsy manner in which
legislation and other pressure groups seek to force diversity to work,
especially in the workplace, is ignorant of extensive research done on
this aspect. Several studies show that heterogeneous social category
groups are more likely to experience relationship conflict within groups,
and that members in visibly diverse groups experience more
relationship conflicts than those in visibly similar groups. The same
research shows that messages tend to be distorted across demographic
boundaries, and that heterogeneity on the dimensions of gender and
ethnicity have been related to an increase in interpersonal tension,
lower levels of friendliness and job satisfaction. Studies show the
increase of coalitions and subgroup forming in these heterogeneous
groups, which in turn may lead to additional conflicts and polarisation.

It is here, in this research, that we see both the problem inherent in

simplistic approaches to diversity, as well as its solution on a
management level. Take for example the often cited example of the
value of a diversity of opinions and perspectives in the workplace. On

175
the face of it this true enough. Drill deeper and we find that
heterogeneous groups may well have a rich diversity of perspectives,
but that without good management and leadership practices and
support involved individuals may not compete, argue their points of
view and in so doing bring the benefit of those diverse viewpoints to
fruition in a team. The box-ticking exercises that we have subjected
our workplaces to have also caused several other research findings to
be minimized or left out of workplace strategies. We see, for example,
that individuals or teams may have closer affinities across other less
highlighted differences than what is allowed under the current two-
dimensional approaches. Team members who are, for example of
different race groups but who both have say a B.Com degree may be
much closer to each other than they are to people of their same race
but a different educational background. This is true diversity, and here
lies the keys to unlocking its true potential.

Employers work with their perceptions of group cultures and try to get
these perceived correct mixes just right, or implement a reactive post-
event strategy of dealing with diversity conflict or its consequences as
and when this happens. The research clearly shows that while shared
group culture is an important factor in these strategies, organizational
culture can play a mitigating or positive role in workplace diversity
conflicts. South African workplace environments show a marked
indifference or misreading of their workplace cultures, and here again
most diversity programs are hampered or derailed because of the lack
of an understanding or implementation of conflict information.
These studies also show that we lose sight of other conflict causes and
triggers, such as working methods, time scales, workplace aspirations
and group expectations in our rush towards negating the more visible
areas of diversity. Again, just like the above examples, this requires a
more nuanced understanding of diversity and conflict, and their
juxtaposition, as well as a more complex management action plan for
true integration.

176
In trying to make the case for the correct application of workplace
diversity I acknowledge the moral and ethical facets of the debate. In
my view there is a perfectly sound moral, ethical and even spiritual
argument to be made for this application. It is good that past injustices
are addressed and corrected, for their own sake. It is good that people
are given opportunities to better themselves and provide for their
families, and that they be given a fair chance at playing on a level
playing field. It is good that short term sacrifices are made by some for
the greater good of the many, the nation in the long term. As
comfortable as many people are with these arguments, it must also be
acknowledged that for good reasons and bad this is simply not a
generally accepted argument, and it is for that simple fact that we
should also see if a convincing argument can be made for this correct
application of workplace diversity from a purely commercial
perspective, an argument that would convince a businessperson who
may not accept the moral and ethical arguments.

I am aware that this can appear to objectify the humanity of those

involved, of turning this important South African debate into a question
of numbers and statistics, of losing sight of what the debate should
really be about. I wish that we could just talk about dignity, respect
and humanity. I wish that those could be the parameters of our
discussion. I must however, from personal experience, acknowledge
that this is not the case, and that if I insist on such an argument there
will be far less people prepared to listen. For some people, especially
business people, the argument must pay for its own keep, regardless of
any other arguments, and it is there that we need to meet them,
without judgment, without argument.
The case for workplace diversity, in its simplified (and sometimes
popular) form is not that persuasive. Ely and Thomas reminds us that
three important nuances and realities must be added to the debate
before we get to persuasive accuracy:
(a) We must stop using platitudes in trying to make the argument,
as this does more harm than good. Use empirical arguments.
(b) A new and improved understanding of “success” must be
embraced. Shareholder returns and traditional views of profits

177
 can simply not be the sole drivers and determinants of this
journey. They are, in themselves and even outside the
parameters of a diversity debate, not the ultimate goals that
they are sometimes touted to be, and they can, in isolation,
cause a meaningful level of harm. The debate should include
healthier and better understanding of the crucial role of facets
like learning, creativity, innovation, flexibility, mental health,
equity and human dignity.
(c) A more practical understanding of how diversity is to be
harnessed in the workplace must be a part of this debate.

In expanding and constructing this argument the first pillar would be

the simple acknowledgement that, especially in the South African
context, the application of workplace diversity in the manner in which
has become the norm, causes and triggers conflicts on a daily basis. For
many businesspeople workplace diversity simply translates into a
system of quotas and compliance challenges. Many employees, with or
without justification, feel themselves locked out of employment or
promotions that they deserve, some are appointed in positions where
they have insufficient training or mentoring and in general our box
ticking approach to workplace diversity has stripped the soul and dignity
out of the process, one that was supposed to lead to catharsis, healing
and growth.
We are then, at present, on the receiving end of both the failure to
realize our diversity potential as well as the toxic symptoms that follow
on such failure, such as a pervasive cynicism of diversity programs,
interpersonal distrust and wasted resources.

A second, important pillar in such an argument would, as indicated

above, need to dispose of the fallacy that diversity in itself is a panacea
for our societal and economic ills. Research and case studies on
workplace diversity have shown a remarkable lack of consistent results.
As a generalization sufficient for our present purposes, negative effects
of such diversity has been ascribed to the conflict that arises from
perceived differences between individuals and team members (which

178
impacts on performance), and positive effects have been described by
reference to cognitive resource diversity, which in practical terms
refers to the performance enhancing effects resulting from a breadth
of perspectives. These competing underpinning theoretical arguments,
together with inconsistent empirical field results and the consequences
of the South African misapplication of these principles, have led to a
surprising lack of consensus on a framework to understand workplace
diversity.
That in itself, of course, debunks the perception that diversity per se,
when brought onto the factory floor, will install, run and maintain
itself. Conflict and diversity scholars have designed a variety of
workplace diversity categories (such as visible/nonvisible diversity,
surface level/deep level diversity, social category diversity,
informational diversity etc.). Research (e.g. Alagna, Reddy and Collins,
Jehn et al) shows that in the project teams forming part of the studies,
members in visibly diverse groups experienced more workplace
relationship conflicts than groups that were visibly similar. Similar
patterns follow in studies involving gender and ethnicity. Here conflict
includes markers such as increased tension, lower levels of friendship
and lower levels of work satisfaction.

Far from the rainbow effect that should follow on the mere application
of diversity, we see that mere superficial diversity, incorrectly applied
and managed without knowledge, skill and direction, can be as much of
a negative influence in the workplace as it can be a positive one. Simply
put: the mere presence of diversity will not, of itself, bring about any
positive workplace dynamics, and in fact, it can increase and worsen
workplace conflict.

Is there any research or empirical evidence that supports the pursuance

and implementation of workplace diversity as a purely commercial
proposition, especially given the wider and more nuanced views
advocated for above?

179
There is certainly some very strong evidence in favour of the workplace
diversity case on purely commercial grounds. A recent study by
McKinsey shows that the effective incorporation of diversity in the
workplace can lead to a 33% improvement in profitability.
Something more than mere superficial diversity is however needed to
unleash the power and potential of workplace diversity. A Korn/Ferry
study shows conversely that turnover attributed to unfairness and bias
resulted in a $64 billion annual loss for companies across the US.
Unfairness, bias and getting diversity wrong leads to rapid staff turnover
or weak retention outcomes (especially in middle and senior
management), and this has a causal link to a decrease in morale,
increased costs and a lowering of productivity. There is no reason not
to expect the same trends in South Africa. Companies are visibly averse
to aligning their products with any perception of diversity prejudice,
and this has a meaningful impact on the content and management of
business strategies and goals. Consumers clearly support and buy from
brands that align with their own values.
An ineffective handling of workplace diversity will inevitably lead to
conflict at work. Even if we take such conflict at its most gentle form
(let’s call it incivility) and for the moment leave aside more obviously
harmful forms (like strikes, workplace violence etc.) we find a direct
link between such consequences and commercial parameters that are
of great importance to businesspeople. In Mastering Civility: A
Manifesto for the Workplace, Georgetown University professor
Christine Porath shows how, in the US experience over the last twenty
years, 98 percent of employees surveyed experienced incivility at work,
and 99 percent have witnessed it. Even at this lowest form of workplace
conflict (incivility), Porath’s studies (across 17 industries) show that of
those surveyed 48 percent intentionally decreased their work effort, 47
percent intentionally decreased time spent at work, 38 percent
intentionally decreased the quality of their work, 66 percent indicated
that their performance declined, 78 percent said that their
commitment to the organization declined, 25 percent said that they
took their ensuing frustration out on customers, and 12 percent actually
left the organization due to such treatment. These statistics include
results such as productivity lost as a result of worrying about the

180
incident, or trying to avoid the offender. These unresolved conflicts
also have health repercussions, which in turn manifest in absenteeism
figures.

From these studies we then see a simple, if often unapplied, workplace

diversity principle: diversity in the workplace can be an asset (on
several measurements), but it needs skilful, sustained management
application. If misunderstood or mishandled, it can be a workplace
conflict cause and trigger, leading to a variety of adverse conflict and
commercial outcomes.
Research by Ely and Thomas show clearly how companies that
effectively create and manage diversity programs are more effective
across a wide range of parameters than either homogenous teams or
teams that do not learn from their diversity, in other words teams that
have tried, but ineffectively internalised their diversity potential.
In addition to these statistics, there are other maybe less measurable
benefits to effective workplace diversity than those mentioned, but
which benefits still directly translate into commercial benefit for the
workplace environment. In “The Way Out: how to overcome toxic
polarization”, Peter Coleman makes the point eloquently:
“When people are exposed to more diverse networks of outsiders,
their brains are forced to process more complex and unexpected
types of information, and they become better at producing
complex and unexpected information themselves.”

I believe that these facts establish a strong basis for accepting that the
effective application and management of workplace diversity, in its
true and best form, is a wise and economically sound business decision,
regardless of one’s views on the moral and ethical dimensions of the
debate.

The existence of such a business case for workplace diversity of course

does not make that management’s best strategy. A recent study by
Oriane Georgeac and Aneeta Rattan (in the January 2023 edition of the

181
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, which can be accessed
here APA PsycNet concedes that generally a business case can be made
for workplace diversity, but cautions against such an approach, as it
inter alia reduces the sense of belonging in an organization and may
create a social identity threat, especially among minority groups. A
strategy focusing on the inherent fairness of diversity in the workplace
may bring better results, according to the study. This underscores the
need for a tailor-made approach to workplace diversity, and the care
that has to be taken with applying generalizations and clichés to the
crucial work necessary here. It is a US study, but there are important
parallels with and lessons for the South African workplace diversity
debate.

True workplace diversity – its power and potential realized

We notice that properly understood and effective workplace diversity

is rarely optimally implemented in South African workplaces at this
stage. We have examined some of the operational and leadership
mistakes that companies make in their efforts to comply with at least
the legislative parts of diversity requirements. We have looked at the
costs of not getting workplace diversity correctly understood,
implemented and managed, and we have established that there are
sound commercial reasons for getting effective workplace diversity in
place, regardless of other good reasons for doing so.
We concluded, when contrasting the benefits of such workplace
diversity with the lived reality of most South African workplaces, that
there has to be a different, more comprehensive way of approaching
workplace diversity other than merely complying with legal quotas and
compliance demands.
There is nothing wrong in general with the majority of legal
requirements and frameworks that are in place. These legal frameworks
do not demand a focus on mere compliance, and appropriate programs
and integration mechanisms are mentioned and even encouraged. It is
in the day to day implementation of these legal requirements that a
listless, mere compliance mentality has set in, and these requirements
are often viewed as just another legislative intrusion into the decision

182
making processes of business. As such it is often a grudge project,
outsourced to external consultants and senior management becomes
merely concerned with the bare compliance requirements, without
being inherently involved in what the process could be.
South African workplace leaders should remind themselves that
regardless of real or perceived political and socio-economic problems
in the broader South African society, a workplace can design and
implement some very real policies and processes that promote diversity
in many forms. As Robert Livingston says, workplace leaders may not be
able to change the world, but they can change their world.

What would such effective implementation and management then look

like in practice? What measures could a company adopt in order to
achieve this result? While such a project should ideally be tailor-made
and devised in consultation with the necessary experts, we can consider
the following solutions as a general point of departure.

(i) Get to comprehensively understand diversity

This is a necessary point of departure, regardless of your seniority,
social class, race, gender or other marker in the organization. It is here
where we make our first, and often last, mistake in the diversity
journey, and where we make things difficult for ourselves. We tend to,
for understandable reasons, see “diversity” as simply referring to issues
of race and maybe gender. While these two are arguably the two most
visible areas of compliance and conflict, true workplace diversity
encompasses so much more. Diversity of opinion, of social status, of
lived experience, of likes and hobbies, skills and talents, mistakes and
misjudgements, personal appearance, sexual identities, of youth and
advanced age, various degrees of health and physical abilities, mental
health and its fluctuations – these and more all constitute the wide,
exciting canvass that is true workplace diversity.

183
It is as unnecessary as it is inaccurate to see this debate as one vesting
in political correctness or “wokeness”. Workplace diversity may, in the
beginning, bring about apparent challenges and irritations, but once
you properly understand and apply it to the workplace, it will in many
ways earn and defend its own keep.

How is such an educational project done efficiently? This book presents

several suggested reading and resource options where suitable material
can be obtained. A workplace can design, or have designed, a specific
program where selected officials or teams be given programs, content,
deadlines and deliverables to encourage and institutionalize such
learning. It should form a core part of a business’s DSD program. This,
or related ongoing educational programs can (and should) become a
part of the knowledge transmission structures of the company, and
appropriate management team and selected individual coaching can be
implemented. These programs should reflect the company culture and
brand ethos, and could be designed internally. There are several studies
showing the measurable, real benefits of purposefully working with and
changing your company culture (known as company culture
performance management), including how it understands and deals
with diversity and conflict.

For employees to feel truly valued and respected more than just being
included is necessary. Being included and then marginalized or side-
lined can, in itself, become significant conflict drivers. More is needed
to elevate the project from a compliance chore to an effective diversity
journey – being able to have meaningful input in strategies, policies and
agendas, influence the allocation and description of work, needs and
interests discussed and recognized, contributions valued – these are
examples of diversity being understood, effectively included and
utilized.

184
(ii) Ensure that this understanding is weaved into the very fabric
of the business
The decision to understand the true value of workplace diversity is one
thing, getting company cultures and systems to adequately reflect
these possible changes is another. While these changes may be as
simple as new processes or policies, it may encounter direct or subtle
opposition, often in unexpected places. People privileged by certain
existing systems or outcomes may be very reluctant to part with or even
limit those benefits, and this may in itself cause short term conflicts on
the road to effective diversity implementation.

Research shows that comprehensive policies to create, implement and

manage workplace diversity programs must be addressed
simultaneously and continuously on three main fronts, that being
personal attitudes, prevailing cultural and company norms and formal
corporate policies and processes. The creation of these policies is
obviously important, but getting people to accept and implement them
authentically is the real challenge.

Many a shiny, brand new diversity policy remains in a file in HR’s office,
and nowhere else. To effectively implement and maintain such a
diversity program often gives rise to very complex conflict, and
management should be under no illusions as to whether this may be a
problem, and that an essential part of deciding to have and implement
such a program should be these anticipated conflicts.

In implementing such diversity culture care should also be taken in the

communication of the program. Ineffective transmission of managerial
intent here can make a complex process even trickier. Errors from
practice include a growing unwillingness to stick to the task and an
attendant loss of focus, patronising communication programs,
inadequate coaching and training, an inability to persuade rather than
to coerce, and insufficient mechanisms or processes to give effect to
policy goals. We often lose sight of the fact that a failed or abandoned
diversity program can, in itself, send a negative message to the

185
workforce. This part of workplace conflict and efficient management
must be done right, and it must be done right sustainably.

This is often where good leadership intentions and/or simple

compliance campaigns are scuppered. Build a workplace culture that
insists on equality, and then guide those emerging strengths for the
benefit of all involved.

Ensure that this diversity integration is not just some vanity project,
with enthusiastic support today and a vague recall of it tomorrow. Insist
that you have a properly designed DSD (dispute system design) (see
Chapter 9) that comprehensively makes diversity a priority in such a
system, with measurable outcomes.

(iii) Spend enough time to listen to people, to everyone involved

Companies often start their diversity journeys – by excluding diversity.
This is unintentional mostly, and is a result of the previous way of
managerial execution. Once a company’s particular diversity goals and
needs are identified and understood, these provisional assumptions and
outlines should be compared to the input obtained from as wide a range
of workplace role-players, such as employees of all levels and even
selected service providers. What are the perceptions regarding your
company culture, management, the brand itself? What diverse
thoughts, problems, criticisms or suggestions are found in such an
exercise, how can they be used?
Here prudent leadership should also bear in mind a simple conflict
principle: such a listening exercise need have nothing to do with
management being coerced into anything prejudicial to the business. It
is a consultation process, not a boardroom vote. Research and practical
experience also shows that people feel more connected, more
productive and more willing to sacrifice short term inconveniences if
they feel heard and included in management decision processes. It is
also just logical that a diversity program should have as diverse an input
as possible.

186
(iv) Diversity is not homogeneity
There is a surprisingly prevalent understanding of diversity as something
akin to everyone being, or becoming, or made to be the same. This
negates true diversity and dissipates the very energy which should be
channelled and managed. Programs, policies and coaching goals (often
inadvertently) seek to create some middle of the road solution to the
perceived opposites of race, gender and so on. Instead of doing what
white people like or what black people like, we will do some strange
new thing that no one likes. Black and white must now be turned into
grey. This is to misunderstand completely what diversity can bring. The
application of diversity in the workplace is not about creating beige
from black, white and brown, it is not primarily about compromise. It
is about using fresh ideas, unique perspectives, different talents and
shortcomings, different experiences in the creation of new solutions,
new opportunities and new value for the business and all involved.
One of the most prevalent diversity mistakes we notice in South African
workplaces is a push towards “workplace harmony”, where dissension
and varied points of view is actively or subtly suppressed and not
encouraged. The often unspoken philosophy behind this is one born of
inexperience in dealing with true diversity, fear of such disagreements
being seen as a failure of the diversity program, misplaced expectations
of “politeness”, and a general sense that workplace diversity should
lead to peace and calm and harmony, that all should now “be on the
same page”. This expectation, which can be very pervasive and subtle,
again simply destroys the potential of diversity at its source, and shows
that this potential; has not been properly understood and embraced.
Research by Patricia Faison Hewlin (McGill University) shows how
leaders appointed in these diversity roles (race and gender being
prevalent) often feel a distinct pressure (whether created by the
organization, themselves or both) toward “facades of conformity”.
As Bryan Massingale so simply points out “Thus I contend that racial
reconciliation is not concerned with the elimination of racial
differences, but rather the elimination of the stigma and privilege
associated with race.”

187
There is a marked difference between ill-discipline, chaos and anarchy
on the one hand, and the creative power of diversity. Become
comfortable with understanding and implementing this difference.

(v) Enable and encourage others to accept, sustain and grow the
company diversity culture
These diversity programs often encounter opposition at several levels
and for different reasons. Individuals and departments at times resist
change in principle, there can be job insecurities and competition
involved, and senior management should be prepared to gather
accurate information on this in order for an early and comprehensive
assessment to be created. A viable and sustainable workplace diversity
program and culture will make any such transition easier for those who
may have emotional or operational objections or concerns about such a
process. This can be done through extensive consultation, the timeous
sharing of enough information as to the unfolding and implications of
the program, training and coaching, an adaptation of existing policies
(such as procurement, appointments, human resources etc.). Selective
incentives for successful integration of policies and performance goals
can be considered in suitable instances, and where necessary
operational restructuring may be necessary. In sharp contrast to most
current legislative diversity programs the aim should be persuasion, not
compulsion or conformity for its own sake.
Through all of this management should remember that as soon as
diversity is seen as an imposition, a chore or a sacrifice then you are
doing it wrong. Diversity, properly understood, assessed and
implemented, is the discovery of a hidden asset, an exciting new
resource.
Especially early on in the process, encourage open and respectful
discussions about these diversity categories relevant to your workplace,
be they trans, gender, race or other categories.
This includes real and transparent support on an ongoing basis. Diversity
programs often end up being run as a sideshow from HR, with very little
true senior management support, and often without the person or
people designated with making the program work having much (or any)

188
training in that respect. It is a powerful and inspirational experience to
see top management actually and visibly involved in these programs as
a sincere and ongoing commitment.

(vi) Actively encourage learning as a valuable asset

Directly and indirectly encourage learning at all levels of the
organization. This can be both operationally valuable, direct learning
for the work at hand, but also learning as enrichment tool, learning as
having intrinsic value, learning as a tool for improving people’s
workplace experience, learning to respect and protect people’s dignity.
Internal programs can be created, external learning synergies can be
created and supported, targeted bursaries and support groups can be
created, specific career paths directly linked to the brand can be
created and communicated, and a culture of education and applied
wisdom can be built. Research shows how this encouragement and
fostering of learning impacts positively on other workplace assets such
as an improvement in the exchange of ideas, better and more
constructive communication and increased interpersonal exchanges.

(vii) Integrate your workplace diversity program with existing

applicable legislation
Some of the best intentioned and scripted workplace diversity programs
run up against local legislative limitations and barriers. Legislation is
often written and applied from a purely compliance perspective, and
underlying philosophies and goals are not emphasized or even included.
Generic templates clash with tailor-made brand or policy values and
goals, and inevitably management goes with a “that is what the law
says, we must comply” approach. In this way diversity conscious
disciplinary processes, appointments and management team
application gets watered down or limited.
Avoiding this subtle clash requires a good understanding of the
legislative requirements applicable to your particular workplace (say
the Labour Relations Act, health and safety provisions and so on), and
then a focused integration of those laws, guides and codes with your

189
own diversity program. Let all involved teams point out to senior
management where there are, or may be, areas of opposition or
inconsistent application, and adapt the clash to accommodate your
compliance requirements with your diversity goals. Again, a modern
DSD program should address and resolve all of these challenges.
In this manner some inspiring examples are created, and some examples
from my own practice include expanding the existing disciplinary
structures of workplaces (as required by the LRA) to include mediation
levels, or the 2022 Workplace Harassment Policy requirements that
(after consultation) end in comprehensive synthesis between legislative
obligations and the entire diversity program of companies.

(viii) Be educated and alert about remaining obstacles to diversity

goal achievement
Prejudices built up over decades in the South African workplace become
a part of institutionalized thinking, and they become so well hidden
over time that a lot of people are simply unaware of these remaining
influences. This remains the case even among management teams with
the best intentions. It is both a cause and a result of our general
compliance based approach to diversity that a lot of nuance that goes
into diversity is ignored or missed. This skews results and, ironically,
continues to create cyclical conflicts in the workplace. Management
often believes that they have done everything possible to create a
diverse workplace, and failures of diversity policy then often creates
resentment or despondency, both with management and employees,
and it feeds into the “diversity does not work” narrative.
This is most often the result of superficial cures, such as the
appointment of the required number of people of the “correct” gender
or race, without understanding or addressing the underlying and
remaining conflict causes and triggers.
Professor emeritus Arthur Brief (University of Utah) labels and
highlights a few of these remaining obstacles. He mentions what he
calls “aversive racism”, where people avoid people of other races, or
change their behaviour around them, and “modern racism”, where

190
people believe that black people can now compete equally and that
they are no longer subject to subtle forms of racism.

(ix) Manage feedback and data collection on these diversity programs

effectively
We often find that these programs run aground rather quickly due to a
rather obvious spanner in the machine: the information that is gathered
and which forms the mainstay of further assessment and decision
making processes are inaccurate on several levels. There is an all too
understandable tendency to gloss over problems in various
departments, and middle and senior management tend to polish the
information that they send upstairs to reflect positively on their or their
department’s performance and input. This skews valuable and
important information right at the source. Further reasons contributing
to such inaccurate data gathering include resentment, a lack of
training, departmental silos, an absence of a wider understanding of
the project goals, project sabotaging etc.
Effective countermeasures include appropriate training, clear and
regular communication, external or independent data gathering,
auditing, external or internal oversight. Here the presence of suitable
sanctions for breaches are appropriate.
One of the unseen but crucial underpinnings of successful workplace
diversity programs is accountability across the board. These programs
can be, especially in the early stages, rather fragile, and they are easily
sabotaged.

(x) Design, manage and maintain an appropriate and dynamic

mentoring program
Workplace diversity programs are often carefully planned, designed and
finalised in the upper levels of senior management, and the enthusiasm
and energy that is generated at that level is simply not always
successfully transferred to lower levels, or it becomes dissipated over
time and due to communication errors and other factors. One very

191
practical way to avoid this error is to have a vibrant internal mentorship
culture running throughout the business.
Mentorship has become such an industry in itself in recent years, and
there have been such visible abuses and misunderstanding about the
concept (often, ironically, as a result of ill-conceived or ill-intentioned
BEE and other projects), that several misconceptions about the very
idea of mentorship exist. At its simplest, best level mentorship is an
inspiring access to experience and knowledge. Nothing else.
The modern workplace that understands diversity projects will have
several levels of formal and/or informal mentorship programs, with
different levels of involvement. None of this needs to cost money or
add significant work burdens on anyone. Successful South African
workplace mentoring models, across a wide range of industries and
professions, show several common traits, including an informal level of
communication and access, regular sessions where feedback is
expected, some level of formal input by way of comments and
suggestions, an ongoing level of skill transference, mentoring that is
designed to value and reward both mentor and mentee, an active and
ongoing encouragement of open and honest dialogue, and the presence
of healthy and industry appropriate boundaries to that relationship.
For successful implementation these mentoring programs must not be
the patronizing lecturing sessions that are noticeable in some examples,
nor should it be the absentee mentor attempts of some workplaces.
Incorporate DEI principles as they apply to your workplace, into your
dispute system design (DSD) program. Real work, real respect and real
opportunities should be attempted. Management should, at some level,
have some measure of oversight and feedback from such mentorships,
and healthy, working relationships can be maintained for as long as
necessary, while more problematic mentoring relationships can be
rotated out or terminated. Mentoring is not a skill given to all, and these
valuable programs should be approached with a light management
hand. Release people from such obligations if they truly do not see the
value, or where their programs do not permit full commitment.
Keep an eye on the underlying workplace conflict principles possibly at
play, such as professional insecurity or jealousy, suppression and
avoidance, bullying and resolve these conflicts on an ongoing basis.

192
 Conclusion

Workplace diversity work is hard work. Companies often want (and

need) quick fixes, and when the needle does not move as expected on
these diversity programs they are quick to reject the entire project.

For those more inclined towards the aphorism and quick-fix one-liner
approach to complex problems, and so as to give us all hope on this
journey, I like this summary of Michael Emerson and George Yancey,
and while it specifically deals with interracial relationships I believe it
can be adapted so as to suit most diversity challenges:

“Thus, interracial contact in social settings that promote

voluntary, egalitarian, cooperative, intimate contact that is
supported by authority have the most potential for generating
positive interracial relationships.”

The harm done by legislative, societal and institutional overt and covert
influences over a period of decades cannot be undone completely by
the wave of some magic corporate wand. As most of the above topics
hopefully show, diversity work is structural work that needs careful
thought, self-assessment, planning, tailor-made design and integration.
These are projects that are best viewed as legacy projects for
management, campaigns that should rather be measured in years than
in months.
Even the very best of these programs will run into frustrations, setbacks
and apparent dead-ends. Those are good signs if you have the correct
framework, people and processes in place. These are, in their effective
and best forms, organic processes, systems that improve people’s
relationships as the systems remains vibrant and alert, as they stumble
and grow.

193
 Far from legislative and bureaucratic burdens and impositions, these
programs in their best forms are opportunities to uplift people and
systems, to create working models of what is possible in the wider
society, all the while serving the interests of the business itself and all
connected to it. And, as we have seen, you do not need to buy into any
particular ethical or political philosophy in order to pursue these goals
and to make them realities in your business.

It is an observable fallacy that workplace diversity programs cost a lot

of money. Successful programs can be designed, implemented and
managed on a low budget. The challenges lie in the willingness, time
and skill needed to do that, not in finding money to be able to do so.

REFERENCES AND READING SUGGESTIONS

(Chapter 6)

1. My article about Conflict at the Negotiating Table – turning swords

into shares, can be found at CONFLICT AT THE NEGOTIATING
TABLE - The Conflict Conversations (conflict-conversations.co.za)
2. Resolving Organizational Conflicts, by Kenneth Cloke and Joan
Goldsmith, Goodmedia Press (2021)
3. Essay, Conflict Escalation in Organizations by Dean G. Pruitt,
Chapter 6 in The Psychology of Conflict and Conflict Management,
edited by Carsten De Dreu and others, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates (2008)
4. Getting Along, by Amy Gallo, Harvard Business Review Press (2022)
5. A journey of diversity & inclusion in South Africa, by Nene Molefi,
KR Publishing (2017)
6. My article on Conflict Coaching, available at CONFLICT COACHING
- The Conflict Conversations (conflict-conversations.co.za)
7. Essay How to promote racial equity in the workplace, by Robert
Livingston in HBR Must Reads 2022, Harvard Business Review Press,
various editors and auditors

194
8. Essay Getting serious about diversity, by Robin J. Ely and David A.
Thomas, in the same HBR supra
9. Essay Toward a racially just workplace, by Laura Morgan Roberts
and Anthony J. Mayo, HBR Must Reads 2021, Harvard Business
Review Press, various editors and authors
10. My article on effectively changing company culture, available at
CHANGING COMPANY CULTURE - The Conflict Conversations
(conflict-conversations.co.za)
11. Manifesto for a moral revolution, by Jacqueline Novogratz, St.
Martin’s Griffin (2020)
12. How to fight inequality, by Ben Phillips, Polity Press (2020)
13. The Handbook of Dispute Resolution, edited by Michael L. Moffitt
and Robert C. Bordone, published by PON at Harvard Law School
and Jossey-Bass (2005)
14. Transcending racial barriers, by Michael O. Emerson and George
Yancey, Oxford University Press (2011)
15. Don’t label me, by Irshad Manji, St. Martin’s Griffin, (2020)
16. Essay Perspectives on Workgroup Conflict and Communication by
Johny T. Garner and Marshall Scott Poole in Sage Handbook of
Conflict Communication, Sage Publications (2013)
17. The ABC’s of diversity, by Martine Kalaw, published by
BestsellingBooks (2021)
18. Essay Social Psychology and Peacebuilding by Shelley McKeown, in
Handbook of Peacebuilding, edited by Roger Mac Ginty, Routledge
(2013)
19. From Culture to Culture, by Dr. Donte Vaughn and Randall Powers,
Lioncrest Publishing (2021)
20. Working through conflict, (9th edition) by Joseph P. Folger and
others, Routledge ( 2021)

195
 CHAPTER 7: MEDIATION
It’s role in South African conflicts

The unique promise of mediation lies in its capacity to

transform the quality of conflict interaction itself,
so that conflicts can actually strengthen both the parties
themselves and the society they are part of.

Robert Baruch Bush and Joseph Folger

Sweet are the uses of adversity,

Which, like the toad, ugly and venomous,
Wears yet a precious jewel in his head

William Shakespeare (As you like it)

You see, life is not always either/or; it’s not always black or
white. Lots of grey areas. We’re all human beings trying to make
sense of life, trying to figure out meaning, our essence.

Fred Khumalo

Look and you will find it - what is unsought will go undetected.

Sophocles

196
 Introduction

While I make a rather marked distinction between the efficacy and

application of mediation in its global role as a conflict resolution tool
in resolving international conflicts, and as weighed against its
application in our more local professional and personal lives, we will
here only deal with mediation in its practical application in our
workplace and personal spheres (see the reference section below for
my more global treatments of mediation).
Mediation, especially in its current South African experience, suffers
from a variety of misconceptions and miscommunications, often caused
by or allowed to continue by mediators themselves. This essay seeks to
correct those shortcomings, and to give the reader an updated and
upgraded knowledge of mediation, its promises and its practical uses.
For now, let us simply note that mediation can include and make use of
hard negotiation and interest protection, as much as any other dispute
resolution mechanism, and that it simply approaches these conflicts in
a unique way. Prof Tiewa Liu, for instance, refers to mediation’s
“almost perfect combination of intensity and amiability”.
Mediation is a wonderfully appropriate conflict tool in the South African
environment, for a number of reasons, and yet it remains a markedly
undervalued and underutilised solution. In this essay we will have a
summarised look at some of the benefits of mediation used in a conflict
setting, its limitations and then make a few suggestions as to how we
can apply that in our professional or personal lives.

Mediation – what it is

Given the importance and practical application potential that

mediation has, it would be well to start our exploration with a few
comprehensive definitions of the concept.

Christopher W. Moore defines it succinctly as:

“Mediation is a conflict resolution process in which a mutually
acceptable third party, who has no authority to make binding
decisions for disputants, intervenes in a conflict or dispute to

197
 assist involved parties to improve their relationships, enhance
communications, and use effective problem-solving and
negotiation procedures to reach voluntary and mutually
acceptable understandings or agreements on contested issues.”

Bush and Folger defines it as:

“Across the mediation field mediation is generally understood as
an informal process in which a neutral third party with no power
to impose a resolution helps the disputing parties try to reach a
mutually acceptable settlement.”

Mediation is one of the tools in the conflict resolution / management

toolbox, and in the sense that we will be focusing on it in this essay it
is distinguishable from other conflict resolution techniques and
strategies such as conflict communication, integrative negotiation,
conflict systems design and conflict analysis.
Mediation can be a highly complex, technical field of study and
practice, with scholarly and practitioner perspectives. It can also be an
informal conflict tool used by untrained amateurs. So far, the South
African experience generally uses it as a defined process, used by
trained professional mediators in a formal setting. It is also used to
resolve conflicts between warring groups or countries, to resolve
complex commercial disputes, or used to assist and settle community
or family conflicts.
It is, in its simplest forms, the intervention of a third party(ies) in the
conflicts of others, using methods such as dialogue, persuasion, group
and private discussions, joint problem solving exercises and option
exploration in order to resolve such conflicts. In doing so, in its
professional settings, it involves the use of conflict resolution
knowledge, skills, strategies and tactics to achieve the goals that we
have looked at earlier, and as the prevailing circumstances may require
and allow. Again, in its simplest forms, it is a completely voluntary
process, with the mediator having no real decision making powers, and
where the skills of persuasion and clarification become paramount.

198
 Mediation and the South African workplace

Mediation in South African workplace labour disputes has a relatively

long history, and is firmly established in its employment context. For a
variety of reasons, our labour environment is a volatile one, with
various national conflict patterns seeming to persist, with no
meaningful signs of change or abatement. This is the case despite the
Labour Relations Act seeking to “advance economic development,
social justice, labour peace and the democratization of the workplace.”
This conflict environment is marked by low levels of trust, outdated
conflict negotiation strategies, hostility and adversarial approaches.
Tragedies like Marikana remind us of how quickly these situations can
turn deadly and harmful, even in modern times.
While efforts at mediation in the workplace (by private mediators, the
CCMA and other institutions) are ongoing, much work needs to be done
to expand the acceptance and uptake of this important conflict tool.
Mediation in such a volatile working environment, especially as a system
of early dispute resolution (EDR), is invaluable, and South African
workplaces that implement such mediation systems have had significant
advantages and successes.
This, the effective implementation of a workplace mediation system,
remains an important educational and operational challenge for
employers, trade unions and mediators.

Three main types of mediation approaches

Research and practice show three main mediation patterns used by

mediators. They can briefly be described as an individualistic approach
(the interests of the parties are of paramount interest), an organic
approach (where the organization’s interests are focused on, based on
the understanding that the mediation is not primarily about the solving
of problems but the goal of maintaining the order that stable
relationships provide), and a relational approach, where the main goal
is the transformation of the parties’ conflict behaviour so that they can
move through the conflict with greater clarity and autonomy, and

199
where solutions are crafted keeping an eye on the ongoing relationship.
There is no single “best” approach, and the approach most suitable
would depend on the mediator’s mandate, the existing relationship and
conflict experience between the specific parties, timeframes and
deadlines, desired outcomes and other factors. The approach often also
changes during mediation, as the dynamics of the information and
conflict behaviour develop.

The benefits and strategic importance of mediation

– a few introductory considerations

Mediation at its best can be an extremely cost and time effective

solution. Its potential informality can create effective forums for
parties to extensively canvas their concerns, problems and goals, and
in the hands of a skilled mediator the most seemingly intractable
conflict can be resolved. Mediation, and in particular the process that
it follows in its best forms, can create solutions and add value where
normal binary choices (win/lose or right/wrong) limit the parties.
Litigation and arbitration processes are often driven by very limited
outcome possibilities, and timeframes for the resolution of the dispute
may be limited by court pleadings and documents and the attorneys
involved. In mediation, the parties are only limited by their own self-
imposed boundaries, and they have a blank canvass on which to create
something to their benefit. Everything from process to the content of
the mediation can be discussed and resolved by the parties, often with
minimal intrusion from the mediator. Mediation has the benefit of being
potentially able to restore and maintain a relationship that may need
to be guarded, such as a family or workplace relationship. Dispute
resolution mechanisms such as litigation or conflict avoidance are
nearly guaranteed to destroy or irreparably harm such relationships.
Mediation can be safeguarded by the same or better considerations of
confidentiality and non-disclosure as other dispute processes. A
mediator will deal with such concerns at the outset of the mediation
process, both as far as confidentiality of disclosures between the
parties and external confidential considerations are concerned.

200
The involvement of a mediator can “sharpen” or clarify the relevant
points of the conflict, and assist parties in focusing on what is necessary
and of use. Where necessary the underlying causes and triggers of a
conflict can be established, often with great benefit to the parties
resulting from the mere acknowledging of these causes, without the
need for a decision making process on the rights and wrongs of it. As
Mark Gerzon says, “Mediators have the critical capacity to see the
whole-and to act in its best interest.”
One very effective tool that mediation allows is a focus on the needs of
the parties, as opposed to a fixation on solutions in the narrow sense.
This technique allows parties that have ongoing relationships to make
meaningful progress without necessarily having a conventional solution
to the situation. This technique, used on rare occasions, can also
indirectly improve impaired relationships over time.
Mediation is excellently positioned to deal with very complex, data
heavy conflicts, and the parties or the mediator can suggest and adopt
efficient ways to deal with such information loads for the benefit of
understanding, problem solving or resolution. By that same token
mediation also allows parties to agree to limit such information
overloads where necessary, and to work with designated areas or
segments of such information. Select information can, by agreement,
be obtained from outside experts and which information inputs can act
as a basis for further clarification and resolution.
While mediation should ideally not be a process where the mediator
simply imposes his will on the parties, the skilled mediator will
contribute possible solutions and suggested creative methods to resolve
these conflicts once the parties request that. An experienced mediator
will know how, and when, to address and resolve the situation when
the parties need to air their views (the risky differentiation period),
when there is unexpected escalation of the conflict or when the parties
remain committed to the process but have reached an impasse in their
negotiations. Prof William Zartman uses the wonderful image and
concept of the “plateau and the precipice”, areas of comfort and crisis
that the skilled mediator can use in the mediation process to guide
parties towards resolution.

201
Friedman and Himmelstein correctly point out that
“When the pressure is lifted and understanding is expanded and
deepened, many mediations result in creative ideas that neither
party has considered before the mediation began and that are
ultimately more satisfying to each of the participants.”

The mediation process can normally be attended to in as formal or

informal a setting as the parties and the dynamics of their conflict
dictate. The physical setting of a mediation can greatly contribute to
the chances of success of resolving a conflict, as opposed to the
traditionally imposing, intimidating or even unpleasant surroundings
experienced during litigation. In this physical way mediation can also
contribute to dispute resolution where other formal settings, such as
found at say the Bargaining Council or Labour Court, may make
resolution more difficult.

A few additional benefits of mediation that may not always be apparent

from observation alone would include:

(i) Research shows that conflicting parties often change their

conflict behaviour once a third party mediator becomes
involved. There are different reasons for this, but this subtle
shift in the conflict behaviour often leads to small progress
events in that conflict that can be built on. Meaningful
changes in how the parties see each other can occur, and
these subtle dynamics can open the closed doors to progress.
(ii) Mediators often influence the exchange of information in a
conflict. This can include an opening up and sharing
approach, or a more structured and efficient exchange of
what is really pertinent. In this manner sensitive information
can be protected where appropriate while still exchanging
relevant information fairly and openly.

202
(iii) Excessively hostile behaviour in a conflict can be managed
better. Parties often drop rude and insulting behaviour
directed at each other once a mediator is involved, and
private sessions and caucuses with parties can create
informal areas for venting, while only the useful items and
information so produced get used in the mediation itself. This
process can allow certain parties to open up more efficiently
than what they may have wanted to do in a more formal or
public setting, which in turn aids in the differentiation
process and at the problem solving stage.
(iv) Mediation in general, and these private sessions in particular,
can assist a party in negotiating more reasonably and
efficiently than what their public position may allow them to
do. This is often found in union and political negotiations.
These processes, when handled correctly, allow parties to
save face, explore options, and shares responsibility for
decisions and solutions.
(v) Without sounding corny, mediators can also bring a dynamic
of hope and success to conflict. Long, protracted conflicts
often generate a sense of futility, of entrenched and
intractable conflicts, leading to parties acting from those
ruts. Progress or resolution seems distant or unachievable,
instinctive conflict behaviour patterns lead to conflict spirals,
and negative behaviour starts to become more acceptable, as
more radical (if harmful) options start taking on more
viability. Here the mediator, in focusing on the process and
the possibility of resolution can hopefully show the parties a
glimpse of progress, of success, a fresh outsider’s perspective
that could lead to opportunities and creativity, to a
willingness to work towards resolution.
(vi) Mediation can often change one or more of the parties’ goals
and expectations. Unrealistic goals or expectations can be
guided towards more reachable measurements, the while the
party(ies) participates in such process, as opposed to being
told that these goals are unrealistic, which if incorrectly
handled simply causes resentment, defensiveness and an
entrenching of those goals.

203
 (vii) Mediation can lead to a changing of the lenses through which
the parties see the conflict, and this process can guide the
parties from unproductive pursuits to more effective ones.
This can include the focus of a conflict, the words used to
describe it, and the resources applied to it. Frames used in
practice can include a right-wrong frame, a negotiation,
underlying conflict or termination frame.
(viii) An experienced, competent mediator brings something
special to that conflict table. Even in the midst of setbacks,
bad news, contentious strategies and fraying tempers these
conflict guides can find benefit, progress and resolution.

While workplace mediation is badly under-utilized in the South African

workplace, it is a modern, measurable tool that management can use
to resolve workplace conflicts far more efficiently than most traditional
disciplinary processes can do.
Globally mediation has become a much valued and used conflict tool.
China, for example, has valued and employed mediation (with its own
localized framework) since long before modern Westernized
conceptions of the birth of mediation. In the South African context we
have some experiments with mediation, but as we will see below, the
true value and potential of mediation has yet to be harnessed.

The limitations of mediation

The South African business and litigation environments have started to

raise their awareness and use of mediation. Several of our courts now
use mediation as a formal and partially compulsory mechanism before
other, further levels of resolution (such as a trial) can be reached. The
well-known CCMA (Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and
Arbitration) and the bargaining council system use mediation as a
focused tool in resolving employment disputes that have been referred
to them for resolution. Trained commissioners assist the parties to
mediate these conflicts, and arbitration or future litigation is often
prevented in this constructive manner.

204
The current South African dispute resolution model however tends to
only make use of mediation once a dispute has been referred to these
bodies, and by then the working relationship has often been
irretrievably damaged, with all of the expected fallout following on
such accusations and / or terminations, and the mediation options
available to the parties at that late stage are limited. This mediation-
as-last-resort approach is often too little, too late, and it fails to make
use of the pre-emptive strategic, creative problem solving value of
mediation. When these conflicts reach mediation stage the parties have
escalated their differences to high conflict levels, early but persistent
impressions and negative conflict patterns have set in, options and
solutions may have been closed due to insults or hurtful behaviour, and
conflict rigidity has reached an advanced stage.
There are also certain disputes and conflict events where mediation will
not be the best conflict resolution tool, either as a result of the actual
event (for instance a murder or child molestation charge), or as a result
of the timing of the sequence of the events (for instance, where one
party or more party is not yet ready for mediation. Here other conflict
mechanisms such as criminal trials, arbitration or further preparation
for mediation readiness should be utilized.
Given the voluntary nature of mediation, it is also often simply ignored
and abused by some parties. The mediation phase of the CCMA and
bargaining council forums are often simply not attended by one or both
parties, signalling a marked lack of understanding of the strategic value
of mediation, if for no-one else but themselves, by such parties. When
these mediation sessions are attended they are often begrudgingly and
sulkily endured, and seen as box-ticking exercises or oversimplified
compromise meet-you-in-the-middle sessions, often creating the seeds
for future and cyclical conflicts in workplace disputes.
This is mostly a matter of one or more of the parties not having a
workable understanding of mediation, as opposed to a failure of
mediation in itself. The observation is however that even in instances
of mediation being pressurised or suggested strongly, parties must still
commit to that as a mental and emotional commitment, even if only
for their own benefit, and it is there that much education need to be
done in the South African business world.

205
 Mediation and the boundaries of decision making

Should mediators play an active role in shaping solutions?

The acceptance by parties of responsibility for the resolution of their
disputes, the voluntary nature of mediation and the relationship that
the mediator has with the parties make this a very interesting and
practically relevant question.
If the mediator is too prescriptive this may lead to one or more of the
parties becoming sceptical of the process itself, and this may lead to
either an escalation of the conflict or in one or more of the parties
shutting down, which as we have seen has negative consequences for
at least the differentiation phase and the possibility of conflict rigidity.
True integration and acceptance of a solution, especially a voluntary
one often found in mediation agreements, more often than not needs a
high level of acceptance by the parties, and a cut and dried solution
put together by a mediator may prevent or complicate such buy-in.
Advice and suggested solutions can quite easily be perceived as biased
or favouring the one party, which creates credibility and other process
problems in the mediation itself.
On the other hand, we often find that a mediator can bring some very
real and practical benefit and solutions to the table. The mediator may
be an expert in the related field, she may have extensive experience in
the possible solutions, and may have first-hand knowledge of what
works and what does not. The mediator will in all likelihood be skilled
in problem solving, and to simply exclude such input and available
solutions based on any of the above possible concerns could be
unnecessarily restrictive.
Parties often specifically request input from the mediator as to the
merits and demerits of a specific situation or solution, and as a general
rule, discreet and respectful input from the mediator, especially where
this is requested or where this is in the interests of the parties, can be
a very valuable source of solutions to parties in conflict. If such
mediator input is indeed deemed to be appropriate, it is best submitted
late in the mediation process, when the parties may have expressed
themselves fully, and where they may have reached an impasse as far

206
as integration is concerned. Here the mediator must be particularly
mindful of the boundary between bias and assisting the parties to
resolve their conflict.
This is an important topic where mediators themselves hold differing
views, so parties may wish to canvass that with their chosen mediator
before they commence mediation.

Mediation and collective labour conflicts

It is maybe (at least in my own experience) in the arena of collective

workplace conflict that mediation has the most potential to prevent,
minimize or resolve harmful workplace conflict. The tools that
mediation can provide conflicting parties with, and as we discuss in this
essay specifically and in the book in general, can be a measurable and
highly effective management instrument.
It is often the smallest strategic and operational changes here, such as
targeted conflict training of selected staff, seeing mediation as a pre-
emptive tool and not as a catch-up strategy once conflict has
developed, the ring-fencing of issues for mediation and so on, that bring
big rewards.

Mediation and its particularly South African challenges

Mediation in South Africa has a few uniquely South African features that
need to be borne in mind in efforts to grow mediation as an effective
conflict resolution tool, and in its use on the factory floor.
Given the shared South African recent history of apartheid and the
different levels of conflict, the scars of which are still visible
throughout our society, mediation often runs into the trust and
perception problems experienced among certain sections of the
population, in personalised or group form. Mediation at its best requires
a measure of joint problem solving, of effective communication, and if
there are deep-seated trust and perception problems inherent in
conflicts before the first word is spoken the mediation process becomes
more complex than it normally would have been.

207
As South Africans we are also generally not very skilled at effectively
resolving our conflicts. Litigation, various forms of conflict avoidance,
threats and various levels of violence remains much favoured options,
and the clear and observable defects in those options are often not
understood or simply accepted as inevitable. We retain a naïve
optimism about political solutions and the last few years of political
developments, corruption and service delivery failures have led to a
measure of learned helplessness and despair in certain sections of
society, people who now simply accept the status quo as “the way it
is”, and this often extends to workplace or interpersonal conflict.

Mediation, to the limited extent that it is understood or considered, is

often seen as a “soft skill”, and a good number of our group identities
simply prefer the perception of punishing litigation, corruption or even
violence as conflict resolution tools. This of course highlights the lack
of knowledge and positive experience of mediation, as actual
experience will show that mediation is far from a “soft skill”, and that
it can be the most effective conflict tool even in the most hostile
environments.

Other than the possibility of the occasional exposure to mediation, say

at the CCMA, the South African citizen also has no or very little exposure
to mediation in its best forms. This is ironic, as many of the more
traditional (and partially out of favour) underlying South African dispute
resolution approaches (such as the philosophy of ubuntu and several
tribal and community dispute practices) actually value both the
methods and overall approach of mediation as an effective conflict
resolution tool. Much work needs to be done here in order to show that
mediation is not some foreign, modern imposition but actually a new
way of using an existing, local conflict tool.

Neutrality in mediation

The perceptions surrounding neutrality in mediation, as well as its

application, do tend to contribute to its relatively low acceptance
rates, and a brief assessment of this important aspect of modern
mediation needs to be added to our wider considerations.

208
The question at some levels intersects with the question of mediator
involvement in problem solving (as discussed above), but it also extends
much wider than that specific topic.
Does true neutrality exist? Can we really be free of decades of our
conditioning, our experiences, our subjective understanding of the
world? Do we confuse neutrality with bias? Is neutrality, assuming that
it does exist, even a good and desired component of mediation?
Modern conflict patterns often foster, even demand, a high level of
emotional commitment to a social group or cause, and people often are
manipulated into unnecessarily aggressive and even harmful conflicts.
We often simply use the conflict tools that we grew up with, or we use
the least-worst option, simply because that seemed to have worked
best out of the perceived options in the past. Even on a personal level
we often see in litigation that it is important for people to have
someone who claims to be on their side, someone that helps them to
face “the other side”. Litigation as a conflict system often, in direct
ways and others, encourages this us-versus-them approach and the
hidden costs in financial, time, options and relationship terms are not
always clearly canvassed and understood.
It is partially the conflict resolution discipline in general, and mediators
in particular, who do a rather poor job of “selling” the advantages of
mediation to the public. This perceived neutrality is a part of the
market perceptions limiting the application and popularity of
mediation. Mediators do not always make a compelling case for the
clear benefits of mediation, and in that leeway step alternatives who
promise people answers, who speak to the emotional urges abounding
in especially early conflict stages(feelings of anger, revenge). Mediators
are, when they do not convey the process adequately, often perceived
as distant, cold, or uninterested in the outcomes of these conflicts. This
is partially inadequate communication for which the mediator is to
blame, and also of course the perception that the mediator must be
neutral and unbiased. The process of mediation itself can also at times
disorientate the inexperienced party, with its open agendas, with its
focus on problem solving and in respecting parties to co-create their
own solutions. This is often unfairly contrasted with say a process of

209
litigation where an attorney will tell you what to say, how to say it and
when to say it, and where the outcomes are limited to that system.
But neutrality in mediation can cause more than just perception
problems. It is the nature of the use and application of power that
important disparities can be accentuated, protected and even
enhanced if sufficient checks and balances are not imposed on that
power. It is not effective or ethical to simply be neutral (in the wide
sense of the word) and to invite the participants to speak their minds
and suggest solutions when there are status or educational differences
between the parties, where past violence or abuse have caused severe
limitations on one party’s ability to effectively consider her options or
to communicate them, or one of many other power imbalances. The
very language of mediation can, if not properly understood or
explained, lead to the failure to properly air grievances or, even worse,
the suppression of true, important and helpful emotions. Something
more than mere disconnected disengagement or neutrality is required.
How then does a mediator address the question of these clear
disadvantages of neutrality without becoming biased, without
prejudicing one party in these efforts at levelling the proverbial playing
fields?

Jean Poitras and Susan Raines (in their book Expert Mediators) seek to
address this challenge as follows:
“While mediators are expected to remain neutral, the effective
fulfilment of their role involves exercising a significant amount of
authority and power. The trick is to balance the power and
authority inherent in the mediator’s role with the self-
determination of the parties and their ability to control the
outcome of their dispute.”

Kenneth Cloke uses a wonderful concept that he calls omni-partiality.

This is a complex conflict tool that he has designed and applies that
very efficiently gets around the neutrality vs bias dichotomy. It allows
the mediator to not be biased about facts (who is causing the

210
breakdown of the marriage, is this salary offer reasonable etc.), but to
use and encourage empathy and dialogue over meaning, and to reject
or limit harmful adversarial us-versus-them strategies. It allows the
mediator to be “soft on the person and hard on the problem”, and it
allows nuanced truths to be explored and uncovered, without
oversimplifications and hurried polarized opposites. It retains, uses and
enhances core values such as honesty, integrity, inclusion, respect,
dignity, diversity and collaboration.
This enables the mediator to become fully alert and even involved in
the causes and emotions involved in a dispute, without being biased,
without appearing to be aloof and distant, not taking one side, but
taking and caring about all sides. This stands to be conveyed effectively
to parties and the South African public as widely as possible, as an
effective aid in their conflicts, as a solution with a heart, mind and soul.

From this debate we notice that neutrality in mediation is a dynamic

concept that needs a more nuanced appreciation and application than
may be expected, and that this brings challenges and opportunities to
the mediator. In especially the settlement focused forms of mediation
this is a valuable and important debate. Transparency, clarification and
dialogue can and should make this an intrinsic and valuable part of
every complex mediation session. Settlement focused mediation has,
despite some criticism from traditionalist concerns, become the focus
of modern mediation scholarship and practice, and if applied
responsibly it is an indispensable business and personal conflict
solution.

What types of conflicts can best benefit from mediation

Most conflict can be mediated, and the advantages of mediation are

clear and numerous. Conflicts where the parties have an ongoing
relationship, be that professional or personal, are traditionally best
served by mediation as opposed to the destructive results of litigation.
Cost and time implications are important considerations, and a
comprehensive mediation can be conducted in a matter of days and for
a fraction of the costs attendant on litigation or even arbitration.

211
Mediation can effectively deal with confidential matters, and it
generally allows parties to share information off the record and without
the fear of sensitive information or resolution proposals being used
against them later on during a trial or arbitration.
The South African workplace is ideally suited for mediation, where
complex and significant problems and disputes can be resolved
effectively while retaining control over the relationship and even the
outcome itself. This extends, in my experience, and for the same
reasons, also to the fields of disputes with customers and service
providers.

The mediation process – some considerations

The actual mediation process is often dependent on the specific

industry or personal requirements of the involved parties, and it is one
of the strengths of mediation that such a mediation process can be
informal, tailor-made to suit the operational or other needs of the
parties but still be rigorous, confidential and in compliance with all
relevant concerns as to mediated conflict outcomes.
Sometimes the value of a mediator is as simple as showing us where we
got stuck in a conflict, and that in itself leads to resolution or progress.
At times a more active and even participatory role is expected or
preferred from the mediator, as we have discussed above. This, in
broad terms, is the important distinction between transformative
mediation (where the parties are simply led towards resolution and the
solving of their own problems) and the solution based mediation, where
within certain parameters the mediator can make suggestions and
actively assist the parties in crafting solutions to their conflicts. While
most mediators will make their own assessments of what is best needed
in a specific conflict, this can of course be discussed by the parties with
the mediator at the commencement of the mediation, or even later on.
Preliminary discussions are of some operational value and importance,
as these can, when conducted skilfully, lead to a limitation and
clarification of issues, a saving of cost and other practical
considerations, such as the venue and so on. A pre-mediation stage is
often of great practical value to everyone, especially with the more

212
complex mediations, and I strongly advise the use of some level of such
pre-mediation clarification.
Depending on the conflict at hand a mediator, or a team of mediators,
can meet with parties and this process can be as unstructured or
structured as required. Mediators have different styles of conducting
these processes, and various levels of involvement in the problem
solving process can be observed or sought in advance. Modern mediation
practice across industries, and increasingly also in interpersonal
mediation, often makes use of these pre-mediation meetings, where
the parties are apprised of the process itself, and where a level of
comfort and confidence can be established, goals agreed upon, and
where operational frameworks can be discussed and agreed upon,
before the merits of the conflict is started on.
Mediation processes can be as informal or formal as may be necessary,
and there is, for example, no real in principle objection to other
necessary parties being involved in the process. I often find value in
allowing parties to include their attorneys in the mediation process, or
we can make use of selected experts to provide us with specified
evidence before or during the mediation process, such as house or
business evaluations, economic trends, share values, construction or
scientific data and so on. An experienced mediator will know where to
establish the dividing line between an additional participant adding
value to the process and one who is not.
Depending on the dynamics of the conflict and the wishes of the parties
involved, bundles of evidence can be prepared, external items of expert
advice or reports can be used as guidance, witnesses can be agreed
upon (as well as the manner in which they will give evidence, such as
in-person or using videoconferencing), record keeping and evidence
storage can be discussed and agreed upon, matters of confidentiality
(including press releases, social media and other media sources) can be
arranged and the specifics of the dispute itself, such as the exact
question(s) involved, timeframes and so on can all be discussed and
resolved.

213
Mediation processes itself make use of joint sessions with the parties
and then the more private sessions between the mediator and the
individual parties. The timing and sequence of these individual caucuses
and joint sessions is a minor art form in itself, and an experienced
mediator will use these processes in the best interests of the parties as
the conflict and its resolution unfolds. The all-important phases of
differentiation and integration are carefully managed and structured to
best enable resolution. Dynamic factors such as the current relationship
between the parties, their conflict history, the expected outcome, the
personalities involved and other relevant aspects are all considered and
used.
Depending on the complexity and other dynamics of the situation, such
a mediation can be conducted over a period of several sessions, hours,
days, weeks or months. It is not that uncommon for parties to choose
to ask for adjournments in order to process information or emotions
that may have surfaced. Mediation can however also lead to resolution
in one short session, as the intervention of an experienced mediator
often brings clarity on issues and options that may have, for various
reasons, been difficult for the involved parties to see or to work
through.
The parties are at liberty to set limits to these sessions, and it often
follows that parties set aside a certain time limit within which to try
and reach resolution, failing which other options may be considered.
These time limits are often dictated by dynamics such as workplace
operational requirements, the relationship between the parties, the
best interests of minor children, commercial factors such as delivery
deadlines, board meetings and so on.
At the request of the mediator or the parties a range of written
agreements can be used in the mediation process, if so desired, such as
an agreement with the mediator himself, an agreement between the
mediator and the parties, a mediation agreement between the parties
setting out their agreement and the resolution of the conflict and so
on. Mediation is normally very process driven, and the process itself can
become a help or a hindrance to be managed. A set of clear mediation
documents can be of great assistance to all concerned, and such

214
documents can clearly address and deal with any confidentiality
concerns that may exist.
I work with pre-mediation documents, a few diagrams, progress and
summary documents, and then the agreements and other post-
mediation documents. These documents should, when used correctly,
be an unobtrusive but invaluable tool guiding the parties. These
documents can also effectively deal with pre-mediation questions that
the parties may have, such as confidentiality, the use of specific
documentation, costs, media concerns and other specifics. The
mediator or other assigned party should also assist the parties with any
specific formalities that may attach to a specific dispute, such as for
example custody conflicts, wage negotiations, union recognition
agreements and so on.
Depending on the specifics of the mediation, any resolution and
agreement reached can be formalised into a contract between the
parties, with the parties using such level of formality as they are
comfortable with and as the circumstances require. Agreements can
reflect all of the subtleties and nuances of other, more adversarial
processes, and such agreements can for instance be contingency
agreements (be made conditional on certain occurrences), constructed
with various phases, link certain consequences to uncertain future
events and regulate future conduct of the parties.

Modern challenges to mediation practice

Mediation has been grappling with a few significant challenges since its
inception, wherever you want to draw that line as being its real start
as a conflict tool. These include facts such as a propensity by some to
choose aggressive or violent alternatives, misconceptions about
mediation, the abilities of mediators, maintaining post-mediation
agreements and so on, but it has been making steady and marked
progress insofar as its credibility and prestige as a conflict management
tool is concerned, both globally and steadily here in South Africa.
There are nevertheless a few very interesting modern challenges that
mediation research and praxis are studying so as to craft suitable
responses to. We consider a few of these here.

215
Mediation, as we have seen, is at its highest and best levels, a dispute
resolution tool highly reliant on the integrity of the process itself.
Largely because of its voluntary nature, the confidentiality of the
information being utilised at times and other dynamics, the mediation
environment can be a highly volatile one. While a successful mediation
needs to have absolutely nothing to do with sincere respect or any
degree of fondness between the parties, it does require some minimum
measure of co-operation, and some glimmer of trust is most helpful.
Modern ways of creating and handling information can prove to be
significant stumbling blocks in achieving this trust.
Modern life, with its social media, fake news and marked polarization
raises new markers in mediation that should be studied and integrated
into a mediation practice of whatever level. Technology brings several
solutions, but also challenges to mediation in this, what the UN
Secretary General’s High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation refers to
as “the age of digital interdependence”.
Political science researchers Ong and Cabanes rightly state that “No
technology has been weaponised at such an unprecedented global scale
as social media”. This, as we shall see, hold very real and practical
concerns and consequences for the mediator and the conflicting
parties.
While the flow of information, and its control, is a complex enough
consideration in a standard mediation, without these relatively new
influencing factors, information and its creation, deployment, timing,
sequence, limitation and interpretation now becomes a crucial part of
the mediator’s role in any meaningful mediation.
This includes pre-mediation sources and content of information, where
these sources can (and inevitably do) have enormous impact on the
conflict participants, the managing of such information during a
mediation process, and of course also after the mediation has been
concluded. A single ill-worded or ill-timed tweet can derail months of
hard work. This is of course further complicated by the social media
conduct not only of the direct conflict participants, but also their real
or perceived followers and supporters.

216
This unavoidable fact adds a fascinating, complex and very challenging
layer to the mediator’s role and responsibilities. This includes also,
maybe more so now than in pre-social media days, important
considerations of public perceptions, face saving and support. A party
who in private may have been perfectly willing to reconsider her
position on a topic may now be more reluctant to do so if she has taken
a publicly well-known (and supported) stance on that issue in social
media. This simple phenomena invariably leads to a higher initial
degree of conflict rigidity. Parties end up arguing their public personas,
and not their true selves, positions and possibilities. The modern
mediator needs to be fully conversant with these challenges and their
solutions.

Mediation versus litigation: a comparison

There are some conflicts, as we have seen, where either mediation or

litigation would be an easy or more appropriate solution, and where
that particular conflict resolution mechanism is clearly the more
appropriate option.
Modern conflicts are however becoming more and more nuanced and
complex, not to mention more damaging in some of their guises, and
the best option of these two commonly known and popular tools (there
are of course other options) may not be all that apparent. Modern
society is becoming less tolerant of certain types of conflict behaviour,
while also seeking or even demanding more transcendent and
reasonable methods of resolving our conflicts. The business world is
replete with instances where litigation may be a perfectly valid option
on a simplistic understanding of the conflict, but where a very high
price is paid by using such dispute resolution option. Perceptions of
commercial bullying, support for the proverbial underdog or in-group
support and the use of modern social media propaganda methods often
override what your attorney’s litigation advice may indicate.
Conflict resolution expert Kenneth Cloke has put together a very
eloquent and helpful list of considerations for assessing this important
decision:

217
 “While the rule of law has been effective in blocking
dictatorship and tyranny, it is not the last answer or the
best one for a democratic society. The cost in human and
financial terms, delay and dishonesty, resistance and
bitterness, unworkable results and ruinous relationships,
has been too great not to question the belief that our legal
system represents the best of all possible alternatives.
Resolving conflicts through law actively encourages
people to form hostile, dismissive, adversarial judgments
about each other. Yet, as Honore de Balzac observed: "The
more one judges, the less one loves."
Indeed, the very use of adversarial legal methods for
resolving conflict encourages parties to:
 Demonize their enemies and victimize themselves.
 Argue over positions and ignore their interests.
 Assert correctness and deny responsibility.
 Confuse people with problems.
 Focus on the past rather than the present or the future.
 Concentrate on trivia and ignore deeper truths.
 Become lost in a maze of contradictory, ultimately
unprovable judgments about who is right or wrong.
 Refuse to engage in dialogue, actually listen, or seriously
come to grips with an opponent's interests.”

Consider these arguments before you embark on litigation. In addition

to the various advantages that mediation brings to conflict resolution it
also need not be an either/or question, with litigation remaining an
option if mediation should fail.

MEDIATION : its practical value as conflict resolution

tool for Africa in general and South Africa in particular

The efficient use of mediation in personal and workplace conflict is, in

my view, the conflict resolution field’s main contribution to our modern
conflicts. This book advocates for the use of mediation at all levels of

218
significant conflict, especially at an organized and managed degree of
competency at the workplace level. We considered these benefits and
practicalities in our discussions on workplace conflict, DSD and other
topics. As the chapter on peacebuilding will show, mediation has a
much wider application where its potential is starting to be recognised
and applied to complex conflicts.
Let us here, in this essay on mediation, then take a general look at what
real, tangible benefits mediation can bring to our continent and to our
country.

Mediation as conflict tool in Africa

For our discussion here we can take notice of an interesting term that
is gaining traction in global conflict resolution, and that is the concept
of peace mediation. It is a catch-all term that includes several conflict
resolution techniques, such as high-level diplomacy, multi-track
diplomacy, peacebuilding and mediation at several levels.
Mediation is increasingly seen as a crucial conflict tool in global conflict,
and this increased understanding and support is clearly seen in recent
United Nations pronouncements. For instance, in 2016 the United
Nations General Assembly (UNGA) acknowledged that “effective
mediation and mediation support require systematic efforts at all
levels” and in a highly significant resolution, adopted by all member
states, UNGA accepted that “timely conflict analysis, development of
case-specific strategic road maps for mediation drawing on best
practices and lessons learned, and identification of appropriate
expertise” is important.
This vividly reflects the increased acceptance of the strategic value of
mediation and peace support in practice and policy, and UN acceptance
and support at this level is an important development in conflict
resolution.
These developments show more than just an increased acceptance of a
generic mediation technique, we also see exciting and some inspiring
changes and expansions of the very idea of mediation itself. These
include the observable fact that peace mediation policy is increasingly

219
connected to the broader goals of social reconstruction and
peacebuilding, with development of new mediation priorities or
expansions into areas such as constitution creation, gender issues, local
peacebuilding initiatives etc. The practice of these developments have
shown an increased movement away from the model where a single
high-level mediator conducts these mediations towards multi-track
mediation, using simultaneous mediation across various levels of a
society or group, using a broader range of mediators, which is often a
very helpful and practical strategy in regional mediations.
The mere presence of mediation as a tool has in itself brought about
several signs of improvement, such as the increased use of and
consulting with women mediators in regional conflicts and the inclusion
of women’s peace advocacy concerns in larger debates, an inclusion of
local groups and community leaders in decision making processes and
so on.
We note an increased inclusion of business people in local and regional
conflicts traditionally demarcated as “political” arenas, and this
involvement, while it complicates certain conflicts at one level, brings
several other conflict benefits such as a higher degree of commitment
and understanding, the application of local resources to local problems,
a greater degree of accountability, better post-mediation continuity
and so on.
The online technologies available for peacebuilding is receiving
increased attention, and here as well important changes in mediation,
its scholarly focus and practical application have been brought about,
from which a continent like Africa should benefit.
In the best theoretical framework currently available in my view, Miguel
Varela argues for a categorization of these mediation and peacebuilding
technology tools and techniques into four functions, that being (i)
improving understanding, (ii) expanding and securing the mediation
table, (ii) supporting creativity and (iv) facilitating agreement. Varela
reminds us how technology is no longer just a tool or an aid, but a
“fundamental part of how we relate to each other”. Using technology
in mediation is therefore not to be seen as transposing a foreign object
onto our problems and conflicts, but a simple extension of
communication.

220
Technology of course brings certain new challenges to the mediator’s
role and profession, such as the boundaries of confidentiality and the
use of social media to advance causes and campaigns, but these should
be managed appropriately, and the advantages of technology in
mediation processes should outweigh any disadvantages. Africa in
particular, with its vast distances, travel challenges and possible group
tensions should position itself as a pioneer in this field.

While the use of political mediation in Africa is still often a haphazard

affair that seems to be conducted more by the exigencies of the
moment as opposed to a structural methodology, the framework is
certainly there for mediation to be used, and to be used in a specific
manner. The African Union has a specific handbook dealing with, inter
alia, the conduct of mediators, the involvement of civil society, the
need to address regional dimensions of national conflicts and so on.
In many respects Africa is making important contributions to mediation,
both as a scholarly endeavour as well as the practice thereof. Our
numerous complex conflicts are excellent laboratories to responsibly
and rigorously test theories and techniques, and mediation already
benefits from some of this work in a general way, other than benefits
accruing to the parties in a particular conflict. Here I specifically think
of issues such as the realization that mediators need not, and
sometimes should not, be neutral, and a complete rethinking and
recalibration of what this “neutrality” means in any event.
Mediation in Africa has had significant successes in some conflicts
(Kenya, Tunisia and South Africa), while less so in other areas
(Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq). Mediation in national conflicts, where tied
to constitutional reform and a recommitment to international law
guidelines and norms have generally shown positive long-term results,
as we have seen in the case of South Africa and Rwanda. Mediation in
Africa has already led to the development of specific strategies
designed to benefit Africa, such as the “African solutions to African
problems” approach (see for instance IGAD’s work in South Sudan).
Often the real or perceived failures of mediation in Africa flow not so
much from structural deficiencies of mediation itself, but in the

221
incorrect understanding, application or implementation thereof. A
study of such past mediation efforts often show enforced mediations
before conditions were ripe for such mediations, an inadequate pre-
mediation phase, a rushed differentiation phase, incomplete
assessment of the conflict dynamics at stake at a given time, the
inadequate inclusion of all involved stakeholders, failure to understand
and respectfully incorporate local conditions and so on.
Mediation in Africa has so far been used by interfaith organizations and
by faith leaders (see e.g. the well-known work done by the Interfaith
Mediation Centre in Kaduna, Nigeria), and one would like to see this
conflict resolution tool being used more extensively by such
organizations. Effective and urgent assimilation of mediation and
conflict competency by some of the global or transnational faith groups,
which internalised skill is then shared and transferred to their specific
communities, hold exciting conflict resolution possibilities for Africa in
my view.
In its 2006 Global Counterterrorism Strategy the United Nations
specifically mentions mediation as one of the strategies that can be
used to defuse the root causes of terrorism. Mediation can be used by
healthcare workers in Africa, and several suggestions as to training and
implementation have been made in the health-peacebuilding field as to
the use of this conflict resolution tool. The DRC has had some success
with the Heal My People program in inter alia husband-wife mediation,
and the extended use of these real world applications should be
encouraged.

THE MAGIC OF MEDIATION – mediation in South Africa

Mediation as a practical, cost-effective and superior tool of dispute

resolution is a misunderstood, undervalued and underutilized solution
to so many of our workplace, personal and political conflicts here in
South Africa. Especially on the level of workplace and interpersonal
conflict it is an unmatched conflict management and resolution
mechanism that we need desperately. With all of its challenges, I still
regard it as one of the ultimate dispute resolution solutions, one which
time has certainly come. For all our tongue in cheek references to the

222
magic of mediation, it still needs application, hard work and exposure
in the trenches of our conflicts. It is a transformative experience when
done right, and it is a vastly and observably superior option in most
conflicts.

Mediation as art, and as science, opens various avenues open to the

parties in a conflict that may not be available to them in other dispute
resolution mechanisms. Within the bounds of ethical conduct, and by
agreement between the parties, strict rules of evidence that may be
applicable in a court can be relaxed, confidentiality and record keeping
can be assured in extended solutions, options and concessions can be
mooted and discussed without any strategic harm, influence of centres
of power can be enhanced or reduced as the parties may deem
necessary, and unique conflict solutions can be created in constructive
ways, with a measurable saving in costs, time and relationship damage.
Ways of collaboration can be found that could not meaningfully be
discussed, much less explored, in more adversarial dispute resolution
forums, and of course, the parties remain more in control of their
solutions and futures than in any other conflict resolution mechanism.

Mediation as a field of study and of practice has done some very heavy
lifting and self-reflection in the last decade or two, and especially in
its settlement oriented formats it has earned respect and increased
global application and implementation. Global use of mediation, such
as in 2018’s #CyberMediation initiative, clearly puts mediation in the
forefront as a popular and dynamic conflict tool, and this hard work and
development should be capitalized upon by countries, regions,
organizations and individuals.

Mediation at the socio-political level is an absolutely natural expansion

and continuation of existing African practices of respect, dignity,
community involvement in problems, joint problem solving discussions
and other important aspects of dispute resolution that will require no
leaps of adaptation or acquired acceptance. Skilfully applied it can
serve as an effective antidote to the toxic behaviours flowing from
patriarchy, factionalism, cronyism and a long list of modern abrasive

223
conflict behaviour. In addition to its array of techniques and strategies
being of direct use to the conflicting parties, mediation in South Africa
can also benefit us in a more indirect manner by just allowing us to talk
to each other, each in our own way, in having conversations long
overdue. In its insistence and application, for example, of a
comprehensive differentiation phase to be attended to by the
conflicting parties, we can help each other to become heard properly,
for cyclical conflicts and their real causes to be truly understood.
Bush and Folger powerfully makes the point about the confluence of the
essence of mediation and modern conflict needs as follows:

“Moreover the public values of civility, responsibility,

and community – values best served by transformative
interventions – are of ever increasing importance in our society.”

Our society, increasingly aware of our diversity, and in our efforts to

effectively and harmoniously deal with that diversity, will probably see
an escalation of a certain type of conflict, at least for a while, and
especially of the identity and value based type, and it is here where so
many of the older conflict tools are manifestly blunt. Litigation, for
instance, will be a very poor gatekeeper in those efforts, with its
limited range and relational damage caused nearly by definition. Social
control by decree, legislation and other more traditional conflict
resolution mechanisms have recently been shown in stark detail to be
completely ineffective and inappropriate transformative tools in
societal conflicts.
It is here where mediation, applied at its various levels, stands to play
a crucial role. Mediation, in both its settlement based and
transformative forms, offers new options and solutions to the South
African conflict landscape. It is one of mediation’s strengths that it
need not be an exclusive solution, and it can be designed into an all-
encompassing array of mechanisms and solutions as may be required by
a particular conflict.

224
Mediation at a simple level can be taught in a matter of days to
communities, educators, politicians, NGOs and other individuals or
groups that need to resolve disputes. As we have seen, this would not
just lead to an increase in the resolution of the primary dispute, but
also do so in a more sustainable way that does less harm to the involved
relationships than would an escalation of that conflict, litigation or
most of the other current conflict resolution mechanisms.

Conclusion

I believe that mediators and those interested in spreading the positive

values and benefits of mediation should understand that even as
mediation has all of these clear benefits, it may still at this stage run
counter to our more basic emotions and intuitions. Mediation asks us to
work with more than one truth or perception, while we so dearly love
to be right and the possessors of The Truth, it seeks to arrive at mutually
acceptable and sustainable resolution that, where possible, retains the
ongoing relationship between the parties, while we so often want to
destroy our opponents and be the last man standing.
Mediation has done magnificent work on its internal frameworks and
techniques, but it now needs to start doing the external work, it is not
good enough to just have the solutions to so many conflicts, it must
learn to explain, educate and show people the real benefits in the
boardrooms and streets of our country.

RESEARCH AND SUGGESTED READING LIST

(Chapter 7)

1. For a more formal and academic consideration of mediation as a

global conflict management tool, see my essay in the upcoming
Peacebuilding Handbook (2nd edition), edited by Prof Roger Mac
Ginty and published later in 2023 by Routledge.
2. The Neutrality Trap, by Bernard Mayer, Wiley, (2022)
3. Mediating Dangerously by Kenneth Cloke, Wiley (2001)

225
4. The Promise of Mediation, by Robert A. Baruch Bush and Joseph
P. Folger, Jossey-Bass (2005)
5. The mediation process, by Christopher W. Moore, Jossey-Bass
(2014)
6. Rethinking peace mediation, edited by Catherine Turner and
Martin Wahlisch, Bristol University Press (2021)
7. Essay “Technology and Peace Mediation” by Miguel Varela in the
Turner volume supra
8. Negotiation and Conflict Management: essays on theory and
practice, by I William Zartman, Routledge (2008)
9. For an update on the interplay between mediation and social
media, and the risks that this field holds for mediation in modern
times, see for example the 2021 report on various components of
this debate at Social media in peace mediation: a practical
framework (2021) — ConnexUs (cnxus.org)
10. Article China and mediation: principles and practice by Prof Tiewa
Liu, in New Paths and Policies towards Conflict Prevention, edited
by Courtney J Fung and others, Routledge (2021)
11. Mediation in a time of crisis, by Kenneth Cloke, Goodmedia Press
(2021)

226
 CHAPTER 8: CONFLICT COMMUNICATION
Fighting talk

Effective communication is the key to constructive

conflict engagement.

Bernard Mayer

We human beings belong to language. In language,

we love and hate, we admire and despise. We interpret our
crises as individual and social. We suffer, and exalt,
and despair. In language we receive the gift of being human.
All the feelings, the thinking, the action, and the things
of this world as we know it are given to us in language.

Fernando Flores

Yet every word in conflict is also an expression of hope,

because it is an attempt to bridge the gap that separates
adversaries; an act of courage, because it is a plea for
understanding; and an effort to re-connect, because it is
a deliberate effort to move toward our opponents and away
from the hostile assumptions that feed impasse.

Kenneth Cloke

227
 For many of the conflicts in your life, the conversation you most
need to have is with yourself.

Tammy Lenski

We do not perceive reality directly. Between us and reality is a

screen of language. We perceive what is on that screen, that is,
what others-and we ourselves-tell us about reality. Language is by
far the most important instrument of communication among
human beings, including communication of a human being with
him/herself.

Anatol Rapoport

228
 Introduction

Our conflicts are often caused, defined, limited or steered by the way
that we communicate. While there is a popular level of understanding
of the ways in which our communication skills affect our conflicts, even
a simple, everyday observation of communication shows how little is
understood about this crucial skill, and how relatively easy it is to
increase our conflict competence by a better understanding of these
conflict communication principles.
Once we understand that In terms of a theory known as the cognitive
response theory/approach, people’s mental reactions to a message
plays a crucial role in the persuasion process (typically a more
important role than the message itself), we start to see how important
communication is in conflict. Communication, in the wonderfully
descriptive explanation of Stephen Littlejohn and Kathy Domenici, is
how worlds are made.
This essay then takes a closer look at practical ways in which we can
understand and apply a deeper level of conflict communication skills to
our professional and personal conflicts.

A brief look at non-verbal communication and its role

in our conflicts

While a comprehensive study of non-verbal communication falls outside

the scope of this work, I want to recommend a deeper study of that
particular combination of art and science to the reader that may be
intending to really improve their conflict competency to a higher level.
The suggested reading section at the end of this essay contains various
book-length studies, and there are also a variety of credible videos
available on sites like YouTube and so on.
For our purposes here we can simply note that we do communicate non-
verbally (the so-called “body language”), and that while certainly not
an exact science there are significant and very helpful clues and hints
to be gained in conflict situations by the trained observer. These non-
verbal messages may just give you an edge in such conflict situations in

229
better understanding other people, and in doing so enabling you to
better communicate with them.
A better understanding of these principles may of course also assist you
in not just “reading” others, but in also expressing yourself better and
clearer. If the appropriate understanding of the limitation of non-verbal
communication is understood, and then applied with a knowledge of
factors such as context, clusters and baseline behaviour this subset of
conflict communication can be a very useful addition to your conflict
competence.

Communication influences our conflicts

We can instinctively understand that, in addition to the actual content

of our communication during conflicts, the way in which we
communicate can also contribute positively or negatively to such
conflicts and their outcomes.
Strategy and conflict studies, as well as experience, show us that there
are four real world levels of communication, all of which we need to be
aware of in order to effectively plan and execute our conflict strategies.
These four levels are (i) what we mean to communicate, (ii) what we
actually communicate, (iii) what the receiver hears and (iv) judgments
made by the receiver on what she thinks we said. Spend some time on
these simple conflict aids: rehearse and record your voice and see if
what transpires is actually how it sounded in your head, ask a colleague
or friend to assess your communication, and try to follow how conflicts
can be complicated by these simple communication errors.
Our tone and volume of voice, the way we use our hands, the positioning
of our bodies during conflict, eye contact, even our voice cadence and
silences can all communicate loudly, and it is often the case that these
messages lead to misunderstandings and unintended conflict
consequences. A modern understanding of these communication
influences on our conflicts is therefore quite a practical skill, especially
if clear and persuasive communication is important to you.

230
 A foundation for our conflict communication

Before we start looking at actual communication skills during conflict I

want to recommend that you consider and assess what we can regard
as the foundation for our communication, with or without conflict being
present. If communication is our method of conveying ideas and a tool
to get our needs met, we should be aware of what it is that we really
wish to achieve. Do we use our communication skills to manipulate
people, to hide our true intentions, to influence our conflicts? If we are
sincere in answering these questions we need to say that yes, these are
often our goals in communication. We do want to persuade others, we
need and want them to see things our way, and we do seek to convince
others of our best interests, even at times when that goes against their
best interests. This is the nature of conflict, of competition, of life with
others.
Where those boundaries and limitations of ethics lie is best left to the
individual, and in practice this is often best left to be decided on a case
by case basis. What may be acceptable conflict communication may
differ depending on whether we are at the boardroom table,
negotiating with a kidnapper or selling our car to our best friend. With
those boundaries firmly understood, I want to suggest three underlying
considerations for your conflict communications, characteristics that
you can consider making a part of your conflict communication
regardless of the specifics, and regardless of who you are dealing with,
features that people will associate with the way you conduct your
professional or personal conflicts.

The first of these is genuineness, or sincerity if you will. Be open about

your conflicts, people generally respond well to sincerity, even when in
conflict. At a seminar a few years ago one of the attendees quipped
that the best way to fake sincerity is to actually mean what you say.
Conflict also takes less of an emotional toll on you if you are yourself,
not someone else. Conflict specialist Bernard Mayer argues that
effective communication stems from intention, not technique, and I
think that he is quite right in this, at least as far as sincerity is
concerned. We are not here suggesting the modern trend to hide plain

231
rudeness behind a veneer of “honesty”, but a noticeable sincerity in
your interactions with conflict opponents.
Older approaches to communication and even conflict management still
use a step-by-step colour-by-numbers strategy to set scenarios, and we
must guard against too clinical an approach to conflict communication.
Sequential treatments of strategies in conflict are necessary, but we
must remember that these steps are designed to show us the underlying
principles. Too cold and clinical an approach during conflict, especially
where it is noticed by your opponent, can lead to a significant cost in
credibility. People do not like feeling that they are being manipulated
or patronized. Feeling genuinely heard is more important than getting
steps 1-11 in the correct order. Try to keep communication separate
from assessing, persuasion and problem solving.

A second characteristic that should underpin our conflict

communication is the recognition and application of everyday respect
and dignity of the other. You can disagree with someone, sometimes to
their great prejudice, but still treat them with dignity and respect,
often when that is the furthest from your mind, and without getting
involved in fruitless considerations as to whether they “deserve” such
respect and dignity or not. This does not mean that you agree with them
or their views, or that you harm your own interests in any way, but it is
a simple recognition of the basic and intrinsic dignity that every person
has. It may, or may not, have a direct bearing on your conflict
outcomes, but it will certainly over time make you feel better about
your conflicts. Consider how some public figures manage to have
constant conflicts without crossing these lines of dignity, and how that
impacts on their conflicts. Remind yourself of the actual
communication difficulties that people may have, whether that may be
caused by emotions, educational or language challenges. As much as
some of us prefer to see language as this precise tool, it is not really
anything close to that in real life, especially during conflict when the
emotions may be running high. Make sure that you know what they are
saying, and then respond.

232
The third and last of these foundational conflict communication
characteristics is empathy. Again, this does not mean sympathy, being
“soft” in your conflicts or harming your own interests. It is the simple
ability to see the position that this conflict has brought about from your
opponent’s perspective, to put yourself in their proverbial shoes even
for a few seconds and to see things as they see it. This, as a huge
amount of case studies, research and practical experience show, allows
you to take less punishment emotionally in conflicts, it enables a more
creative approach to problem solving, and it opens up possible solutions
to the parties, from which you can of course also benefit. It counteracts
our inclinations to vilify the “other” and to start fighting with
caricatures of our opponents that exist more in our minds than in
reality.
These considerations deal with what Deborah Tanner calls
“mettamessages”, or messages about the more direct messages we
convey in our words. The way we say things are often as important, or
more important, than what we are saying on the face of it.
These are general skills that will serve you well in your conflicts, and
while they are often difficult to consent to, they work in real life, in
real conflicts, and the lucky ones make these strategies and
considerations a part of their conflict behaviour.

Dianne Musho Hamilton sets out some of our communication goals as

follows:
“Whenever I work with people on new communication patterns,
I always ask them what their intention is before we start.
Do they want to express a perspective or prove a point?
Are they interested in listening, or is it more important to
have their opinion heard? Are they simply interested
in an exchange of views, or do they want
to forge a solution?”

To these options we should possibly add “Or do you simply want to be

proven right?” Communication can quite easily be derailed if we do not
understand our own communication goals clearly, or if we fail to
adequately convey that to those we are in conflict with. Being aware

233
of the true communication goals that we are bringing to a specific
conflict also makes us more adaptable, better enabled to change our
strategy as developments may require.

Jayne Seminare Docherty distinguishes between instrumental language,

i.e. conflict communication that is rational and analytical, and
relational language, i.e. conflict communication that is used to express
connection or disconnection with others, and which may be less rational
than instrumental language. Monitor your own conflict language using
this distinction from time to time, it is a helpful gauge in understanding
our motives in a particular conflict.

We often approach conflict with an assumption that we already see all

of the options, all of the solutions, and that it is really just a question
of choosing the right one. Being clear about our communication and
conflict goals, and being able to communicate clearly and efficiently,
often brings additional, and even sometimes better, options and
solutions to our attention. This simple observation also reminds us that
creating space and attention for communication, as opposed to ignoring
it as a given, improves our conflict competency, and that it need not
have anything to do with being nice or polite.
What role do you think that compassion should play in our conflict
communication? For those who see a role for compassion when we
communicate during these conflicts, Diane Musho Hamilton puts some
of the work that we need to do on ourselves rather well:

“Conversations today require more skills, so we must learn and

practice them. We need to acquire the flexibility to entertain
more perspectives, to listen attentively to one another, and to see
truth in our different lived experiences. We must learn to be
present to pain and to actually feel the negative impacts of
injustice in the here and now, without becoming bogged down in
self-righteousness and blame.”

234
With these starter kit conflict tools in mind, we can then start looking
at more specific conflict communication techniques.

The role of effective listening in conflict

This has become, at least in theory, one of the more clichéd conflict
management techniques. We all pay lip service, to a greater or lesser
degree, to the value of listening to the other while we are involved in
conflicts. We know, and popular level techniques tell us, that listening
helps us in our conflicts. Nevertheless, true and constructive listening
remains a very rare event in most conflicts.

In our conflict coaching I often gain the impression that listening during
conflict is seen more as a consideration of politeness than much else. It
is that, of course. Someone who listens to you without interruption
makes a better impression on you than someone who rants and raves
and tries to monopolize the argument. But good conflict listening works
its magic on several other levels as well.

It mirrors behaviour that you want to see in the other. Watch some
other people arguing, using a television program or even real life
participants, and see how often people’s behaviour start matching each
other after a while. Simply put, you are setting an example of conflict
behaviour that hopefully your opponent will match, specifically in also
listening to you when you are speaking. If nothing else, it establishes
you as the more reasonable of the two combatants. Good listening also
makes the other person feel heard. Research teaches us that people,
including people who may have behaved rather badly because of some
emotional pressure, often simply want to be heard, and feel heard.
They will be perfectly willing to concede the point or change their
behaviour, they simply want and need to be heard. In refusing them
this simple thing we make things worse for ourselves, and we escalate
the existing conflict.
Simple and effective listening also tends to slow things down, it calms
the temperature in the room. Emotions get an opportunity to cool off,

235
chemicals in the bloodstream get cleared out, and it gives people time
to think, to reflect on their behaviour, on consequences, on options.
Effective conflict listening works with several other important
advanced conflict principles. Conflicts are often caused or extended by
parties not being able to connect with and express their memories and
experiences of a conflict. Stored memories are memories of our
perceptions and subjective realities, not necessarily memories of
reality. In effectively and skilfully listening, reflecting back what was
heard and, where necessary, asking relevant questions, a mediator or
other conflict practitioner or participant can create a safe space for a
conflict party to reflect on these memories, to arrive at new conclusions
and to, in that safe space, make adjustments to behaviour or
viewpoints.
Remember to bring sincerity to your listening, as a condescending show
of fake listening will just make matters worse.

Intention bias

Conflict studies show us the strange but very influential fact that most
of us jump to conclusions when it comes to ascribing intent to others,
especially when we are involved in conflict, or are about to become so
involved. While there are several reasonably good reasons for this based
on evolutionary and neurobiological origins, it is also often just a lazy
type of thinking. We are far more likely to ascribe negative intent to
someone than to keep an open mind, or to ascribe positive intentions.
This is the more so when we encounter something that has negative
connotations or associations for us. Someone interrupts us, cuts in line
in front of us, forgets our birthday, smirks when we walk past… the list
is endless.
Stone, Patton and Heen put this well:
“The error we make in the realm of intentions is simple
but profound: we assume we know the intentions of others
when we don’t. Worse still, when we are unsure about
someone’s intentions, we too often decide they are bad.”

236
And once we have that negative intention locked into place, we are
millimetres away from blaming, escalation, conflict rigidity and a series
of conflict errors.
This simple observation does not mean that we should be naïve or that
we need to ascribe positive intentions to people. Our instincts will often
be quite accurate about those negative intentions. The better solution
is to try and keep an open mind on those intentions until they have
evidence backing them up, until they have been proved one way or the
other. Even just noticing our quick triggers on negative intentions will
be of some assistance in our conflicts. This is a difficult to manage but
very important conflict communication consideration.

Information bias

In our conflicts we often tend to be distrustful and very sceptical about

information that is communicated to us by our opponents. This, what
Bernard Mayer calls “reactive devaluation”, is of course quite
understandable and a healthy form of protection. Our opponents are
some of the most likely people to feed us disinformation.
But, as experience shows, we can also bring too much of this
information bias to our conflict communications. Sometimes
information is just that what it purports to be, and sometimes our
scepticism sends us down unproductive rabbit holes, spending time and
resources that could have been used better, reactively rejecting what
the opponent is communicating to us (on various levels) simply because
they are the immediate source.
In conflict communication, be sceptical, but try to retain some balance
in that process.

Remember the different functions of communication

Communication, especially during conflict, can have so many different

purposes. We limit our capabilities and options during that conflict if
we stare at the apparent communication in too much of a literal, two-
dimensional way. The richness and power of communication should not
be limited to this oversimplification just because we are in a hurry or
because we need a quick solution.

237
In conflict we often communicate in order to share or gain information,
to share or express an emotion, or to express or establish identity and
boundary considerations. Deborah Tannen helpfully simplifies things,
for example, by pointing out that males are often more oriented
towards report talk while females are oriented towards rapport talk. A
question as to how my day was could have as its purpose the establishing
of rapport, of a reaching out, while a purely factual report “Fine” may
show communication purposes at complete odds with each other.
These different communication purposes (why we are communicating)
can very quickly lead to miscommunication and misunderstandings,
which ever so often lead to an unnecessary escalation of conflict,
misplaced distrust and other negative conflict patterns.

Learn to communicate tolerance of difference of opinion

One of the bigger escalators of conflict is if your opinion is visibly

disrespected. Being wrong is one thing, being disrespected for that
opinion is a totally different reason to start something. Paradoxically,
we often reason at some level that dismissing an “obviously” stupid or
unreasonable opinion or request will shortcut the dispute and that our
opponents will see reason and agree to our way all at once. We do this
by interrupting people, by facial or other expressions of irritation or
dismissal (the modern conflict weapon of the eye-roll comes to mind)
and generally this intolerance is a guaranteed way of escalating the
conflict, or nearly worse, shutting down effective communication in
totality, leading to escalation, conflict rigidity and cyclical conflicts.

This difference of opinion is far more than a politically correct or polite

modern approach to conflict. It also has real world, simple advantages
to those who are prepared to open their minds (and ears) to these
possibilities. In addition to different perspectives and possible solutions
that this brings, it also changes the very way that you think and
communicate during conflicts.

238
As Bernard Mayer reminds us:
“Our challenge in working on conflict is therefore to
promote more complex thinking that accepts ambiguity,
the truth in seemingly contradictory realities, and the
truth in the contradiction or paradoxes themselves.”

Conflict lenses

A very powerful influence of conflict communication and behaviour is

how disputes are framed, through what lenses we see the conflict
events. The language we use and the communication about that
conflict, especially early on, has significant impact on subsequent
behaviour and attitudes. Wage negotiations about “staff demands” is
one thing, those same negotiations involving “possible wage increases
benefitting the business” is another, arguing about “who gets what
when we get divorced” is one thing, discussing “our options from where
we are at present” is another. This is a crucial part of conflict
communication.

Try to phrase conflict clearly so as to convey what you really wish to

convey, be careful of the limitations and impressions that may arise
from the words that you are using, and keep an eye on the framing
being done by your opponent. What are the lenses that they wish to
create for the conflict to be viewed through? Develop your skill in
framing conflicts (including commercial negotiations, those most
modern of conflicts) constructively, and reframe the conflict as it
develops. This can be done openly, for instance by asking the parties in
the conflict whether they agree that this topic is now under discussion
or in dispute, and this can also be used to mark incremental progress,
such as an email or other communication indicating that “We have now
resolved issues A and B, with C still remaining”.

Incorrect framing of issues may lead to trust problems, a limitation of

solutions, conflict escalation or rigidity and many other communication
errors. Given the importance of framing and reframing in conflict, we

239
can look at a few helpful principles suggested by conflict expert Bernard
Mayer to guide us:

(i) The framing of an issue(s) in conflict is important. It is not about

word games or semantics. Accuracy and a helpful way forward is what
is needed.
(ii) Accept that this reframing itself can cause challenges, often
early on in a conflict. This is a part of the differentiation phase,
and should be expected.
(iii) Constructive reframing is about honesty and clarity, not about
smoothing over the difficult issues. If we minimize or avoid the
seriousness and essence of a conflict in our reframing efforts it
will just surface later on.
(iv) Reframing has to honour the most important need of the parties.
(v) Successful reframing is interactive and iterative. Parties to the
conflict will often not change their views unless they are
personally engaged in the reframing process. This process is a
gradual reorientation towards a more constructive way of seeing
the conflict, so involve the parties in the process, right from the
beginning.

The role of third parties in conflict communication

Conflict, especially the more complex ones, are often assessed and
approached without due regard for those influencers and role players
not at the table. You can have a room full of delegates and
representatives, but if there are any decision makers left out, any
agreement or progress made can be undone in minutes.
South Africa in particular has a culture where communities and their
interests and wishes are respected. Consultation, at least, if not always
consensus, is often expected to take place between interested parties,
before impactful decisions are made. This often involves several layers
of people and considerations of respect, seniority, rank and so on.

240
While it could be argued that these wider community ties are growing
less important due to modernity, the prudent conflict negotiator will
ensure that, at the very least, these links and ties (often amounting to
actual obligations) are noticed, respected, and where necessary
included in negotiations at some level, at least nominally. Experience
shows that even the most carefully constructed agreement can be
complicated or undone by individuals or groups that feel left out or
disrespected by processes or results in conflict negotiation. Our
discussion on face saving (see Chapter 5) considers some of the conflict
principles involved in this most important conflict principle.
Conflict parties at the actual negotiating coalface are often constrained
not by what lies before them in the way of proposals or solutions, but
by their positions in the larger community, by considerations outside
the scope of the current conflict, perceptions following on isolated
benefits and so on. While this larger view may (but not necessarily) add
to the costs and time needed for the proper differentiation and
integration phases of the conflict negotiations, it is nearly always worth
that relatively small expenditure of time and effort in the interests of
clear conflict communication.

The role of social media in conflict communication

Libraries have been created in recent years dealing with the ills of social
media, and the many reasons why we should avoid it, limit it and
generally treat it with suspicion and great care.
In this process we tend to forget the positive influences and benefits
that can, and should, be available from social media. We have come to
understand the unrealised potential of the medium as compared to its
actual uses and application.
Peter T. Coleman sums this up well:
“Now let’s get this straight. Online social media-increasingly our
primary channel for communication and source for entertainment,
news and information, and one of the more accessible avenues of
contact we have these days with people who disagree with us-is
built primarily for debate, criticism, competition, social

241
 comparison and contention. It does not offer much space for
promoting reflective listening and mutual understanding. In other
words, the underlying algorithms on which the major social media
platforms are currently based are actively pitting us against each
other.”

While I fully agree with the potential of social media to not just
complicate and derail conflict resolution, but actually cause conflict,
and while it has a clear and observable impact on the mental health of
millions of people, I choose to accept the inevitable and ubiquitous
nature of it, as well as the clear advantages and benefits that it can
bring. We can each consider and implement a simple strategy to avoid,
minimize and control our social media conflicts as our respective
positions, careers, personalities and goals require.

Conflict on social media can however be particularly destructive, as we

can see on a regular basis, and it is generally good to be aware of the
specific contours and additional conflict communication principles that
may apply to online conflict.

Conflict principles that are specific to social media

In a certain sense, conflict on social media is just that: conflict. We

compete and argue with others about our opinions and needs, we want
to be validated, our opinions respected, we get threatened, insecure or
misunderstood, we try to protect our interests and we seek to gain some
benefit. In that sense the normal conflict causes and triggers that we
are working with in this book are applicable, and we can approach those
conflicts using those principles.
But social media comes loaded with a few very unique conflict
principles that we need to keep an eye on when navigating those
streets. A few of these would include the sheer omni-present nature of
it, the near immediate and live nature of most of the information that
gets processed, the divergent intellectual and educational abilities of
participants, changed conflict patterns that follow from anonymity, the
unseen and vested interests and agendas that may be at play, larger

242
strategic considerations that may be hidden from participants and
several others important conflict considerations.
People are generally quite unable to effectively process large volumes
of data, and the discernment of fact from fiction is not a talent shared
by all. In addition, some facts just are not as clear and unambiguous as
we would like them to be. Everyone with a smart phone and access to
sufficient connectivity can share an opinion that may have popular (and
populist) support, regardless of carefully crafted arguments to the
contrary. This devaluation of objective facts and authority (of experts,
institutions and so on) in itself leads to conflict. People are convinced
of their own accuracy and that they are on the “right side”, and the
observable fact that others do not see, and are not prepared to see,
their side of the debate causes frustration, polarisation and an
escalation of hostility and uncivility.

This leads to a conflict communication phenomenon that has a large

volume of evidence supporting it, called the consistency principle.
People seek consistency in their lives, in their relationships, in what
they feel and believe, in what they value. This, fuelled by the
mechanics of social media, often leads to an oversimplification of the
world and its nuances into good vs bad/ us vs them divisions. This
oversimplification and building of silos become particularly attractive
to a lot of people in times of uncertainty, change and anxiety, when
some of their cherished beliefs and foundations may be crumbling. This
leads to a feeling of moral certainty, and walls are built that are very
difficult to breach (as we have seen, for example, in Chapter 4).
Social media often removes the personal dimensions of conflict, and
people are quite prepared to say things to others on social media that
they would be loath to say in person. This bravery of being out of range
and the anonymity that social media confers upon people leads to new
and very harmful conflict behaviour. It is often, at least at this stage,
consequence free interaction, and John1234 or TruthBomb678 can say
what they want with impunity. Add to this the dopamine fixes and social
status that may follow on large online support groups and silos, not to
mention paid for hate and influencer campaigns, and we are clearly in
new conflict communication territory.

243
(In Chapter 14 we have a section dealing with practical strategies for
our online conflicts.)

Misinformation and fake news – its impact on our conflicts

As we have seen in Chapter 4, dealing with our identity conflicts, we

use information that may not be all that objective in the creation and
conducting of our conflicts. Modern research shows a troubling trend
towards an entrenchment of these information integrity habits.

Coleman again:
“We are devoting much more energy to obtaining a sense of
belonging and comfort from our groups than to seeking accurate
information about our increasingly complicated world.
Psychologically, the need to acquire accurate information and the
need to belong to groups are often competing motives that
humans need to navigate between and manage optimally
(sometimes we choose to ignore the problems within our groups
for the sake of harmony, other times we just can’t).
Today the need for belonging is clearly trumping the need for
accuracy (pun intended).”

Social and other forms of media affect the information that we absorb,
it makes the creation of groups and silos very easy, and polarisation
becomes nearly inevitable. This has some very marked influences on
our conflicts, and even what is and what is not fake news now leads to
conflicts.
While some important and pioneering work is being done on the
creation, regulation and general integrity of online information (see the
clear examples set by inter alia Phumzile van Damme’s work on social
media regulation), this frontier remains a particular challenge in our
conflicts.

244
We should also be alert to the fact that these information and
communication dynamics lead to other conflict implications. People
may be under the influence of information campaigns, social groups and
influences that may a have a direct bearing on their worldviews and
communication habits, and that these factors should be taken into
consideration, where relevant, in conflict interventions such as DSD
projects, mediation and various conflict resolution strategies.

The role of the general media in conflict communication

The role of mainstream media in conflict has, in recent years, come

increasingly under the spotlight. Several ethical questions regarding the
coverage of conflicts, bias, patronage and other important questions
have been raised and continue to be debated. Such a debate requires
its own focused analysis, and for the reader who may wish to explore
this topic further I heartily recommend Professor Herman Wasserman’s
“The ethics of engagement: media, conflict and democracy in Africa”.
Wasserman sets out the problems as well as suggested solutions,
including his beautifully phrased idea of “an ethics of listening” in the
book, and the powers and responsibilities of the media in dealing with
these conflicts get a thorough treatment.

Conclusion

Our conflict communication is, as we have seen, a crucial component

of our conflict competency. Because communication is considered such
a basic given in our lives, we often do not spend much time considering
how our communication, and the communication of others, impact on
our conflicts. This often sets us off on the wrong foot right from the
beginning. We try to keep an eye on all of the moving parts in our
conflicts and we negatively affect our conflict outcomes in this simple
manner.

This communication is often a matter of clarity. For clarity we often

need a certain level of complexity in our conflicts. The differentiation

245
phase of mediation in particular and conflict resolution in general needs
a certain level of detail and depth, and our rush to solutions and the
termination or limitation of conflict often short-circuits this need for
complexity. As Peter T Coleman warns, a collapse of complexity often
leads to an oversimplification of a conflict and a resultant “us vs them”
approach.

Bernard Mayer has a wonderful way of describing the level of conflict

communication that we should consider bringing into our lives:
“Clarity without complexity is simplistic and therefore cloudy (not
clear), and complexity without clarity is confusion. We often
respond to this confusion by trying to force clarity, which leads to
less complex thinking-and less genuine clarity. Clarity therefore
requires complexity, and complexity clarity.”

It is through communication that we express our desires, hopes and

fears. It is through communication that we end up resolving our
conflicts, or at least try to do so. Conflicts are often either escalated,
derailed or complicated by unclear or inaccurate communication.
Resultant misunderstandings then lead to frustrations, a lack of
confidence in the system or parties involved, and other, more harmful
options are seen as more attractive or the only option available to
parties.

RESEARCH AND SUGGESTED READING

(Chapter 8)

1. The Dynamics of Conflict, by Bernard Mayer, John Wiley and Sons

(2012)
2. The ethics of engagement: media, conflict and democracy in
Africa, by Prof Herman Wasserman, Oxford University Press (2021)

246
3. A link to my CapeTalk radio interview on conflict communication
in our interpersonal relationships, Red flags in our relationships,
and the companion piece in The Herald newspaper can be found
here Red flags in our personal relationships - The Conflict
Conversations (conflict-conversations.co.za) The follow up
radio interview on “green flags” in our personal relationships can
be accessed at Green flags in our personal relationships - Views
and News with Clarence Ford - Omny.fm
4. Readers who may wish to have a more expanded conflict guide to
social media conflict can find my article on the topic at SOCIAL
MEDIA CONFLICTS - A SURVIVAL GUIDE - The Conflict Conversations
(conflict-conversations.co.za)
5. The Conflict Paradox, by Bernard Mayer, Jossey-Bass (2015)
6. The dance of opposites, by Kenneth Cloke, Goodmedia Press
(2013)
7. The Sage handbook of Conflict Communication, edited by John G.
Oetzel and Stella Ting-Toomey, Sage Publications (2013)
8. Difficult Conversations, by Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton and Sheila
Heen, Penguin Books (1999)
9. The Way Out, by Peter T. Coleman, Columbia University Press
(2021)
10. Communication, conflict and the management of difference, by
Stephen Littlejohn and Kathy Domenici, Waveland Press Inc,
(2007)
11. On non-verbal communication: What every body is saying by Joe
Navarro, Harper Collins e-books (2008), The nonverbal advantage
by Carol Kinsey Goman, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc (2008) and
Clues to deceit by Joe Navarro, published by the author (2011)

247
CHAPTER 9: CONFLICT, TECHNOLOGY AND
NEUROSCIENCE
New frontiers

The crowd becomes one vast neural network

through which sentiments travel from body to body
at ultra high speed.

William Davies

Any sufficiently advanced technology is

indistinguishable from magic.

Arthur C. Clarke

248
 Introduction

This essay will deal with the interconnected nature of developments in

technology and neuroscience (with its increased synergies) and how
that significantly impacts our conflicts. While both technology and
especially neuroscience may seem distant and unimportant to our
everyday conflict competency, we will see how these developments,
and available information and techniques, now play a direct and crucial
role in that conflict competency, and how we can incorporate this
information in our own professional and personal lives.
While the two categories of technology and neuroscience (wide and
subdivided in themselves) need not be seen as connected to each other,
they each have a very important, and increasingly so, influence on our
conflicts, both in a practically inescapable manner. I will argue that a
journey to modern conflict competency will inevitably have to include
a working knowledge and practical application of both of these areas in
order to reach comprehensive conflict competency.
Modern technology and neuroscience bring both solutions and new
challenges and frontiers to our professional and personal conflicts. In
some very real, very immediate respects these technologies affect our
existing conflicts, and influence our understanding of and reactions to
such conflicts.
The age old question as to whether the pen is mightier than the sword,
as manifestations of technology, can really be answered quite easily
when we understand that they are both used as weapons in our
conflicts. Whether it is the first use of a sharpened stick or the current
use of drones and computer aided weapons to give mankind the edge in
their conflicts, technology has always had a direct bearing and
application in our conflicts, and of course our times are no different in
this respect. In addition to these technological developments and their
impact on our conflicts, the diverse field of neuroscience is giving us
crucial new information that is essential to the understanding and
management of our conflicts, even on an interpersonal level, as this
essay will show. Modern conflict, whether on a professional or personal
level, can simply not be understood meaningfully without at least a
basic working knowledge and, maybe even more important, an

249
awareness of the influence of our neurobiological influences. We will
look at some of these technological developments and their impact on
our conflicts, and seek some understanding of practical knowledge
coming out of neurobiological research and practice, so that our
conflict competence can be enhanced.

This essay certainly does not seek to be another doom-laden

condemnation of the ills and dangers of technology or science, there is
more than enough of that to go around. We will simply accept modern
technology and the findings of neurobiological developments as a
ubiquitous value-neutral tools, and consider a few practical ways in
which we can navigate our modern conflicts better by using technology
and neurobiology to our advantage. We do not need to study attractors
and hormones to understand that they influence our conflicts.
Awareness in itself here is, as we will see, already a step towards
progress and an increased conflict competency.

We start with a focused look at technology and conflict, and then move
over to neurobiology.

Technology, connectivity and conflict

Globally, we are experiencing a new type of political conflict and

violence, caused by people and organizations that use the very
technology and connectivity that can, and do, also bring us together on
the international stage. Our inarguable interdependence on this
connectivity makes the manipulation and abuse of systems and power
a growing, everyday reality.
History is of course often a simple chronicle of such abuses of power
and financial concerns, but the modern connectivity, ironically a
technological marvel in itself, has made new levels of conflict and
abuse possible, nearly inevitable. The rules of such conflict have also
changed rapidly, in some instances to become unrecognizable to those
used to working from the more traditional conflict studies. We no longer
need such wars to be conducted by countries with great, uniformed

250
armies, as a few individuals or organizations prove very capable of
effecting these acts. Let’s look at a few actual recent examples to
illustrate the situation.
Examples of connectivity enabled conflict

Here in South Africa we are gradually learning how small groups of

people used technology (together with more old-fashioned human
weaknesses) to launch what can legitimately be called attacks on our
sovereignty and national best interests. It would be particularly naïve
to think that such attacks have ceased.
The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine showcases several such examples,
from a plethora of disinformation attacks from every quarter to
sanctions, boycotts and service terminations of the most crucial
technology that are experienced as attacks on them by the Russians.
The recent US elections have a few textbook examples of such
connectivity enabled conflicts, including spying, leaks and the
ubiquitous disinformation campaigns. Ask Canada about such attacks on
their sovereignty, or the convoy truckers about retaliatory conflicts
involving their access to finances and ability to give effect to their
plans. The facts and rumours swirling around China’s Huawei, with the
banning of their technology, or the involvement of troll factories in the
Black Lives Matter activities are all examples of these conflicts, either
involving the use of technology, or even conflicts about such
technology. The Covid pandemic provides its own long list of examples,
ranging from the manipulation or abuse of tech hoarding, availability
manipulation, tech limitation agreements between countries,
trademark battles and many more. The golden thread running through
these conflicts is technological connectivity used in modern conflicts.
When grouped together and focused on as we are doing here these
attacks seem real, and we have little difficulty in seeing them for what
they are, but in general they are simply woven into the fabric of our
everyday lives. As such most of us have yet to see them as forms of war
and conflict of various degree of visibility and intensity. Lucas Kello has
come up with the wonderful Orwellian-sounding term “unpeace” to
describe this twilight state between peace and war, the state where we
are living in. Simply put, the connectivity which is designed to connect

251
us and to bring us tremendous benefits is also being abused to create
new and terrifying conflicts, or to complicate and deepen our existing
ones.

Social media and its role in unpeace

The simplest and most trackable face of connectivity is of course social

media. Here technology that brings us connectedness and valuable
information also causes us to enter into bizarre and often largely
meaningless online conflicts with strangers, this is where we (for the
first time in history) get to compare our own lives with the real or
curated lives of the rest of the world, here we can be insulted or
“cancelled” at any real or perceived offense decided upon by people
we have never met. Studies show how this connectivity often leads to
people feeling less in control of their worlds, not more, and this of
course has an awful influence on several forms of conflict, including
violent forms thereof such as GBV, racial and homophobic based
conflict.

Some indirect consequences of these conflicts

The consequences in the abovementioned examples are of course clear

by now. But these new connectivity conflicts have led to several very
important other consequences. An understanding of the potentially
insidious power of groups and nations over normal citizens have led to
a measurable increase in conspiracy theories and paranoia, in an
increase of populism in its many hues, and in an increased desire to
close off countries from certain trade, migrants and various types of
real or perceived interference. Brexit and various eastern European
efforts at self-isolation can be directly linked to these developments.

It is clear then that the technology that could be one of mankind’s

greatest achievements could also polarize us further and destroy us. In
this way, as the examples have shown, new forms of conflicts are
created, with greater potential for personal and national disaster.
Africa itself, with its current connectivity challenges, can be seen to be
particularly vulnerable on several fronts with these connectivity
conflicts.

252
No one is really seriously advocating for a return to the horse and
plough, and this debate in essence is not an anti-tech argument. Even
Luddites need technology to get their message out. The benefits of
connectivity hardly need any explanation, and in any event that genie
is out of the bottle and no one really wants to put it back. Several
recent examples of international events, from the Covid pandemic to
the Russian / Ukrainian war show us that the dream of globalization
may have run out of energy and much of its original enthusiasm. As
countries and groups continue to feel isolated we may in fact see an
increase in the extent and subtlety of these attacks. What can society
and the individual then do to combat these new risks?

A few ideas on the minimization or control of connectivity conflict

To focus on connectivity as the cause and trigger of these new conflicts

is a macro point of view. We can narrow the focus and concentrate our
efforts on say polarization, inequality, unemployment, corruption and
in that manner deal with a more limited challenge. This can and will
proceed, but it loses sight of the larger risks at stake here, and is a
generally reactive strategy.

Mark Leonard, a British political scientist, has proposed a five step

framework of measures whereby nations or groups can minimize or
remove the risks of these conflicts.

Briefly summarized these five steps are:

1. Acknowledge and understand the problem
2. Establish healthy boundaries, national and personal limitations
and safe zones. Here the work of Jonathan Haidt is of great
practical assistance.
3. Be realistic about what can and what cannot be controlled, and
at what level. Legislation and education can be important tools
here.

253
 4. Self-care, which would include addressing those that believe
that they have been excluded by globalization and its effects,
and the disparity between free and less open societies will have
to be addressed.
5. Seek real consent. All levels of participation, down to the
individual, should have a measure of protection from such
conflicts through measures such as democratic control over
tech companies, opt out remedies, legislation and other
measures.

A modern conflict strategy when faced with the seemingly endless

frontiers of our technologically enabled conflicts is to simply safeguard
your own use, and that of your family if you regard that as appropriate.
This is maybe, in a realistic sense of strategy assessment, the only thing
of real personal strategic value that we can do in these developments.

Arthur C. Brooks suggests three very helpful strategies, or realisations

if you will, that we could all make a part of this adventure:

(i) Focus your online arguments on shared moral values

(compassion, fairness), rather than those only held by
segments of society.
(ii) Be wary of being manipulated in these tech wars, by political
and other leaders, online manipulators and influencers. This
extends to liking harmful online behaviour, shutting down
healthy debate and so on.
(iii) Consider and accept that divergent moral values are not a bug
or error in the human moral system, but a feature that can
aid us in our conflicts and make us stronger in the end.

Brooks often speaks powerfully of our culture of contempt, which is

nowhere clearer to be observed or to participate in than in these
technological conflicts, our online interactions. Brooks argues that the
cure for this is not civility or tolerance, but love, love for those shared

254
values, love for the humanity that exists underneath the rudeness,
insults and harmful behaviour, love of a shared future and those that
come after us. In our essay on practical conflict strategies (Chapter 14,
number (v)), we consider some of Brooks’ practical strategies to combat
online conflict.

Online dispute resolution (ODR)

One of the most exciting developments in recent conflict studies, and

one that directly takes responsibility for reacting constructively to
these technological challenges, has been work done in the field of
online dispute resolution. This work finds application in diverse modern
challenges and areas as varied as workplace conflicts arising from work-
from-home developments to consumer protection and brand
developments, enabling both brands and consumers to effectively
address conflicts arising out of modern business methods. From my own
rather sceptical early work with ODR to a full incorporation of this in
my practice, I agree with Ethan Katsh when he says:
“ODR will become increasingly valuable in both online and
offline disputes as applications are designed that efficiently
and effectively meet the information processing and
communication needs of disputants and third parties.”
Comparative research and tests have been done since the 1970s on the
relative efficacy of communication comparing written, telephone and
face to face communication. A recurring result throughout is that
communication becomes more ambiguous and conflict triggers are
escalated when communication and its cues are filtered through these
media sources.
In some of its best current forms this field simply acknowledges and
understands that technology brings about its own causes and triggers of
conflict, and then uses that same technology to successfully address
and combat such conflicts. These studies, and to a lesser extent the
actual field work being done, has in a relatively short time period shown
the advantages and limitations of this specialized area. Online dispute
resolution (ODR) seems to be very successful in standardizing a certain
level of disputes, such as consumer complaints, it makes workplace

255
dispute resolution much more accessible, if correctly used it can lead
to a higher level of evidence presentation and the differentiation of
conflicts, it can neutralize challenges posed by accessibility, distance
or dangerous areas, and several other very real and practical benefits.
Africa in particular, with some of its relatively unique conflict
challenges arising from distances, inaccessible areas and war zones
stand to benefit from this technology and its application.

ODR should feature at some level of importance in management’s

workplace strategies, as it has a meaningful impact, when correctly
understood and applied, on various commercial realities, brand
management, risk assessment and a few other conflict parameters.

ODR also has its own set of limitations, some of them rather obvious,
such as those arising from connectivity limitations and resource costs,
to the more subtle limitations shown to exist, such as the direct
communication benefits lost via technological communication. At the
risk of oversimplifying the position, ODR seems to provide gains on the
accessibility front while showing significant deficits in the area of
interpersonal communication, the building of trust, less nuanced
communication and other concerns.
Some of these extensive research studies show the following conflict
considerations that must be borne in mind when considering the
written/online/face to face strategic question:

(a) Face to face conflict parties are more likely to collaborate,

less likely to compete and have a greater desire for future
interaction than any of the other options;
(b) Videoconferencing compares favourably to face to face
communication, except that parties struggle to read
collaboration moves and other nonverbal cues, which may of
course be essential, as even a small loss of reading and
interpreting these cues can impact conflict negotiations;

256
(c) There is some evidence that videoconferencing can influence
negotiating styles and that this can reduce ambiguity, which
may in turn lead to greater clarity and a more integrative
negotiating process;
(d) Participants in group conflict negotiation situations are more
likely to use negative conflict techniques (such as rudeness,
evasiveness, delaying tactics) than if they were negotiating in
person;
(e) An interesting nuanced development in further studies
however show that the results in (d) above may be transitory,
in that computer aided conflict communication shows an early
escalation of process and relational conflict early on in the
process, but that these differences diminish over time as the
conflict plays out. This research seems to suggest that as
participants become more comfortable with these
shortcomings they adapt positively to it;
(f) Conflict escalation behaviour in online communication leads
mostly to evasive reactions, while the same behaviour in face
to face discussions leads to a more openly aggressive and
contending reaction;
(g) Computer mediated conflict communication leads to a
reduction in information exchange and leads to a reduction in
joint benefits or profits;
(h) Asynchronous conflict communication, such as email and text
messages, leads to parties being less open with each other,
they are less likely to collaborate or reach mutually beneficial
outcomes, it leads to a bundling together of various conflict
issues, and there is an increased insistence on interpretation
of words and phrases used;
(i) Email conflicts are the most likely of these options to spiral
out of control and to even lead to antisocial behaviour;
(j) That while online communication leads to information
asymmetry, it is also easier to detect deception (for example,
deceivers use fewer self- or other- references, and use more
negative emotion words than do non-deceivers);
(k) There are cultural differences that must be taken into
consideration when trying to resolve conflict online, such as

257
 information processing preferences, courtesy considerations
and the timing and sequence considerations which conflicts
are approached with;
(l) Emotion plays a significant role in online conflict
communication. Given that online interaction
(videoconferencing in particular) tends to reduce our
nonverbal communication cues one would think that parties
communicate more carefully and that they will take care to
express themselves with greater clarity. Research however
shows quite the opposite, in that parties consistently
overestimate their ability to accurately convey their
intentions. Email is a particularly instructive arena. This
research shows that the value of expressing emotion in these
instances is very limited, the more so when the interaction is
already negative;
(m) There is a significant difference in online conflict
communication between the verbal content of a message and
emotions. Online communication leads to parties tending to
give more importance to the verbal content of messages than
emotions, except where either the verbal content or emotions
used express negative content, in which case the entire
message is interpreted in that way. Emotional language in this
context escalates conflict and slows resolution;
(n) Online participants tend to perceive both the opponent and
the negotiation process more negatively than face to face
participants, and trust levels in online conflict negotiations
start low and need to be built up to those found in face to face
interactions.

ODR has also become an established form of conflict resolution

mechanism, with the United Nations now holding an annual ODR
conference, and a UN Expert Group on ODR developing some interesting
work and practices.
Allied to these technological developments and their impact on our
conflicts is the tremendous impact that the multi-disciplinary field of

258
neuroscience has on conflict management disciplines. Let’s look at a
few of these current developments and resultant best practices.

Neuroscience and its impact on our conflicts

We like to think of ourselves as rational beings, with our most important

decisions in our conflicts, business, trust, relationships, financial and
economic matters all being grounded in careful and wise thought. We
have our emotions under firm control, and they play a very small part
in who we are and the important decisions in our lives. Our conflicts, in
particular, are all based on a reasoned consideration of the facts, and
our decisions and responses are generally examples of wise and
reasoned thought processes. Or so we tell ourselves. Simply put, our
brains do not always make a clear distinction between emotion and
rational thought, and our neural circuitry for emotion and cognition is,
practically speaking, intertwined. As we noted in Chapter 4, dealing
with identity conflicts, our emotions have a significant impact on our
rational thought processes.

The multi-disciplinary field of study (social and psychological

biosciences, cognitive neuroscience and several others) that can
generally be loosely grouped together as neuroscience is producing
fascinating insights in how we think, and how we process our thoughts
in conflicts. As we have seen and will see, our rational thought
processes play far less a role in our conflicts than we may be aware of,
and often in a different way than what we may have imagined, or than
what we may be used to accepting, or what we may be comfortable
with. This has far-reaching implications for the academic and practical
field of conflict resolution and peacebuilding, and how we approach our
conflicts.

A few necessary concepts and terms

To fully grasp these new insights and their implications, we need to

understand a few of the basic terms and concepts used in these fields.
We need to understand, at the outset, that people and groups are

259
different in how they receive, evaluate and process information, how
they react to that assessment, the level of control and understanding
they may have over those processes and decisions, their suspicions,
fears and values, that these differences are influenced very much by
biological, social and cultural dynamics, and that in itself these
differences can be observed as value neutral, without being good or bad
in itself.
These dispositions and abilities are, as we are finding out in great detail
and depth thanks to new technology such as fMRI, EEG and EDA,
importantly influenced by two main areas in the brain (as it relates to
conflict), that being the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex. In
simplified terms the amygdala is the part of our brain that deals with
our senses, memories and emotions, while the prefrontal cortex is
concerned with our rational, conscious processes. These two areas of
the brain are intricately connected and they necessarily influence each
other to different degrees. Depending on the dynamics of a situation
one of these two areas will normally play a dominant role in our
conflicts. The amygdala will, for example, play a far more active role
when we are attacked by a lion in the wild and the prefrontal cortex
will (hopefully) play a larger role when we are confronted by conflict in
the boardroom.
We are increasingly better at understanding the conflict triggers, causes
and solutions arising from the influence of neurotransmitters such as
dopamine, hormones and genetics, emotions and fears in our various
conflicts and related decisions. This knowledge is forming an important
part in cutting edge conflict resolution understanding, techniques and
best practices.

Understanding and applying this knowledge

– why is this of practical importance in our conflicts?

This developing knowledge is easily and beneficially applied in a wide

field of important modern disciplines such as conflict resolution,
politics and even economics. We understand that the so-called blank-
slate hypothesis (where our minds are initially blank slates to be filled
in by ourselves) has been totally discarded, we understand increasingly

260
the pressures and benefits of group belonging and how difficult this is
to counter, we understand better how futile and even counter-
productive it can be to argue using only objective facts in a value driven
or identity based conflict, and modern conflict studies have realised
that we need to work with people as they are, not as we want them to
be. We have come to realize that evolutionary traits that may have
served our distant ancestors well in their battle for survival (such as
aggression, suspicious natures, in-group protectiveness) now are ill-
suited to modern living and the need to live together in peace in a
multi-cultural society, and that these realities require some very
different conflict strategies and techniques.
Work done by Jonathan Haidt and others have shown how we tend to
make important decisions largely influenced by our emotions first, and
then seek more rational reasons to shore up and justify such decisions,
all the while being comfortable that our decision is indeed a rational
one. Or, to put in the terms of the concepts briefly looked at above, we
make a decision using the amygdala part of our brain and then use the
prefrontal cortex to justify that earlier decision. This is a part of the
well-known “fast versus slow thinking” used by Daniel Kahneman. These
studies are helping us to easier understand, predict and work with the
popular distinction between conservative and liberal people, the
triggering and spread of individual emotions to groups, how
generational and cyclical conflict is affected by our individual and group
emotions, and it brings us to a better understanding of, to use Tim
Hick’s beautiful term, how our embodied conflicts work and play out.

A few examples of how these influences and factors

play out in our conflicts

Studying the important role that our individual and group biological
characteristics, genes, hormones, evolutionary mechanisms and other
factors play in our conflicts can be a humbling exercise. It tends to at
least diminish our strict understanding of human beings always being in
command of their emotions, capable of being able, and morally obliged,
to make the correct decision in such conflicts. A few examples of such

261
conflict influences, which at the very least interfere with our perceived
free will and rational approaches, may illustrate this point.

- These studies show that some of us actually revel in conflict, in

creating and spreading fear. How do we manage, neutralize or
incorporate these individuals and groups in peacebuilding?
- Some conflicts, especially those modern ones involving social
media platforms, actually bypass our rational thought processes,
using the more instinctive (and seemingly rewarding) emotive
brain processes.
- Our evolutionary need for bonding, comfort, safety and
acceptance still exist, and often overrides our willingness, or
even ability, to accept seemingly rational facts and evidence
(with the recent American elections and the Covid information
wars as striking examples).
- We can see from this research that we have evolved to co-
operate, but generally only with and for the benefit of our group
(however defined by the individual). The evolutionary benefits
of the brain creating an “us”, a tribe that protects, that gives a
sense of belonging and meaning also, in modern societies,
creates a “them” that we live with, an “outsider”.
- Social identity theory, using well-known examples of study
methods such as the Stanford Prison experiment and the robber’s
cave experiment, show us that the most normal human beings
can be turned into cruel and violent people in certain
circumstances, which in a modern context becomes a chilling
observation when we realize that this can be transferred to
groups.
- While all of us are inclined to react to differences in others, some
of us are more inclined to react negatively due to different
reactivity levels influenced by serotonin levels and other
biological influences.
- This research shows that we do not understand others primarily
through thinking, but through feeling emotions through
neurological mechanisms known as mirror neurons, and that
these differ from person to person.

262
- fMRI studies at MIT show that a group’s perspective on an
opponent’s status will have a big influence on peacebuilding
dialogue.
- The hormone oxytocin (levels of which can be manipulated) plays
a big role in levels of fear and anxiety, trusting others,
generosity, out-group rejections and compassion. The activities
of the mirror neurons referred to above and oxytocin levels can
influence dehumanization emotions and decisions.
- Perceptions of unfairness, in processes, structures, collective
memories and outcomes, can actually be experienced as a form
of pain, with the same parts of our brains involved in registering
physical pain being used.
- We choose our leaders based on largely emotional reasons.
Physical factors such as size, tone of voice, energy levels, non-
verbal cues and perceived competency still play an over-riding
role in our decisions.
- Our own bio-tendencies heavily dispose us towards accepting
what the “truth” is. This heavily influences, and even predicts,
the traditional divisions of conservative and liberal tendencies,
decisions and political conflicts, each side defending their lived
“truths”.
- Beliefs, once adopted, are very difficult to change, despite
rational challenges to such beliefs. Here, as we have so many
examples of, the realities of group belonging, a sense of purpose
and safety often outweigh seemingly rational arguments and
evidence.
- We construct, and selectively choose, facts and belief structures
that fit in best with our perceptions of ourselves, that are in our
best interest and then rationalize such processes.
- Arguing only with facts against positions held in identity and
value based conflicts are actually counterproductive, as it simply
leads to an entrenching of previously held positions and further
polarization.
- We hate uncertainty, and most people will choose a simple
answer with immediate benefits and perceived certainty as
opposed to a more nuanced view. Politicians know this. This need
for certainty also tricks us into searching for (and settling for)

263
 easier, simpler solutions than what may be necessary, and this
can tie us into cyclical conflict (as we saw earlier in the book, a
process Dr. Mark Szabo calls the Coherence Trap).
- Studies show how our neuro-biological makeup can justify (to
ourselves) prejudice and unfairness if we benefit by it.
- We still fear, and react to, perceptions of in-group betrayal and
dissension. This differs between cultures, and often override
clear evidence. We are directly or indirectly influenced by our
in-group to say and do “the right thing”, and we police ourselves
to do so. In time our minds accept, and defend this position, as
“the truth”. South African political and workplace conflicts
continue to be heavily influenced by these realities, and they
require a particularly high level of skill to deal with effectively.
- Our neurological makeup, together with lived experiences,
predispose us to low or high self-esteem, perceptions of locus of
control and self-efficacy, which in turn, on the low end of those
factors, make us vulnerable to leadership abuses. Cultural
differences may make such abuses seem acceptable, leading to
cyclical conflicts over generations, both internally and with
other groups.
- Studies worldwide show that we still mostly have transactional
leaders, where we desperately need transformational leaders,
and that this is caused by our tendencies to react emotionally
and to be extremely vulnerable to manipulation.
- Our bio-tendencies play a role in the cultural acceptability (or
not) of preferences for an individual or community based focus
in society, which is very much misunderstood (if taken into
consideration at all), which leads to further intractable
community conflicts.

Neuroscience and social media – the modern puppet show

It is in the ubiquitous reality of social media platforms that we see the

most disturbing new neuroscientific evidence of how our bio-tendencies
are manipulated, how ill-equipped we are to deal with these
manipulations and how this process influences our modern conflicts and
wars.

264
It is generally clear from studies that our rational minds cannot
effectively and consistently keep up with the pace and volume of
information as it is thrown at us on social media, with manipulated and
fake news, bot campaigns and sophisticated disinformation campaigns
simply outstripping the average person’s ability to distinguish between
truth and lies. Once we accept this we start using filters and heuristics
that we believe aid us in dealing with this information. Our neurological
traits and limitations can cause distortions or facts and evidence in this
process.
A consistent series of studies show how those likes, follows and in-group
membership that we find on social media have exactly the same effect,
and involve the same areas of the brain, as we find in drug and alcohol
use, the highs we get from successful gambling and even watching
sporting events. These platforms have changed how we view each
other, how we relate to each other, and they have weaponized the most
banal to the most important conflicts, giving everyone with access to a
smartphone unprecedented reach and power. Social media is
purposefully designed to give us our dopamine hits as reward for certain
behaviour, and it is involved in three of the four dopamine reward
pathways that are involved in most instances of addiction. MRI scans
indicate that social networking addiction is remarkably similar to other
substance addictions.

Most of the social and neural processes that we looked at earlier are
magnified and manipulated by social media. Algorithms and social
pressures create our silos, we speak to like-minded individuals and
groups, our group status and belonging is enforced and re-enforced, we
get rewarded for specific behaviour and we are controlled to not act
against the interests of the in-group. Social media platforms exaggerate
our evolved tendencies to react to threats and possible out-group
danger, and often trigger our most reactive, but least reflective parts
of our minds. Angry, fearful posts trigger biochemical responses that
are contagious, and more likely to cause reposting and comments than
more calm and reasoned posts would generate. These communication
patterns, including the new ways of conducting conflict, can easily
create a herd mentality, where we (wittingly or otherwise) give up

265
partial control over our decisions and conduct. In-group dynamics now
start playing an even more pronounced role in how we select, assess,
process and act on the truth in our interactions and conflicts. We can
participate in the act of othering, and creating and even punishing out-
groups or in-group “betrayers”, with numbers of people supporting
these decisions, and even rewarding it. Lines, boundaries and norms
blur and are rewritten, truth and morals become relative and
negotiable, or so we come to believe.
This technology is used to not just influence our reality, but to actually
create it, as we can so graphically see in the US elections, the Covid
pandemic, the Ukrainian war, our state capture disputes and so on.

Do we then have any control over our emotions?

The research and modern case studies show how we are influenced by
our own biological realities, how hormones, genetics, evolutionary
traits and our own brain structures all play huge, often unacknowledged
roles in our decisions and our assessments, and how that shapes our
realities, our conflicts. It is easy then to approach our conflict decision
making and peacebuilding efforts in despair or from a fatalistic
perspective, thinking that we have minimal control over these
processes and results. A near-mechanistic fatalism may quite
understandably set in if we only focus on the data, without taking into
account how these new realities can be beneficially used in conflict
management. Studies show, for example, how oxytocin (a
neuropeptide) can increase short term trust among human participants,
our knowledge now helps us to firstly understand the role of emotions
during conflict better, and to then secondly design more efficient
strategies and techniques following from such information. Offering
parties in conflict a lunch containing avocados and green tea (as a
slightly tongue in cheek example, or an oxytocin nasal spray as used
during clinical trials) could increase the probability that they will trust
each other.

Dietary conflict strategies set aside then, a sense of despair or fatalism

based on these developments is nevertheless understandable. This is

266
however the wrong approach, and modern societies will need us to
quickly adapt to a better understanding of our control over these
conflicts. While this new research upends much of our earlier conflict
resolution strategies and techniques, it also brings us a wealth of new
and effective solutions. The accurate measuring of certain key
parameters now possible due to technology brings about new and
welcome levels of understanding, prognosis and resolution that were
not possible until recently.

Understanding the limits of our rational thought processes, how we are

manipulated and how that can be reduced, neutralised and used for our
benefit have become crucial conflict skills in the modern world, and
should be seen as new horizons in our social interactions. This
knowledge is showing us how we in the past failed to properly resolve
conflicts, and how some of the conflict systems and plans that we have
put in place actually contributed to ongoing conflict.

To illustrate how this knowledge can be applied in our everyday

professional and personal conflicts (without the use of avos), let’s look
at a few practical examples.

Neuroscientific knowledge applied to our conflicts

This research is bringing about vast changes to the way that we have
traditionally viewed conflict and its resolution. Understanding that our
experiences, especially our conflict interactions, are so neurally based
brings entirely different perspectives to the conduct, influences and
motivations of disputants, and it also opens new solutions and ways to
achieve agreement and reconciliation.
This knowledge exposes some of the levers and buttons applicable in
the conflict process, and this is quite appropriate in my view. If we are
going to be steered and affected by these neural influences then it is
best that we know about them, and that we guard against being
prejudiced by those factors. Interesting work is being done on the ethics
of this new knowledge.

267
If we remember that we are predisposed to certain actions and conduct,
not predestined to it, then we remind ourselves that we remain largely
in control of our conflicts, and that we can apply these new and
developing fields of knowledge to our personal and professional benefit,
to the benefit of our communities, country and this war-ravaged earth
of ours. We can immediately start applying the following informed
conflict practices in our own lives.

Small steps

Neurobiology confirms the assessment that some of the most complex

and cyclical conflicts are resolved incrementally, and not in one quick
event. Conflict resolution practitioner Tim Hicks confirms this:
“In resolving conflicts, change happens one step at a time. Some steps
are too big to take in one stretch, in which case, if change is to be
accomplished, the step must be broken down into smaller steps, or the
perception of the step must shift in order for it to be achieved.”
This simple reality cautions us again against rushing to solutions where
such an approach may cause more harm than good, and where work
needs to be done to undo and repair harm that may have been done
over a long period of time.

Be alert to conflict patterns

This information now becoming available from neuroscience and

related disciplines show us how our neural networks get conditioned
and shaped by past experiences and current stimuli in our
environments, and how these combinations may act as triggers and
drivers of anxiety, bias, distrust and prejudice. This can both create
and trigger certain conflict habits and patterns that will have to be
noticed, understood and incorporated into any conflict management
strategies.
An example will be to skilfully, and depending on the dynamics of the
parties themselves, incorporate the fact that some of these emotions
are the result of activated neural circuits. Research shows that an

268
awareness of these influences, even at a very basic and non-technical
level, can reduce demonization and polarization, opening parties to
focus on problem solving.
This foundation also assists us in understanding, applying and changing
behaviour (including our own) as far as some of the influencing
dynamics of these neural realities are concerned, such as facial
expressions, voice modulation, gestures, proximities and other
behaviour that may enhance feelings of safety, trust and interactivity.

Be careful with those “facts only” arguments

As we have seen (Chapter 4), identity and value based conflicts run on
different tracks than merely fact based arguments, and cornering our
opponent with a barrage of facts may very well be counter-productive
and cause further polarization. We see this in stark detail in the Covid
wars, where presumably clear scientific facts simply fail to convince
large groups of people, mainly because the wrong conflict persuasion
tools were used.

Remind yourself that anger, aggression and bad manners

often stem from fear

If we understand the neurobiological causes and triggers of some of

these emotions we may see them in a wider context, especially as they
may very well be unintentional or outside the control of the other party.
This does not excuse such conduct, but it does make it less personal.

Be careful to base your conflict strategies solely on rationality

As we have seen, these are not the only, in fact not even the main,
concerns for most people. In convincing people in conflicts you need to
speak to their hearts, their emotions as much as (or even more than)
their rational minds. Remember the reaction to the perception of
unfairness.

269
 Group thinking, tribal behaviour and us/them motivation
is inherent in all of us

Again, use this knowledge to resolve your conflicts in lasting ways. Do

not be surprised or offended by such thought processes. Anticipate
them.

Accept that people actually believe what they are saying

– as irrational as this may appear to you

Stop attributing malice or ignorance to some of these statements, as

unfounded as they may appear to you. These other values and “truths”
may simply have been arrived at by way of one or more of the
abovementioned processes or influences, and may therefore appear to
be perfectly reasonable to the other person. This does not mean that
you have to accept such positions, only that in understanding them you
are in a better strategic position to deal with it. This is of particular
importance when we start arguing about personal, moral matters, and
where our perceptions of unreasonable conduct may lead to permanent
alienation and vilification of the “other”. Be particularly alert when you
are being manipulated to do so on social media.
Remind yourself often that you are also susceptible to
manipulation and bias

Your truth may look just as strange and unreasonable to “them” as

theirs do to you. Simply being aware of these possibilities already makes
you less susceptible to manipulation.

Show how a reality lived with “others” and diversity can, and
does, work

Research shows how contact with “others” in an efficient, friendly and

safe environment can break down most of these evolutionary walls and
fears, especially over time.

270
 In building systems (at work, communities) that must deal
with these conflicts, build fair and efficient systems

There is no point, current research shows us, to tell people how to

behave in their conflicts if their lived systems and environment remain
unfair and unequal. Build this into your solutions. Create new groups
for people to be a part of. Be sensitive and realistic about cultural
differences – these are not items of politeness, but actual processes
how people assess and integrate their facts and realities.

Traditional dispute resolution mechanisms will need upgrading

Work done by Tim Hicks and others show how important conflict
resolution tools like mediation will have to be brought in line with these
studies, so as to better understand and make use of people’s default
neural dynamics. It is important to understand how people assess and
process information during conflicts if we are to maximally help them.
Work done by Prof Roger Mac Ginty shows how neuroscience is
contributing to the field of conflict analysis as a method of
peacemaking, and the benefits that we can derive from this progress.

Be alert, and work with, the power dynamic of political

and community leaders, and how they are influenced and
in turn influence their followers

Leaders are often less convinced than persuaded in their own interests.
Learn about and apply these conflict dynamics in working with such
groups.

Support and build trust in local and national peacebuilding

persons and institutions

Communities need to have some level of trust in deserving and capable

individuals or groups during conflict resolution processes before they
will co-operate and follow them. Where possible and appropriate,
build, foster and encourage such trust. Neuroscience provides us with a
lot of new practical knowledge in this field.

271
 Actively involve more women in peacebuilding processes
and structures

This is not a politically correct piece of wokery, but a simple fact

established by the current research under discussion. Women often
have measurable differences in their neurological abilities and
processes, and show an increased and skilful use of compassion, an
attribute often missing in community conflicts especially. International
research also shows that without the meaningful participation of
women, peace agreements are, as one case study shows, up to 64%
more likely to fail.

Educate yourself and others about social media and how

manipulation on such platforms work

Important work is being done in this crucial conflict field. Stay ahead,
stay learning about these developments.

Actively set out to constructively and effectively deal

with the past

The observed fact that people view history through different lenses
does not detract from the fact that a common history that shares some
aspects of that reality is very beneficial to groups in conflict. Before
such a partially shared history can be arrived at, conflict resolution is
unnecessarily more complex. Our neurological processes can struggle to
deal with conflict in the present when there are real or perceived past
injustices with current consequences.

Be very clear, in word and deed, that both individual and

social change is possible

In our conflict work, however minimal it may be, we need to show those
small victories, we need to understand and inspire people that even if
we get better at conflict one conversation, one street at a time, it is
possible, and it is necessary.

272
Neuroscience is showing us, in at times a disturbing fashion, how our
thought and decision making processes work during conflicts, how
vulnerable we are to manipulation and distortion, and how we can use
this new knowledge to meet our new and old conflict challenges.

Conflict and game theory

There seems to be some enthusiasm for the integration of game theory

and conflict as a sub-set of larger conflict studies and practice. Game
theory, by its nature, could well prove to be a most helpful tool in the
analysis and solution of all kinds of conflict, including global conflicts.
People like Rudolph Avenhaus have done fascinating work using models
of Europe in 1914, the Cuban missile crisis and nuclear deterrence
scenarios to work through conflict probabilities, options, likelihoods
and other dynamics to study and assess various conflict theories. I am
aware of similar game theoretical work being done on conflict and
coalitions, and there can be little doubt that conflict studies and
practice will benefit from these collaborations in future.

Conflict and artificial intelligence (AI)

These two disciplines have quite spontaneously understood their

respective values and interrelated synergies in recent times. With an
expected and ongoing increase of technology especially in the
workplace, AI is expected to make inroads in the technological
management of workplace conflict as well.
I expect that these developments will continue in two main streams,
that being applications in geopolitical conflicts (including wars and
armed conflicts of various intensities, and at various stages) and in more
interpersonal conflict arenas. While effective and reliable interpersonal
conflict systems may still be beyond our reach, extensive work is being
done at various levels of public and private enterprise to reach practical
conflict efficiency with such systems. As it is, AI is already used with
great success in specialised conflict areas such as large decision making
support, management risk analysis and sophisticated identity
verification.

273
 Conclusion

Between technological developments and the information being gained

from neuroscience we may well be excused in being concerned about
our own control and influence over our personal and professional
conflicts. However, as our discussions have shown, these are simply
challenges and aids to new best conflict practices, and we can, armed
with this knowledge and technology, improve our conflict competency.
While it is clear that globalization and the so-called digital revolution
has created new types of conflict, new in scope, reach and global
impact, they are built on the foundations of the age-old human frailties
of greed, fear and insecurity, and then use cutting edge technology and
strategies to deliver conflicts that require a large-scale rewriting of the
conflict playbook. Deriving the best advantage from connectivity
without losing control of these related conflicts will require much
urgent, focused work in the years to come. As we can see, neurobiology
adds knowledge to our conflict skillset that assists us in meeting our
existing conflicts as well as these newer ones created by technological
developments.
The challenges brought about by digital literacy and access to these
technologies and neurobiological influences will undoubtedly further
impact our conflicts in years to come, with resultant conflicts not just
on these platforms, but also about them. Here the interconnectedness
between technology, inequality and the conflicts that will arise because
of that nexus will continue to develop at great speed.
But, as we have seen, there is much that we can do in our everyday
professional and personal lives to ensure that we are not victims to
connectivity influenced or neurobiological tendencies in our conflicts,
and that we can correctly use technology and this knowledge to avoid
unnecessary tech conflicts and to assist us in our own existing conflicts.
As Kenneth Cloke reminds us:
“It is not the activation of these reflexes alone that makes
conflict so difficult to handle, but the lack of awareness that they
have been triggered and the consequent inability to pursue more
constructive, creative, and evolved alternatives.”

274
As our study has shown, there is a remarkable interconnectedness
between communication, technology, neuroscience and our conflicts.
These developments may scare us, or interest us enough to use this new
information, just as others have done before us, to be more conflict
competent.

None of these developments, not even those involving AI, should excuse
us from our responsibilities in those conflicts, for how we treat each
other. As “technology evangelist” Tim O’Reilly reminds us, AI is a
mirror, not a master. As much as we may be swayed by the grim
forecasts of people like Alan Turing or movies like The Terminator or
The Matrix, I tend to agree with world chess champion and political
commentator Garry Kasparov:

“Nothing is decided. None of us are spectators. The game is

under way and we are all on the board. The only way to win
is to think bigger and to think deeper. This is not a
choice between utopia or dystopia.”

275
 RESEARCH AND SUGGESTED READING
(Chapter 9)

1. My article for News24 on neuroscience and its influences on our

conflicts can be found here Neuroscience and our conflicts - The
Conflict Conversations (conflict-conversations.co.za)

2. My article for News24 on connectivity based conflicts can be found

here Conflict caused by connectivity - The Conflict Conversations
(conflict-conversations.co.za)

3. Love Your Enemies, by Arthur C Brooks, Broadside Books (2019)

4. Our brains at war, by Mari Fitzduff, Oxford University Press (2021)

5. Deep Thinking, by Garry Kasparov, John Murray Publishers (2017)

6. On the dangers of over-reacting and unrealistic expectations of AI,

see Yasmin Afina’s excellent 2022 article on the Chatham House
website, at Intelligence is dead: long live Artificial Intelligence |
Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank

7. Article Game Theory as an approach to conflict resolution by

Rudolf Avenhaus, in The Sage Handbook of Conflict Resolution,
edited by Jacob Bercovitch and others, Sage (2009)

276
 CHAPTER 10: STRUCTURAL CONFLICT IN
SOUTH AFRICA
The influence of space, infrastructure
and systems on our conflicts

The city is important in peacebuilding because it is in the streets

and neighborhoods of urban agglomerations that there is the
negotiation over, and clarification of, abstract concepts such as
democracy, fairness, and tolerance.

Scott A. Bollens

I am the people and the people are me

I have seen children born and die too early.
I have seen parents shout when the streetlights go on.
I hear the sound of the dice as it hits the pavement.
I am the smell of Cobra polish and new paint after Christmas
bonuses get paid in.
These are the things that make me, me
Terry-Ann Adams

277
Cities, by definition, are about conflict and contested space. It’s
how you manage conflict that is the issue.

Paul Sweeney

A place of rock and water. Rock and water.

The mountain and the sea had long ago broken and brokered
its shape, but history had pushed back at the natural rim
of the coast and formed a place out of careful division.

Nadia Davids

The introduction becomes a narrative that says

that you acknowledge and respect where you come from.
This tie with the past is inevitable.

Fred Khumalo

278
 Introduction

Conflict in essence involves disagreement, and disagreement is caused

and exacerbated by social behaviour and conditions. Modern conflict
research has come to understand, study and apply the knowledge
gathered from neurobiology and related fields on the influence of a
variety of factors such as hormones, genetics and other factors, factors
that we have studied earlier on in this book, on our conflict abilities,
limitations and triggers. An equally fascinating field of ongoing study is
the effect of the structures and systems that we live with in our
communities, and how they influence our conflicts. This is generally
known as structural conflict in conflict research, and this field of
conflict study is of the utmost practical relevance to conflicts (and
politics) in modern day South Africa.

In 2022 South Africa was ranked number 118 out of 163 countries by the
well-respected Global Peace Index initiative. Using 23 selected
indicators and three domains, among which are societal safety and
security, and ongoing domestic conflict, this assessment, among other
things, vividly shows that we have conflicts which we do not adequately
understand or know how to deal with effectively. This one conflict
assessment tool (and there are others, telling a similar tale) shows us
how much work in these conflict areas remain, and how we have failed
to meaningfully move the needle in those areas.

In this essay we highlight a few of the most important of these latest

studies as they pertain to conflict, and then apply them to South African
conditions, and we conclude with a few remarks on potential
improvements. Our discussion will solely look at some of the South
African structural and spatial conflicts, or their causes and results,
through the lens of conflict management. A discussion of the problems
and solutions from a purely economic or political perspective fall
outside the scope of this work, and excellent studies in those and other,
related fields have been produced. We will limit our investigation to
how our spatial, structural and land realities contribute to the creation

279
of conflict, and if there is anything that can be done about that from a
conflict studies point of view.

The influence of our spatial environments on our conflicts

The structures and systems where we live form a very important

frontier where the actual, lived realities of our existence can be tested,
negotiated and shaped. Peacebuilding efforts often deal with lofty
philosophical ideals and aims, but it is in the actual spaces where we
live that these aspirations are given life, frustrated or destroyed, and
where our conflicts are created or resolved.
As a look out of many South African windows, or at our media, will show
the observer, the way that people live, where they live, the access that
they have from there to transport, work, schooling, food and basic
amenities all play a direct role in their social and economic welfare.
This physical environment of course has a direct bearing on people’s
conflicts, from access to information, law enforcement, basic
necessities, their mental health. This is the question of structural
conflict: how our structures, spaces and systems cause or trigger our
conflicts.
These societies then end up with enduring conflicts that are not
necessarily, or not mainly, the result of prejudice, misunderstanding or
malice or any of the other, more traditional conflict causes and triggers.
These conflicts are caused and triggered by a social system that
generates (not even necessarily intentionally) conflict as a part of its
normal operations.
Just as we then have the crucial element of identity or values being a
specialized field of conflict study and practice (see for instance Chapter
4), the question of society’s structures have also come into focus.
Important work done by Richard de Satge and Vanessa Watson (see their
book Urban Planning in the Global South, Palgrave Macmillan, 2018)
show clearly how informality in rapidly growing cities in the global
South leads to a “conflict of rationalities” between state planning and
those seeking to survive in those urban “informal settlements”. This

280
conflict shapes the very engagement that should guide the parties to
transcend the challenges brought about by these realities.
In South Africa we are inundated with specific and area-bound conflicts
(evictions, land disputes), and our local and national authorities,
together with various political energies (especially around election
time) address the symptoms with various degrees of success and
enthusiasm. What is generally missing from these strategies is this
simple but essential understanding: that in most of these instances we
are dealing with a conflict generating system.
The urgency and importance of getting this conflict process (and it is a
process, not just a result) correct, can clearly be seen from Professor
Daniel Bar-Tal’s observation about group perceptions as relevant to
structural conflicts:

“Once groups set their goals and view them as existential, they
also often do not perceive any possibility of compromise, which
contributes significantly to the intractability of intergroup
conflict.”

Research and developments on territory and spatial planning

as causes and triggers for conflict

As conflict researchers Vasquez and Valeriano show, “territory is a key

both to war and to peace”. The field of conflict research has often
reduced these debates to their bare essence, such as the realist theory
insisting that these conflicts should be seen and approached as power
battles.
This field of study has understandably caused its own sharp divergence
of opinion on these causes and triggers (see the objectivist vs
subjectivist debate, as an example), and much research and practical
application continues to be done.
Developments in the social sciences and conflict studies have however
recently shown that the causal significance of territory in conflict has
often been underestimated in past studies and strategy design. This
research has a particularly relevance and urgency to so many of modern

281
day South African lived conflicts. An increased willingness and ability to
share information across a multi-disciplinary field has led to insights
from ethology, neuroscience, evolutionary psychology and others
shaping a formidable and practically useful body of knowledge.
In South Africa a part of this structural conflict lies in the eclectic and
patchwork nature of some of our perceived solutions to these problems.
De Satge and Watson point out “… how concepts, models and
approaches come from elsewhere in the world, usually the global
North, but more recently from those parts of the global South which
are rapidly modernising and developing. These approaches (sometimes
termed “best practices”) tend to “land” in this part of the global South
with little preliminary investigation of their potential “fit”, little
consultation with those who feel their impact and frequently with
highly negative outcomes.”
Systems embedded in geographical areas, such as urban development
groups, security systems etc., can generate high levels of frustration,
insecurity, anger and despair. These causes (again, not necessarily or
currently intended) lead to increased conflict in that area, and these
conflict results are often difficult to trace back to their true source.

Discernible patterns in territorial conflict

In assessing conflicts involving territory and structural causes, certain

patterns and conflict spirals can be extracted from a range of these
conflicts, allowing us to establish a bedrock of knowledge upon which
to then build the more local and individualised components required by
a more focused community or area, and which will be essential in
designing meaningful strategies to break these conflict cycles.
These general patterns (not just applicable to South African conditions)
show that, over time, persistent disagreement about these spatial and
structural issues (occupation, the right to do certain things while so
occupying, access to amenities, travel etc.) leads to an over-reliance
on negative conflict behaviour and coercion. These triggers then create
a self-perpetuating and self-reinforcing cycle of conflict, where every
action-reaction serves to entrench negative views and expectations of
the other side. Issues are ignored or side-lined, and conduct is focused

282
on. Polarization is encouraged and caused, and secondary causes of
conflict are created and emphasized (for instance, the fact of
homelessness is marginalized in practice, and conflict resources is spent
on violent conduct, repetitive offenses, personality clashes and insults).
This in turn leads to an increased difficulty in framing the conflicts
correctly, and conflict rigidity sets in, negatively affecting parties’
ability and willingness to accurately assess, create and consider
meaningful solutions. This becomes particularly complex and harmful
when, against this backdrop, symbolic and transcendent conflict
concerns (original ownership of land, social group identity markers such
as graves or monuments, historical contributions or evictions and past
conflicts become part of these conflicts). Parties now find already
emotional and complex conflicts embedded in even more complex and
volatile conflict causes, and escalation and conflict spirals become all
but inevitable.

As Bar-Tal points out:

“Societies begin to mobilize their members for participation in
conflict and construct a persuasive epistemic basis, a narrative,
with the societal beliefs and attitudes, accompanied with discrete
emotions, that will eventually crystalize and serve as a
foundation of a culture of conflict.”

How many of these narratives, these “cultures of conflict” can we

already see in the South African structural landscape?
These environments now start encouraging disagreements, negative
coercive acts, more hostility and other unproductive conduct and
perceptions. Zero-sum proposals become more popular because of a
perception of time constraints and urgency, with benefits and costs not
forming part of a creative solution.

As we can see, these underlying issues and conflict causes have certain
characteristics (symbolic or historical values). Structural, cultural and
direct violence now becomes more likely. Richard E. Rubenstein (citing

283
Johan Galtung) sets out a distinction between beneficiaries of these
systems (who he calls “defenders”) and those who seek to effect
changes thereto (who he calls “challengers”).

Those conditions required for violence to erupt, seen from the

challengers’ perspective, are when “(a) social and political systems
marked by a seriously unequal and inequitable distribution of wealth,
power and honour, (b) fail to satisfy the basic needs or legitimate
expectations of disadvantaged groups at a time when (c) these groups
have become sharply aware of the legitimacy of their needs and
expectations, and (d) systemic injustice has become manifest despite
the ideological and cultural smokescreens usually effective to justify or
disguise it”.
From the defenders’ perspective the conditions for these types of
violence to become likely are when “(a) groups alienated and
embittered by their failure to succeed in society and by their self-
destructive lifestyles (b) are manipulated by ambitious leaders to
believe that their unrealistic expectations are just and reasonable and
that (c) relevant social and political systems are rigged to favour others
and exploit or oppress them, notwithstanding that (d) these systems
(which can never be perfect) are successful in rewarding meritorious
individuals and groups and disfavouring those who lack merit.”

The absolute chasm between the two conflict perspectives is clear, with
structural, cultural or direct violence beckoning.

Mixed into this escalation conflict theory also predicts the eventual
presence of efforts to delegitimize the opponent. Bar-Tal describes this
process as “the characterization of a group, or groups, into extremely
negative social categories that exclude it, or them, from the sphere of
human groups that act within the limits of acceptable norms and/or
values, since these groups are viewed as violating basic human norms
or values, and therefore deserve maltreatment” and, chillingly, “In
essence, delegitimization denies the adversary’s humanity and
morality, providing a kind of psychological permit to harm the
delegitimized group.”

284
Have you noticed any examples of this process?

How space and environments create and perpetuate conflict

– the impact of poverty and inequality

Ravi Kanbur, of the International Peace Academy, describes the crucial

importance and influence of inequality well:

“Theory and evidence support the view that it is the between-

group dimension that is crucial. Given structural cleavages such as
caste, religion, ethnicity, race and region, if income disparities
align with these splits they exacerbate tension and conflict.”

From a conflict studies perspective this inequality starts with three

defined areas that must be understood and adequately included in any
local conflict management strategies, these three being poverty,
inequality and a term known as “precarity”, which is the all too
common scenario where workers, specifically those irregularly or in low
paying jobs, teeter on the edge of poverty.
Conflict studies have reached a broad consensus that in these
environmental conflict assessments poverty and inequality constitute
the leading risk factors for conflicts. This of course raises important
questions for our purposes. How do wealth and poverty relate to
conflict, do income levels play a role, do income inequalities cause or
contribute to localised conflicts, and if so, in what ways?
The wealth/poverty spectrum has a twofold, inter-related effect on
structural conflicts. Areas (localised, provincial, countries) become
trapped in poverty because of predatory activities. Wealth produced in
an area does not stay in the area, people suffering from poverty are
exploited and predation becomes an actual conflict trigger. Poverty in
these areas now start reflecting the absence of institutions capable of
promoting an improvement in these inequalities, which includes an
absence of institutions that can ensure conflict and violence not
escalating. These factors and conditions now start entrenching conflict

285
causes and triggers, such as private property being seen as an act or
manifestation of violence by one group against the other and any
violations of such property rights as corresponding acts of violence by
the one group against another. The system becomes seemingly
irredeemably unstable, dysfunctional and options and solutions become
secondary considerations to perceptions and strategies of survival,
revenge, justice and so on.
These considerations now lead to an important source of either further
structural conflict, or the misdiagnosis by and consequent frustration
with conflict management programs. Conflict causes are either missed
completely, or misdiagnosed, leading to incorrect or incomplete
strategies.
It is particularly in this incomplete understanding of the potential for
conflict, including violent conflict, that structural conflicts can cause
that so much harm is being done, both globally and here in South Africa.
Richard Rubenstein sums this up very well when he says:
“What people lacking a systemic framework for interpreting
this situation are unable to understand is that the fundamental
problem in these cities is neither bad criminals nor bad cops.
It is a system that has turned large urban areas into war zones.”

The correct identification of these conflict causes, noticing where they

overlap, and seeing the structural conflict generating potential in these
systems and structures becomes a direct indicator of the success of
subsequent conflict and public safety campaigns and strategies.
Approaching these situations with slogans of “cleaning the streets” or
providing shelters may be well-intentioned, but such approaches
continue to deal with symptoms, not causes. We learn from conflict
research and practice that structural, cultural and direct violence
produce each other.

Particularly South African environmental conflict causes

Our inequality levels are notorious, and as discussed, this is a primary

conflict cause. Our history adds a dizzying list of legislative and spatial
planning factors and causes that have generated extremely effective
conflict causes decades ago, and that continue to cause conflict today.

286
“Forced removals”, “surplus people”, wage labour strategies, land
dispossessions, the Land Act, Group Areas, tribal authorities… a long
list.
Gavin Bradshaw, Richard Haines and Mark Anstey, in a comprehensive
study of these causes, conclude that
“The formation and intensification of apartheid saw
‘white’ urban areas become an increased source of
conflict and depredation.”

Various political efforts (the RDP process etc.) to restore balance and
equity to these causes of conflict have been largely ineffective in
removing or even reducing such conflict causes. Bradshaw et al:
“On the whole however, the record of the ANC since 1994 has
fallen far short of these lofty ideals.”

(Note: the ideals as set out in inter alia the 1955 Freedom Charter)

For perspective and in fairness, these issues of land reform (and

consequently these conflict causes) were of course not specifically
negotiated as such during the political transition period. There were
reasons given for that, and regardless of whether we accept the
motivations from that time, these causes remain with us today.

Practical considerations when starting to work with

structural conflict

There are a few recognized stumbling blocks to effectively working with

structural conflict, which have crystalized from local and global work
in the field. These issues are more internal than the rather obvious
obstacles of money and time, and as such they can often be more
formidable obstacles than just resource considerations.
Because some of these conflicts (the visible ones, at least) have been
so much part of the consciousness of the people of that area, and at
times so linked to those physical spaces (religious buildings,

287
monuments, areas that people previously occupied but were evicted
from and so on), there could be a sense of inertia about the problems,
They are what they are, and that is it. A type of pessimism or cynicism
can form a part of these thoughts in the beginning.
The presence of ingrained narratives and conflict scripts are also hugely
important strategic considerations. Even a brief and superficial
discussion with people living in an area will give you a good sense of
these conflict paradigms, or as Professor Richard Rubenstein so
colourfully refers to them, our “…comforting narratives of the totally
good Self and the totally evil Other.”
These narratives form a foundation for later conflict work in that area,
as in the consciousness of that group it largely determines who started
and caused the conflict, who benefits from it, what characteristics
attain to self and other, how (or whether) it should be resolved and so
on. These narratives furthermore start taking on the essence of fact
and reality, and any conflict attempts at moral equivalence done
unskilfully will be doomed to failure.

Current best practices as conflict resolution tools

Globally, conflict strategies in these types of conflicts have over the

last few decades ranged from interest to rights based approaches and
understanding. The developed understanding that systems and
structures themselves can cause and feed conflict has led to a third
approach (largely originated by Johan Galtung), that where conflict
research and praxis now work with the struggle to maintain or
overthrow a system or structure of domination or harm, of conflict
generation or entrenchment, as opposed to an earlier focus on dealing
with the symptoms of such a conflict. This strategy is generally
described as the structural approach.
This approach now means that, while psychological and emotional
states of mind are still of course very important in the assessment and
addressing of these conflicts, the larger socio-economic factors
inherent in the structures or systems should be included as well in any
intervention.

288
Galtung did pioneering work in showing how an approach where
everybody has the basics of what they need in a community (the basic
needs approaches, or BNA) is far from sufficient in addressing these
conflicts. In Galtung’s words:
“BNAs say nothing about how misery is produced; they do not
comprise a social theory. Thus they say nothing about inequity,
for these are relations, even abstract ones, and it would be hard
to assume that there is a need not to be exploited or not to live in
a society with too much inequality.”

This clearly highlights the dangers of a conflict approach where we

focus on basic human needs, and fail to see the machinery and
structures that cause and keep alive exploitation and human misery,
and in that misstep we fail to address the actual causes of such
conflicts. Galtung again, dealing with the correct response to this
realization:
“…should not be to pretend that BNA’s can offer what is not
within their paradigm, but to call for additional perspectives,
theories, paradigms, approaches. Most important
would be theories about how misery is produced and
reproduced, and such theories exist- they are indispensable
to get at the roots of the phenomenon.”

How many of our current socio-political strategies are little more than
examples of these BNA systems?

Structural violence as seen by this new conflict approach

Our new understanding of the influence of these structures and causes

have also, understandably, led to an expansion of more traditional
concepts of violent conflict (at least where such outcomes are
avoidable). A proper understanding of the breaks and barriers caused
by these systems and structures on human potentiality now helps us to
understand and address the fact that, for example, a system
contributing to the preventing of a child from going to school
constitutes its own violent conflict.

289
This benefits us in that it makes these conflicts far more visible, it helps
us to understand retaliatory violence in a better perspective, and that
“an extended concept of violence leads to an extended concept of
peace”, as Galtung indicates.

It follows that the family, the local community, municipality, school,

workplace, religious community or nation can become one of the
producers of these conflicts, including the expanded understanding of
structural violent conflict. Much of our structural conflicts in South
Africa, as is the case globally, easily falls open into those who are
challenging these structures and systems, and those who defend the
status quo.
Rubenstein abovementioned reference to challengers and defenders
draws the demarcating lines particularly well.
Of course, as part of this assessment we often find that the allegation
that such a system or structure is in itself a conflict generating cause
may in itself be in dispute.
The theory of structural conflict also clearly points out how inequitable
social systems (of whatever category) generate conflict and violence
first, by failing to satisfy human needs, which then leads to reactive
conflict and rebellion, which then leads to the legitimization of various
acts of repression of such reactions or deviant behaviour. If we
remember Michel Foucault’s understanding of power in society as
“capillary”, we see how various levels in such a structure or system
contribute to the end product of a near self-sustaining cause or trigger
of conflict.

The role of mediation in structural conflicts

Mediation (see Chapter 7) has exceptional potential to assist local

authorities, law enforcement and NGO’s in dealing with specific local
conflicts.
Given the unique nature of structural conflict it however brings the
conflict practitioner to an important decision: does mediation get
designed and applied to address specific complaints, events and

290
problems, or is the main goal to work towards systemic change? Do we
mediate a solution to the homeless people in Auckland Park or do we
change the system that puts them there? Do we try to convince
homeless people to accept shelters, or do we mediate a wider solution?

Mediation, with its absence of authoritarian and top-down command

structures, with its focus on and reputation for creative solutions, can
bring the fresh look at problems that parties tired of official legal and
quasi-legal processes need. It is, when done correctly, a dispute
resolution system that is built around the dignity and autonomy of the
involved parties. It brings a problem solving mind-set to the table, and
a reduction of a rule-based right/wrong dichotomy often opens up the
door to creative solutions that the parties struggled to consider or
achieve through the lenses of the more conventional dispute resolution
mechanisms, or even law enforcement arguments.

It can be as formal or informal as the parties may need, and it can be

conducted in a boardroom or sitting on a pavement, it needs very little
money to achieve, it can be commenced with immediately, flexible
timeframes can be respected, and mediation at a basic level is a skill
easily transferred, so that community based mediators, at least at a
basic level, can be trained and used as needed.

Above all, mediation done right works from the understanding that the
involved parties are the experts in their own conflicts, and that they
stand to win or lose so much from finding and living their own solutions,
with respectful and focused intervention and guidance from the
mediator(s).

Given the unique drivers of these structural conflicts, the mediator will
need to ensure that the parties at some stage get to a joint discussion
and analysis of the structures and systems that form part of their
conflicts, and this will need a discussion and analysis of the socio-
economic factors and how these systems and structures create and

291
perpetuate conflict. As local and global structural conflict mediation
has shown, avoiding certain issues because they may be too
controversial or incendiary simply recreates the problem. In the US
people like Peter T. Coleman has done great work at mediating parties
towards discovering the roots of these conflicts, and in South Africa
there are several examples of local successes with mediation at this
level.

A few practical experiences with mediation in structural conflicts

If mediation is employed as a conflict management tool in localised

structural conflicts, we inevitably start dealing with a certain level of
necessary groundwork that needs to be done, a general understanding
of goals and processes that needs to be clarified, and a few other issues
that can best be dealt with by way of the pre-mediation process that
we have referred to in Chapter 7. We consider a few of the more
important procedural and strategical considerations.
There are several reasons and pressures why a mediator may lean
towards the short term solutions on hand. Reputational concerns,
budgets, a reluctance to inflame local sentiments, political
considerations and so on all tend to require the quick fix. As tempting,
and sometimes appropriate as this option may be, it does create
problems in the long run. The short term solution will most likely just
become another celebrated failure of both the system itself and
mediation efforts, parties will be more rigid in their conflict
approaches, trust levels may decline and the refrain of “but we have
tried this before” becomes a more valid one.
Three types of localized mediation have crystalized as being effective
in the South African structural conflict environment, that being
selective facilitation, selective representation and selective advocacy.
This topic deserves its own in-depth study, and we will deal with that
elsewhere in future.
Once sufficient levels of trust (or at least a tolerable level of distrust)
and a general willingness or need to co-operate has been established
the mediator will seek, to use Oliver Ramsbotham’s term, to promote
“sustained collective strategic thinking” and to work with the

292
information gathered from that process. This should be a dynamic
process, fully respecting and working with the conditions as they are
found while applying the skills and techniques inherent in mediation.

Daniel Bar-Tal states the position before the real work can begin:
“Leaders and their followers thus form a socio-psychological
repertoire consisting of beliefs, attitudes, values, motivations,
emotions, and patterns of behaviours that lead to conflicts and
their escalation, and both must change in order to deescalate and
terminate the conflicts before pursuing a peacebuilding process.”

Mediation is a much preferred dispute resolution mechanism globally,

and it can be an enormous asset specifically in the various structural
conflict programs that can be applied (see below) and generally in the
South African efforts at the resolution that is needed.

Practical strategies and techniques for working

with structural conflicts

Professor Rubenstein sums up the challenge rather well:

“The problem, in a nutshell, is how to accomplish a socioeconomic
transformation that is both radical and nonviolent. Inegalitarian
class structures which fail to satisfy basic human needs generate
violent conflict in two ways: directly, as when social; classes
struggle for economic and political supremacy, and indirectly, as
when frustrated people conditioned to think of themselves in
national, racial, ethnic or religious terms hold other identity
groups responsible for their problems and target them for
punishment. Conflict resolution requires that ranked
socioeconomic structures be altered in order to satisfy the basic
needs and vital interests of lower-class groups.”

293
The reference here to violent conflict includes the wider and more
modern understanding of violent conflict that we have dealt with
above, and the class ranking deals with the often overlooked
importance of de facto ranked classes in such conflicts.
And it is here that we see so much of why so many South African
conflicts remain unresolved. Selected parts of the regime structures
were overthrown, but the nation’s economic structures were largely
retained, leaving a conflict creating and perpetuating system and
structure in plain sight. We can see helpful similar patterns in the US
New Deal transformation, where certain structures and system were
dismantled, but others retained, and how that continues to create
conflict.
A comprehensive conflict assessment of an area or people affected by
a particular structural conflict will have to be done at the outset of any
intended intervention. Causes of and contributors to conflict, triggers
and drivers must be accurately identified. Here it is important to note
from conflict studies that structures do not just restrain and control
people, but they can also enable them. This concept then sets up the
realization that people are both affected by these structures and
systems, but that they also have a measure of influence and control
over those structures and systems.
These are highly emotional and important issues for those involved, and
an initial level of resistance against any work on the problem may very
well be experienced. Conflict researchers have identified reactions that
come close to those found in the breach of societal taboos, so some
initial work in establishing comfort in the mere discussion of these
topics may be necessary.
While the conflict practitioner team now get to grips with these
considerations, it must also be borne in mind that because this is a clear
example of complex or radical, identity based conflict, most of the
conventional conflict tools will be counter-productive or, at best, not
as efficient as they need to be. Requests for rational and reasonable
dialogue, empathetic approaches and so on will simply not be well
received. Just as we have seen with the effective approach to identity
conflicts (Chapter 4), we find here that most of the general conflict

294
toolkit is simply ineffective or harmful, and that a higher level of
conflict strategies and tools must be used.
In making the initial assessment, care must also be had to understand
existing harm to dispute settlement procedures that may form a part of
the very structure or system that needs the intervention. Distrust,
cynicism or perceptions of inefficiency or a sufficient lack of fairness
may taint these structures right from the outset.
These narratives (or “partisan moralism”, according to Rubenstein) play
a very real role in the correct assessment and management of these
conflicts, and it must be comprehensively understood before actual
conflict strategies are designed and implemented.
A timeline setting out tit-for-tat strategies, narratives of provocation
and breach, role-players and stakeholders becoming involved, stated
causes and so on must be prepared, as far as possible comparing
external and independently generated information with locally
generated information sources. Cultural norms and ideological
commitments must be understood and made a part of the conflict map
of what needs to be done.
Clear goals and guidelines should be assessed and discussed before the
actual work gets done, especially where this involves open and ongoing
communication with the individuals and groups involved. Questions like
what sort of change is required, when will certain conduct happen or
seize to happen, ethical boundaries and so on all form a part of a
successful conflict strategy in this type of work, that is over and above
the more standard considerations of resources, role-players and
timelines.

History assures us that rapid and meaningful socioeconomic changes can

be made without resulting in state or revolutionary violence, and that
conflict studies can play a significant role in achieving that result.
Professor Rubenstein has, inspired by historian Crane Brinton’s classic
study of violent revolution, proposed an “Anatomy of Nonviolent
Transformation” of these systems and structures, comprising of four
stages of development.

295
Briefly summarised, these four stages would be:
(i) The old system’s functions and basic unfairness become
evident, provoking multifarious and contradicting demands
for change.
This entails, largely, an educational and activist approach to
establishing this stage, and it could well be argued that we
have reached this stage in South Africa.

(ii) In a growing atmosphere of crisis, mass movements organize

and demand that substantial changes, not yet carefully
specified, be made in the old system. They support their
demands by resorting to unusual political tactics.
This stage shows the growing understanding that the old
structure and system is problematic, and that something
constructive needs to be done by it. Activists and experts in
various fields can contribute to a greater understanding, and
various positions can be formulated resulting from such
improved understanding. It can similarly be argued that South
Africa finds itself in this phase.
(iii) As ferment spreads, social-constitutional discussions take
place in various forums (workplaces, churches etc.), while
economic and social experiments take place in numerous
communities.
Here the need for various experts in various fields such
economics, constitutional law, conflict studies and so on
would become more marked. Community participation has
now reached a high level of development and focus. While
this is again debatable, I would not say that South Africa has
quite reached this stage yet.

(iv) Political conflict intensifies at local and national levels, with

old elites dividing and political coalitions reorganizing to
support competing visions of systems change. Specific
programs for structural transformation are presented to the

296
 public in elections, referenda and other forms of public
decision making.
This should now be the ultimate phase of expert and grass-
roots consultation and collaboration. Conflict creating
structures and systems must now be changed meaningfully,
efficiently (not to just replace one problem with another) and
peacefully. And it is here where the South African experience
is showed to be lacking far behind in the development
towards real resolution. A glance at our current and past
political manifestos and various other economic
transformation plans trade in the same clichés and
symptomatic reactive thinking, without a clear understanding
of the true causes and triggers of community structural
conflict that we have discussed above being grasped or
applied. Where these manifestos do show some realization of
these conflict causes, they lack in meaningful strategies or
consistent and effective application of such understanding.

Meaningful change of structural conflicts firstly requires an

understanding that they happen, that we are embedded in them, that
society is living with these conflict engines, and that there is a better
way unless we want to have these conflicts with us indefinitely.
Removal of contradictions and injustices from these structures and
systems is hard, complex work. At an important level we have not even
begun this work.

Considerations for future structural and spatial development to

prevent or minimize environmental conflicts

In the field of conflict studies the relatively new concept of peace

engineering shows promise. Two of the best proponents of the idea,
Alpasian Ozerdem and Lisa Schirch, define peace engineering simply as
“the application of science and engineering principles to promote and
support peace” and they expand on this as follows:

297
 “An engineering project is never neutral. Whether designing a
city, a building, a medicine, a machine, a social media platform,
a mask or public transportation, new technologies and inventions
impact relationships between people. One new engineered
product or technology can alter the dynamics of a community,
either creating more conflict or improving intergroup
relationships. Peace engineering aims to anticipate and
prevent unintended negative consequences of a new product or
technology while maximizing social cohesion or positive
relationships between groups.”

Peace engineering combines the knowledge and skills of engineering,

conflict resolution, peacebuilding and related fields, and can meet the
triple conflict creating threat of the pandemic and its aftermath,
climate concerns and global governance crises, together with the other
factors we have mentioned above. In its best forms peace engineering
would focus on social equity, community engagement, economic
development, entrepreneurship, environmental sustainability and
transparency. It would use, as design principles, the well-known mantra
of “people, planet and profit”.

Ozerdem and Schirch list examples of the design principles that can be
used to reduce conflict as including questions as to who the
stakeholders involved are, what the wider context of the conflict is,
what is the range of solutions available, are there any unintended or
unrecognized impacts or potential conflicts arising from either the
conflict or its intended solution, and what can be done to minimize
unavoidable impacts. Design principles for the promotion of social
cohesion according to the concept of peace engineering would include
an assessment of existing divisions, how the proposed engineered
solution will impact those already marginalised, is there a shared vision
that can be developed and so on.

Peace engineering has already been adopted in engineering schools, and

George Mason University has initiated a peace engineering program.

298
This multidisciplinary conflict resolution approach should be studied
and applied in South Africa as a matter of some urgency.

Conclusion

Modern conflict research shows very clearly how neither moderate

reform nor violent revolution leads us out of these structural conflicts
to positive, enduring peace. Transformations must be more than
cosmetic changes. As Oliver Ramsbotham says:
“We end direct violence by changing conflict behaviour,
structural violence by removing structural contradictions
and injustices, and cultural violence by changing attitudes.”

In South Africa these structural conflicts more often than not involve
the state (at one or more of its various levels) as not only a party to one
or more of these conflicts, but as the very party that maintains and
perpetuates these structured systems that create conflict as part of its
normal function and operations. This will require activists, politicians
and conflict practitioners to involve these interests in their activism, in
their campaigns and in their strategies. This, inevitably, will require an
above average understanding of these conflict generating and
perpetuating systems and structures. This, maybe in more than most
other conflicts, will require a practical understanding of creative
conflict and solutions as problem solving, not as compromise. We see
the outdated compromise approach leading to a cycle of political
coalitions and collapses that have, by now, become a part of the South
African structural conflict landscape.

Conflict resolution as a field, in all its many forms, can also make
significant contributions to our structural conflicts, with a full
understanding of our South African challenges. John Burton sets out its
practical application:

“Conflict resolution processes have the potential to take

the place of courts and power-based-negotiation.
Conceivably they could deal with many problems of

299
 distribution of roles and resources as well. Insofar as conflict
results in such alterations in institutions and norms as problem
solving may require, insofar as it is a major influence for change,
and also for adjustments to changing conditions, it becomes a
system of decision making.”

But a part of any revival and restitution must also be a pacesetting

realism, a pragmatic approach that does not just build solutions but
also clearly convey that hope, the reality of those options. Rubenstein
points this out in no uncertain terms:
“People will join the quest for more just and more peaceful
social systems only when they have reason to believe that
there are alternatives that make sense and that will solve
problems rather than exacerbate them. They must have
hope as well as desperation.”

This study of mistakes, options and solutions also shows us that the
conflict resolution field of study and practice is, now more than ever,
necessary to aid and guide existing political and legal decision making
systems and habits. Creative solutions exist, but they need the hard
work to be done. Maybe Rubenstein is right when he says that
“dreaming is now the new practicality”. But dreams are conceptions,
plans and maps of what may be. As we have seen, an advanced
comprehension of the underlying causes and triggers of these conflicts,
of the inherent if totally unintended results of the continued creation
of conflict, a fresh and effective set of tools and methods and a wider
application of specific methodologies such as restorative justice and
creative problem solving through community mediation is just what our
tired and besieged political and economic landscape needs.

300
 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READING
(Chapter 10)
1. My article on examples of and strategies to manage these
structural conflicts can be found at HOW STRUCTURAL CONFLICTS
HOLD SOUTH AFRICANS HOSTAGE - The Conflict Conversations
(conflict-conversations.co.za)

2. Essay “Urban Planning and policy” by Scott A. Bollens, in

Handbook of Peacebuilding, (1st edition), edited by Roger Mac
Ginty, Routledge (2012)

3. Essay “Reconciliation and Development” by Mark Anstey, in

Negotiating Reconciliation in Peacebuilding, edited by Valerie
Rosoux and Mark Anstey, Springer (2017)

4. An imperfect blessing, Nadia Davids (fiction), Umuzi Publishers

(2014)

5. Those who live in cages, Terry-Ann Adams (fiction), Jacana Media

(2020)

6. Article “Territory as a source of conflict and a road to peace”, by

John A. Vasquez and Brandon Valeriano, in Sage Handbook of
Conflict Resolution, edited by Jacob Bercovitch and others, Sage
Publishing (2009)

7. Article “Economic and Resource causes of conflicts” by Philippe Le

Billon. In the Sage Handbook of Conflict Resolution, supra

8. How to fight inequality, by Ben Phillips, Polity Press (2020)

9. Essay International development in human perspective, by John

Galtung, in Resolving Structural Conflicts, by Richard E.
Rubenstein, Routledge (2017)

301
10. Article “Reconciliation and the Land Question in South Africa: A
case for negotiation?” by Gavin Bradshaw, Richard Haines and
Mark Anstey, in Rosoux and Anstey supra.

11. Negotiating Reconciliation in Peacemaking, edited by Valerie

Rosoux and Mark Anstey, Springer (2017)

12. Intractable Conflicts, by Daniel Bar-Tal, Cambridge University

Press (2013)

13. The Sage Handbook of Conflict Communication, edited by John

Oetzel and Stella Ting-Toomey, Sage Publications (2013)

14. Resolving Structural Conflicts, by Richard E. Rubenstein,

Routledge (2017)

15. The Global Peace Index, which can be accessed at Global Peace
Index 2022 - Preparation For All

16. When Conflict Resolution Fails, by Oliver Ramsbotham, Polity

Press (2017)

17. Essay “Peace engineering in a complex pandemic world” by

Alpasian Ozerdem and Lisa Schirch, in Conflict Resolution after
the pandemic, edited by Richard E. Rubenstein and Solon
Simmons, Routledge (2021)

302
 CHAPTER 11: DISCIPLINARY PROCESSES
Engines of conflict, and DSD solutions

Scholarship on behavioural economics suggests that

economic efficiency, standing alone, cannot provide an
adequate framework for analysing how humans can
prevent, manage or resolve conflict.

Amsler, Martinez and Smith

Introduction

In this brief chapter we will look at the South African workplace

disciplinary processes system (which would include the so-called
disciplinary hearings) through a conflict management lens, observe a
few systemic errors that create and perpetuate workplace conflict, and
consider a number of practical proposals that could meaningfully
improve workplace disciplinary processes, including the exciting and
comprehensive solutions brought about by the new workplace conflict
field of Dispute Systems Design (DSD). We will throughout use the term
“disciplinary hearing” where relevant, even though there are of course
many related terms used to describe the process.

The purpose of disciplinary processes

While South African legislation, case law and best practices insist on
progressive discipline in the workplace, in other words a gradual
escalation of interventions and sanctions in order to manage
disciplinary offenses neither that framework nor the everyday
disciplinary processes in most of our workplaces give effect to the

303
philosophy. Disciplinary processes and hearings are often grudge
events, attended to in a hurry and late in the proverbial day, when the
employer / employee relationship is in tatters and where the entire
process just becomes a compliance exercise in not ending up with an
unfair dismissal allegation. Employers actually budget and have
“acceptable” rates of attrition rates, CCMA or bargaining council events
and results, and the entire process is treated like an us-vs-them
warzone. Disciplinary processes become rubber stamp events seeking
to coat pre-existing decisions with a veneer of compliance, and this
leads to preventable costs and negative outcomes. Even the system of
progressive discipline is, if in practice not in theory, very impractical
and of little use, as it is understood and applied simply as a reactive
punishment system designed to enforce improved behaviour, often
without so much as a nod in the direction of identifying and dealing
with the real conflict causes.

The cost of ineffective disciplinary processes

This is not a debate about workplace discipline on the one hand, and
some modern, liberal, soft skill approach to workplace processes on the
other. Workplace discipline is essential and not-negotiable for business
optimal performance, profits, growth and survival. It is a simple
question about the best solution for everybody involved, and that
includes the employer. If we arrive at an alternative way of
implementing disciplinary processes then that alternative must be
measured, managed and it must be a meaningfully better system than
the current processes.

Most South African workplace disciplinary processes are designed with

mere minimum compliance in mind, and the potential of conflict
management, prevention of unnecessary and harmful conflict,
optimizing employee potential and other goals are either not included
in such systems, or they are paid a measure of lip service from time to
time. These systems are often cobbled together over a number of years
by a number of disconnected role players from HR departments, labour
consultants, attorneys or management policies following on results in

304
dispute forums such as the CCMA. As such these disciplinary process are
disjointed and reactionary, designed to retroactively deal with conflict
events and performance or discipline problems after they have already
occurred, probably escalated and require crisis management. They may
suffer from all of these deficiencies even though, prima facie, they are
legally compliant.
This sub-optimal, outdated approach is very prevalent, but it has
significant costs. The costs in legal and consultancy fees, time spent by
management and witnesses at dispute forums, settlements and adverse
awards, possible litigation and other direct disbursements are easily
calculated. Management often convinces themselves that these costs
are necessary or unavoidable.
There is however another level of important costs involved in this
approach, costs that are often unseen. Workplace conflicts resulting
from dismissals and strikes, to name the most visible forms of these
conflicts, have an internal and external level of risk and damage that
they cause. Externally the business is exposed to social media attacks,
brand and reputational damage, the leaking of sensitive information
and the time, effort and direct costs that these events require to
manage and conclude successfully. Internally there is an even more
damaging level of potential harm. Disciplinary conflicts done in this
manner inevitably lead to internal gossip campaigns, polarization and a
general sense of insecurity and reduced performance from possibly
affected employees. Power bases, not always under management’s
control, are established, changed or eroded by such unmanaged
conflicts, and these subtle, often unnoticed events start playing a
tremendously important role on other management decisions and
strategies.
Colleagues may be required to testify against each other, confidences
are broken, careers affected or terminated. This can create a working
environment where fear and anxiety starts affecting productivity,
motivation, loyalty, transparency and an open exchange of information,
internalized perceptions of management’s fairness or competency, and
a remarkably few of these disciplinary hearings done badly can create
a toxic workplace culture that has enduring and costly implications for
the employer, and these events cause new conflicts and risks. At this

305
level the causes and triggers of these workplace conflicts can become
very difficult to notice or address successfully. A superficial compliance
check on such a disciplinary process, often managed on an ad hoc and
when available basis by external consultants, can however show that
all of the required minimum boxes have been ticked, and so the
dysfunctional and underperforming disciplinary process survives and
lives to do harm another day.
There is also a further level of harm, one of wasted opportunity and
potential, where the benefits of a more efficient approach to workplace
conflict leads to benefits not normally understood or measured into the
win/lose calculations of existing disciplinary processes.

Some additional problem areas in existing disciplinary processes

In addition to these significant and preventable costs and increased risk

factors, the processes itself are often beset by errors that make existing
conflicts far more difficult than what they need to be, and create new
conflicts further down the line.
Disciplinary processes are often managed and operated by staff with
little or outdated training in the collecting, presenting and preservation
of evidence, whether at internal or dispute forum level. Outsourced
consultants are often given this task, or part of it, leading to them
making mere compliance decisions, with management not really taking
optimal and informed decisions, with a simple cost and risk debate
steering the process. Even at its best, this leads to an isolated event,
run as a damage limitation exercise. Conflict causes remain unaffected,
and these become more resilient and more damaging over time.
Workplace codes and procedures are often adapted, Googled and
copied bit by disjointed bit, now and then upgraded when a conflict
event goes wrong or when a new HR initiative gets enough traction.
There are very few disciplinary systems that are created from new
stone, designed to recognize and enhance the brand with its people and
their potential, including in particular the potential that conflict can
unlock.

306
 What should a modern and effective workplace conflict
system (disciplinary process) contain?

Such a disciplinary process or workplace conflict system should be fully

compliant with existing legislative demands, it should be flexible in
being able to adapt to new such developments, it should be geared to
be alert to such changes (not once a year or when the new development
is raised during conflict), it should recognize the training and coaching
demands that such a system places on a few key individuals and support
them accordingly, it should be designed and continue to grow as a direct
support and asset for the brand itself, not as a begrudgingly tolerated
growth on the side of the business, and it should be measured and
managed using the best in modern conflict best practices. Terms such
as “human resources”, “disciplinary hearing”, “dismissals”,
“performance” should all be seen and managed in their wider, more
practical context: as manageable results of human conflict. A paradigm
shift should occur at all relevant levels to start dealing with these
workplace events as the causes and results of conflict. Conflict should
be understood and applied throughout the business systems and
processes, and its destructive and creative potential should underpin
every one of these processes and systems. Conflict is the foundation of
all of these events, it influences and determines everything from
disciplinary hearings to performance, motivation, team performance,
brand dynamism, profitability and a long list of commercial
measurements and strategies. Conflict competency at operational level
has become the true measurement of managerial skill and ability at all
of these other business considerations.

We will have an in-depth look at the Dispute System Design (DSD)

solutions to this problem below, but before we do so, we can a brief
look at a few other available solutions.

307
 A few practical improvements for the modern workplace
disciplinary process

(a) Start by designing a modern workplace conflict system or

disciplinary process, including a modular approach to new
policies and procedures.
Comparing the old-school codes and processes with modern products
sometimes make for scary reading. This has compliance and a
performance implications. The modern modular approach to policies
allows the employer to have current policies on say social media use,
post-natal care, drug use and so on dealt with as separate issues, each
with their own dynamics, while still slotting into the wider brand and
business ethos and principles. Amendments (external or internal) in the
application of such policies are then simply addressed as amendments
or consultations required for that particular policy, and this does not
require extensive consultation on unrelated issues.

(b) Ensure a healthy working relationship with workplace

representatives at all levels.
Whether these are any of the required workplace forum representatives
(workplace health and safety, harassment policy etc.) or formal
shopstewards and union representatives, the clichéd hostile
relationship is outdated and harmful. If management continues to have
a hostile and unproductive level of communication with its own
employees and related individuals or groups, this should be seen as
significant conflict dysfunction that will need specialised intervention.
This does not mean that the employer should prejudice itself in any
manner, but a healthy and constructive relationship with these
individuals and groups have measurable and researched benefits
impacting directly on the workplace. Case studies show real
improvements on performance, staff retention and trust levels during
conflict once these relationships have been restored or improved.
Management can still argue its case as vigorously as it wants to, but this
need not occur within a toxic warzone that creates several new

308
secondary conflicts and simply perpetuate old ones. This also, when
designed and implemented correctly, ensures a higher level of
accountability and transparency, assets with their own intrinsic value.
This strategy also ties in well with the workplace mediation
considerations dealt with elsewhere.

(c) Understand, and manage, the differences in staff efficiently

Formal external (often legislative) requirements as to consistent
treatment of staff is a logical and helpful requirement, often with its
own benefits aside from mere compliance considerations. But at a
conflict management level there are decided differences between
individuals, all of which require a good understanding and management
skills. Appoint and train people (often a very small number of
individuals) that understand these differences, and can manage them
within your existing processes to maximize workplace conflicts (before
or after they occur) so as to derive benefit for all involved. A few
strategic appointments and minimal training often accomplishes this.
This is of course a question of workplace diversity collaborating with
conflict best practices in action, but not always implemented.

(d) Internalize your workplace conflict competencies as far as

possible
Once the measurable benefits of workplace conflict and diversity has
been understood, your workplace system should reflect this. These
functions are often outsourced for a few Rand per month, based on a
mere compliance approach, which really turn into damage limitation
exercises at best, designed to “keep us out of trouble” for as cheaply
as possible. This completely misunderstands the tremendous value that
a properly designed and run tailor-made internal system, with fully
transferred and transferable skills, hold for management and the
employees. These are all fully customizable and measurable
parameters. Once this is in place, management can ring-fence certain
types or levels of conflict incidents that they may wish to reserve for
external consultants to deal with.

309
 (e) Include a workplace mediation level in your existing
disciplinary processes
Research clearly shows that there is a particularly significant level of
benefit for all concerned in treating grievances and conflict at the
individual level in organizations. This leads to, when managed properly,
a quicker and a more comprehensive resolution of the conflict, and this
obviously impacts positively on other criteria such as resource
allocation, time spent, risk and so on. It is here where an
institutionalised and well-trained internal mediation level should come
into play. This is one of those transferable skills, and provides
management with a wonderfully flexible and practical tool to deal with
conflict and transgressions, performance issues, incompatibility and
diversity concerns and challenges, tactical and confidentiality
considerations and evidence management benefits, from the truly small
workplace offences to the most major ones. Like the rest of the
processes, this modern solution should be capable of being fully
internalized, with cost efficiency and management disciplinary
considerations being measurable.

In my view there is really no feasible alternative to the exciting new

field of DSD (dispute system design), a globally researched and tested
conflict field which we have already started testing in South African
conditions, with similarly positive results. We now take a focused look
at this solution.

DISPUTE SYSTEM DESIGN (DSD):

Designing a conflict system for your business

Perhaps the most powerful tool available for organizations in

dealing with chronic conflicts is conflict resolution systems design.

Kenneth Cloke

310
The exciting field of DSD (dispute system design) (also known as ICMS
or integrated conflict management system) brings practical and
measurable benefits to various fields of conflict, and this essay
considers what DSD is, how it should be made applicable to various
South African conflicts (with an emphasis on workplace conflict), and
what direct benefits we can derive from this innovation.

What is dispute systems design (DSD)?

Amler, Martinez and Smith (conflict researchers who are doing

exemplary work in the field of DSD) define and explain DSD as follows:

The phrase “dispute system design” (DSD) applies to both the

product of design (the noun DSD) and the activity of designing a
system for preventing, managing, and resolving conflicts and
legally framed disputes (the verb to do DSD). DSD covers systems
within all types of organizations: business firms, non-profit
organizations, international and transnational bodies, systems
that entail conflict in governance, and public agencies or
organizations. It also covers systems designed by groups of people
who form social associations or organizations by reason of
proximity, shared religion or ethnicity, professional affiliation, or
other shared interests in community.

In summarised form, DSD is “the applied art and science of designing

the means to prevent, manage, and resolve streams of disputes or
conflict”.

As these authors indicate, DSD is a new discipline, the result of skills

and ideas from a variety of professional fields. These fields include
conflict management, political science, HR, psychology, social
sciences, law, business management and others.

311
In its best form, DSD is a catalyst for innovation, across private, public,
non-profit and community groups, that can shape and guide us in how
we address and manage conflict constructively, that can aid in
integration, and help us understand and apply “power with” instead of
“power over”. It can educate, implement and maintain a practical
approach, particularly in the workplace, of having not less conflict, but
better conflict, where instead of costly and destructive conflict, parties
measurably gain from inevitable conflict and prevent or limit
unnecessary or harmful conflict.

It has its roots in the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) field,

particularly the labour-management conflicts of the last two or three
decades, and manages to build and expand on the best ideas excavated
from those studies and praxis. It has general conflict principles,
appropriately integrated with the specific field of intended application
(say the specific business area or industry, education or political arena),
and this focus then leads to the use of optimal systems and processes
for that field. Its current main field of research and application remains
the business world, but interesting and valuable work is being done in
the field of NGO’s and government departments.

Where can DSD be used?

In its original and most popular forms DSD include conflict systems
designed for employers to manage conflicts that are ripe for resolution,
such as union disputes and negotiations, internal disciplinary processes.
William Ury and others started to include workplace mediation in these
systems, with inspiring success.
More recent additions to these conflict tools include an added focus on
the prevention or reduction of conflicts at their root causes and
triggers, using conflict tools designed for the specific employer,
including grievance mediation, interest based approaches as opposed
to rights based focus, and it tends to move conflict and dispute
resolution internally, with an appropriate level of skills transfer, with
attendant positive and measurable time, cost and productivity

312
outcomes. This in itself makes DSD an absolute essential management
tool.
Current developments include the use of organizational development
theories in DSD, which leads to even more integrated conflict
management systems, with interesting work being done in customer
conflicts, an internal ombudsman and other remedies.
Guiding principles of DSD

The MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program, as an example of one set of

researchers, makes use of fairness, efficiency, stability and wisdom as
operating principles for such a dedicated DSD program. Fairness relates
directly to the processes involved, efficiency relates to profitability and
the system being commercially viable, and so on.
An efficient workplace conflict system and dispute resolution
management approach will deliver these outcomes, and also see to it
that workplace conflict is managed in a modern and measurably
efficient manner, within the resource capabilities and brand goals of
that business or organization.

Incontrovertible evidence, globally and locally, support the evidence

that justice, in the wide sense of the word, shapes a society as well as
the more immediate environment, such as a business. Amartya Sen, for
instance, defines justice as “the lives that people manage-or do not
manage-to live” or “a realized actuality”. People will simply not
perform optimally or support businesses, systems and processes that
they regard as being unfair or not supporting justice in this sense. It is
here where DSD plays an integral role in assisting management and
leadership with analysis and integration of these conflict areas with
their business goals.

Two of the pioneers of DSD, Constantino and Merchant, point to six key
principles of DSD, which at the same time helps us to understand the
practical application of the concept a little better. These six principles
in summarised form are:

313
 (i) Focus on interests. This may very well include the use of
less adversarial processes.
(ii) Provide low cost processes to secure rights.
(iii) Provide loop-backs to interest-based procedures. This is
giving disputants options of resolution, while keeping an
eye on organizational interests.
(iv) Learn from each dispute. Specific feedback systems can
be tailor-made for the specific business.
(v) Try low-cost processes first. This is designed and made
part of the process, and statistics show them to be
remarkably effective.
(vi) Ensure that tasked organizational members have the
required skills, knowledge and resources available to
make the system work.

CONTROL OVER THE DESIGN OF DSD

– a few important considerations

Our experience globally and nationally show that management and

traditional leadership structures invariably take the initiative to have
these conflict systems designed. This is so as a result of a variety of
understandable reasons, such as management in a business benefiting
from such systems, a more focused and resourced focus and so on.
This managerial initiative, and the way it is sometimes designed and
implemented, at times, cause initial sensitivities in the South African
workplace, with accusations about a lack of consultation being levelled.
This is, and should be, simply a part of the effective design of the
system, and are easily managed in practice.

This is a trend that I believe will continue, and there is absolutely

nothing to be concerned about with management taking, and continuing
to take an active lead in getting these systems designed, implemented
and running for the improvement of the workplace. There are however
two important considerations to weigh in the question of a possible or
partial sharing of power in the actual designing and managing of these
conflict systems.

314
Firstly, such de facto power sharing in the designing of such a system
may, at least in part, be a legislative requirement, such as we are
already seeing in the consultation and design processes made
compulsory by the Workplace Harassment Policies (with effect as from
March 2022). Secondly, people may not be willing to grant a conflict
system any legitimacy and acceptance if they did not, at least at some
level, participate in at least the processes and outcomes sections of
such a system. If there is no trust in the system people may choose not
to use such a system.
Again, these are important considerations, and will differ from business
to business. It is of great strategy importance, however, to regard this
as a part of the design of the system itself, not as external issues to
deal with separately from the design and implementation thereof.

Additional benefits of DSD

In its strongest forms, DSD involves important stakeholders in business

or other group concerns, such as relevant service providers,
communities etc. It can be built around dynamic requirements of local
culture and diversity, and it provides management with an effective
tool to turn workplace conflict into an asset, designed to aid, steer and
grow the actual business and brand goals.
Structures and processes can be designed so as to reflect current and
future goals and aims, divergent interests can be reconciled without
compromising on standards or industry requirements, and a graded
approach to conflict can cut down on costs and time spent in rigid and
outdated disciplinary processes.
Employees and various levels of management teams can be trained and
coached how to deal with certain levels of conflict themselves, and the
direct and indirect results and consequences of workplace conflict can
be managed in this modern way.

New conflict tools, such as structured negotiation, various levels of

mediation, conciliation, arbitration, conflict coaching, targeted
mentoring, and community interaction and so on would become

315
available to management in a structured, measurable manner. Full
integration with existing IT and other information systems, supply chain
management and management teams are not just accidental
occurrences, but actual parts of the design of a proper DSD.
Exciting and important work is being done in the identification of
cognitive barriers in workplace conflicts, and a neutralizing or
accommodation of these important conflict influences in modern DSD
work. This includes the conflict negotiation patterns associated with
loss/risk aversion, diversity bias, reactive devaluation and others.
Decision makers retain full control over the allocation of resources to
such system, and existing components of it (say certain disciplinary
processes) can be retained with or without small amendments.
These dispute systems can be expanded to train and manage staff to
deal with customer complaints, social media criticism and brand
management, certain interactions with service providers and so on. It
is an extremely modern and efficient tool to derive benefit from
workplace conflict.

DESIGNING YOUR OWN CONFLICT SYSTEM

What would such a DSD process entail?

While the field is a new one and efficient knowledge to design and
implement such a DSD is, at least at this stage, still a rare skill and not
one that we would advise be done by inexperienced conflict
practitioners, there is every expectation that, with the growing
popularity of DSD this will change over time, with more options
becoming available. An efficient DSD should not be a Google or
template project, and designed specifically for a business, group or
community.
Such a DSD can however, even at this stage, become a fully transferable
and internally run system (that is part of the attraction and efficiency
of it), and management can decide, on an ongoing basis, what functions
of such a system should be handed to external consultants, if and where
necessary.

316
Such a process of design would begin with a Conflict Stream Assessment
(CSA), which identifies causes and triggers of conflict that play a role
in the management and efficient running of the organization, it
identifies wasted cost and underperforming areas affected by such
direct or indirect conflicts, and assesses the most efficient remedy for
such situation, all done in an integrated, measurable and manageable
system that provides for every possible detail needed to run such a
system, from training, reporting, accountability and management, and
from monitoring to flexibility and dynamic contingencies.
Where necessary such a system will create and integrate systems and
protocols necessary for the efficient running of the DSD, including
templates, software and process manuals for interviews, hearings,
mediations and so on.

An important part of a DSD is its evaluation component, and the correct

designing of the system will build into the system sufficient and
management approved checks and balances, data collection
mechanisms and other variables so as to make it an easily navigable and
measurable tool in the hands of selected management individuals or
levels, as well as selected stakeholders and outsiders, as we have
discussed above. Outcomes and important decision drivers such as
conflict areas, time and cost spent on various processes, outcomes,
alternatives and options, constraints and accountable agents impeding
progress, perceptions and so on are all designed into the system, so that
management ends up with a real, structured and consistent advanced
management tool. Levels of confidentiality, privacy and access can of
course be designed into such a system, and altered as circumstances
require, again as part of such a system. Accountability and report
levels, including who gets access to what type of considerations and
responsibility can also be included as needed, as can ongoing training
and provision for variable outcomes or different scenarios anticipated
by larger management strategic considerations.

317
This can, in addition to being an indispensable management tool, also
be of enormous strategic advantage during more overt conflict
situations such as litigation, CCMA or bargaining council disputes,
strikes, lockouts, retrenchment consultation processes and so on.

The new field of DSD has earned its keep globally to the extent that,
for all its relative newness, it is now a recognized as an important part
of conflict management, especially at workplace level. Countries, large
global corporations and academic institutions have accepted the
principle and are working at it, and DSD will become mainstream in the
foreseeable future. In South Africa the correct and focused application
of DSD is still in infancy, but with some important inroads and
developments already taking place. We have designed and
implemented several such systems nationally, and in our view the
concept of DSD is really inarguable, with just the details that should be
debated.

It removes several of the outdated workplace conflict causes and

triggers and turns the expense and unpleasantness of workplace conflict
into a source of growth and progress, all the while doing so in a
measurable and manageable way. Everyone benefits from a properly
run DSD, and it directly addresses several of our current South African
problems and challenges, from diversity to productivity, from inequality
to accountability, and whatever other dynamics that a group may need.

Conclusion

The general South African workplace disciplinary process is in a woeful

state, often because of larger managerial considerations that are in
urgent need of a fresh look. Seeing these disciplinary processes and
their related staff and overhead costs as grudge expenses loses sight of
the direct benefits that management can reap from a modern
understanding of these conflict areas, and unfortunately sets the
employer off on a cyclical journey of cost centre vs effort vs risk and
result type of debates. As bad as the state of the art may be in South

318
Africa, the positive news is that these systems can be modernized and
upgraded to efficiency and best practice level, including the
internalization and transfer of skills inherent in such processes, over a
relatively short period of a few weeks, and with minimal capital outlay.
For that, DSD is the solution. All it really takes for that process to be
set in motion is for the right leader or team to take initiative for that
design to happen. Other solutions are being experimented with, with
commendable results, such as online dispute resolution systems, and
these options can of course also simply be incorporated into a
comprehensive DSD system. It is a modern, effective way to incorporate
the true values of a business into the heart of its systems.

RESEARCH AND SUGGESTED READING

(Chapter 11)
1. Dispute System Design, by Lisa Blomgreen Amsler, Janet K.
Martinez and Stephanie E. Smith, Stanford University Press, (2020)
2. Designing Systems and Processes for managing disputes, by N.
Rogers et al, Aspen Publishing (2019)
3. For a study of earlier ideas that contributed to the current status
of DSD, see for example Emerging Systems for Managing
Workplace Conflict, by David Lipsky et al, Jossey-Bass (2003)
4. Fight Different, by Dr. Mark Szabo, Szabo+Partners Ltd (2020)
5. Resolving Organizational Conflicts, by Kenneth Cloke and Joan
Goldsmith, GoodMedia Press (2021)
6. The Systems Thinker (Analytical Skills) and (Dynamic Systems),
both by Albert Rutherford (as well as other related books in the
series), Kindle Direct Publishing (2019)

319
 CHAPTER 12: GENDER BASED VIOLENCE IN
SOUTH AFRICA
Violent conflict comes home
What is important to take away from this is that individual
stories matter, a lot, because when women die they are not and
should never be considered as just statistics. But also, that these
deaths don’t happen in isolation. If we are ever really to make a
meaningful difference to combating gender-based violence, we
need to see and understand it for what it truly is.

Nechama Brodie

You cannot reap what you have not sown. How are we going to
reap love in our country, if we only sow hate?

Oscar Romero

You woke up this morning

Got yourself a gun
Your mama always said you’d be the chosen one

From the song “Woke up this morning”, by Alabama 3,

© Arc Music, Chrysalis Music, which deals with the
1989 US case of Sara Thornton.

If you’re hungry, keep walking. If you are thirsty, keep walking. If

you want a taste of freedom, keep walking…We will keep walking
until peace, justice and the rights of women is not a dream,
but is a thing of the present.

Leymah Gbowee (2011 Nobel Peace Prize winner), in her

acceptance speech for the John F. Kennedy Profile in
Courage Award

320
 Introduction

South Africa’s gender based violence problem is a national scandal,

hidden in plain sight. The debates and campaigns around the South
African problem are well-known and have reached a saturation point. A
numbness has set in across several involved disciplines and much of the
same ideas are churned around with every seminar or workshop or well-
intentioned campaign. Government departments, NGO’s, activists and
an array of other role-players continue to try and make a difference,
and a lot of them do exactly that. There is however also a pervasive
sense of despondency and futility, that the problem is too big and
entrenched, that sufficient strategies, resources and skills are lacking
in order to make a real difference, and that the problem is simply
getting worse.

The problem has been, and continues to be well researched and

reported on across a variety of disciplines, with excellent contributions
from the fields of social sciences, psychology, law enforcement,
conflict management and medical and jurisprudence perspectives.
Occasionally we see small improvements in some of the figures on this
particular conflict dashboard, but the general sense of a large, national
problem that is beyond meaningful control or improvement remains in
many important areas.

In this essay I aim to view the present state of gender based violence in
South Africa through a classical conflict management lens, and to
investigate whether such a perspective can lead to fresh insight into
the problem, with a few practical strategies and suggestions included
towards the end thereof. When using the term “gender based violence”
I intend for it to be seen in its wide meaning, encompassing intimate
partner violence (in all its forms), rape, sexual assault, child abuse,
sexual trafficking, violence involving people’s sexual identities, and
other categories normally included under this term.

321
In this process we will look at
(a) The actual causes and triggers of this particular conflict;
(b) Theoretical solutions;
(c) Practical suggested solutions.

On a personal note

I am very much aware of my own personal limitations in understanding

or experiencing the horrors of gender based violence. I unconditionally
concede that my best efforts, all my experience in studying and working
with gender based violence can do nothing more, at best, than bring
me slightly closer to what especially women are having to endure on a
daily basis in South Africa. But that realization brings me to a choice: I
can either step back and let those limitations leave me outside these
events as a mere spectator, or I can acknowledge these limitations and
still decide to turn up as an ally to these people and their experiences,
and in that process try to contribute constructively to this in some small
way. I choose the second options, and in the suggested reading you can
find a few links to my experiences resulting from that decision since
2013.

Know thy enemy

Also, before we then start delving deep into the dark waters of the
causes and consequences of gender based violence and conflict, a word
of explanation insofar as the treatment here of the perpetrators of
these crimes are concerned. In assessing these causes it may at times
come across as if I am unduly sympathetic to the perpetrators of GBV
(males in the vast majority of cases). I am indeed very empathetic to
many of them, and I would like to believe that the majority of them
would not perpetrate these crimes if they could avoid them. I cannot
however approach the problem by simply focusing on the heinous nature
of these events, and dismiss the problem with emotional labels and
descriptions. These acts are crimes, they are awful, they destroy lives,
the perpetrators are often bullies, tyrants, murderers, and so on, and
they deserve every punishment, every criticism that they get, every bit

322
of public approbation or hashtag campaign. I would not deny or seek to
diminish the lived and expressed experience of anyone involved in these
traumatic events. When I do however investigate and describe these
causes, and seek to arrive at solutions to the problem, I do so from a
purely pragmatic perspective. While I wish for all of this to be different,
I know from practical experience that this cannot be so. I believe that
at this stage we are losing this war, and that people suffer and die as a
result. I know that name calling and insulting the perpetrators are
justified, necessary on many levels, but that this does very little to
bring us any closer to a meaningful improvement. My conflict
management consultancy does pro bono GBV work on a national basis,
and I know from mistakes and experience that if we are going to have
any chance at making even a small meaningful difference we need to
get close to the problem, we need to understand the causes as clearly
as we can, as unemotionally as we can.

In disassociating ourselves too far from perpetrators we also lose a

strategic advantage in this battle. We need to remember that these
perpetrators are everyday people, that GBV can happen across racial or
social strata, and that we are dealing not with caricatures of monsters,
but with mundane people, often quite literally the neighbour. As
conflict management basics tell us, we need to meet the opponent as
he is, where he is. Please make no mistake: I am not neutral about any
of this. We do not compromise with these perpetrators, there is no
place for this type of behaviour in a decent society. As the rest of this
book hopefully makes clear, compromise is often simply avoiding the
difficult work inherent in a particular conflict, and compromise has no
place in certain conflicts, of which GBV is a very clear example.

Our options are not limited to acquiescence, compromise or angry,

mindless opposition. Understanding, studying and using modern conflict
management principles and techniques do not in any way mean that we
agree with or condone their actions, and we can, and should, make that
very clear to them. A complete and utter rejection of GBV behaviour
and its terrible consequences is the only way to approach the problem.

323
The practical question is how do we go about this with maximum
efficiency.

Numbers about people

Our national GBV statistics, such as they are, tell a jaw-dropping tale
of the size of the problem. Hannah E. Britton, in her 2020 book Ending
Gender-Based Violence, gives us the following horrific glimpse into
some of these numbers:

“The statistics on gender-based violence in South Africa are

troubling at best. Each day, 144 women report rape to the police,
yet there are many more-including men, women and transgender
individuals-who do not report the assaults because of the stigma
they may face and because of a lack of confidence in the criminal
justice system. Early estimates showed that only one out of every
nine rapes were reported to the police, and the Medical Research
Council now estimates that in some areas that only one in twenty
five women report rape (in Gauteng), indicating that potentially
thirty-six hundred women are raped each day in South Africa out
of the total population of fifty million. Approximately sixty-four
thousand sexual assaults are reported each year, and of these
only about 10 percent lead to convictions. Thirty percent of men
self-report perpetuating intimate-partner violence”

(Authorities cited there omitted)

Further on she makes the simple point:

“No matter which study is used, the message is clear: sexual
violence is shockingly widespread in South Africa. As troubling as
these figures are, they align with most cross-national studies of
gender-based violence and intimate-partner violence globally.”

324
With those introductory thoughts, let’s consider the three categories
that we have mentioned above.

(a) The actual causes of gender based violence in South Africa

Gender based violence in South Africa is a complex problem, and, as
can be expected, it has multiple causes. We can logically assume that
before we get the solutions to the problem right, we need to get the
problem clearly in view, and specifically its causes. We cannot hope to
get the answer right if we do not understand the question in all of its
complexity and nuance. From our conflict management focus, there are
several factors that complicate the assessment phase.
Most of the involved groups and individuals work from within their silos,
and either just work with the symptoms of the problem, or assess it
from that particular perspective. In this way we have
oversimplifications of cause and effect, and several strategies and
resource allocation flow from these crucial initial incorrect or
incomplete assessments. This misalignment between cause and remedy
invariably lead to outright failure or underperformance.
It is correct, and a good place to start, to identify some of these more
obvious causes. They are visible symptoms, and they are the realities
that people in these various fields, including the victims of GBV, must
deal with. These causes include our patriarchal society, our appalling
levels of inequality, unemployment, educational and income
disparities, alcohol abuse and a range of other causes.
At a certain level of course all of these answers are correct. GBV is
driven by these causes, as law enforcement and health workers will
attest to on a daily basis. Improvements in all or any of these causes
should lead to reduction of GBV occurrences.
This initial level of assessment however does not go deep enough to be
of much practical assistance, and it is here that so many organizations
and activists eventually feel that they have hit the proverbial wall, and
where the sense of despair becomes very real. What can the average
NGO or activist or health professional or law enforcement officer do

325
about our unemployment, our inequality, our lack of resources? The
brutally honest answer is simply “Not very much”.
But there are other, more complex causes to this problem that we need
to take into consideration in the course of a comprehensive and honest
understanding thereof. Hannah Britton’s work, especially her
discussions with the varied role-players involved in GBV related work,
is of particular value and importance for our wider and more
comprehensive understanding of these causes.
Here we find substance abuse and a history of family violence as two of
the biggest explanations, as well as structural violence, particular forms
of poverty and inequality. Britton makes a convincing argument for
linking several of these causes, such as inequality, xenophobia, sexism
and migration patterns, back to South Africa’s apartheid legacies. Some
of these participants mention the role that shifting gender patterns play
in GBV, where challenges to existing power hierarchies may result in
women and LGBTQ persons being controlled and “punished” through
violence. Some of these causes and conflict patterns are of course
examples of structural conflicts. These field-based observations are
largely supported by scholars’ work globally.
It is important to remain aware of the fact that these causes are never
presented as excuses or justifications for GBV behaviour, but as causes
and triggers, the understanding of which are crucially important in
effectively dealing with the problem.

Once we bring conflict management tools to this problem we find a

second level of causes that we can work with. Here we come to
understand that the list of causes that we have briefly mentioned thus
far are often more triggers than causes of these conflicts. The fact that
a man is unemployed seemingly causes domestic violence in his house,
but why is that so? Does unemployment, or alcohol abuse, or patriarchy,
in itself cause such violence? Poverty, for example, is not a direct cause
of GBV in itself, but the results, the lived experiences that flow from
living in poverty certainly act as causes and triggers of GBV. The
frustrations, feelings of insecurity and helplessness, anger, need for
control and other emotions all play a direct role in conflict

326
management’s unique perspective on these causes. As an example,
conflict management provides us with a theory that the elevation of
women in South Africa’s political and legal framework may have caused
a certain measure of backlash and insecurity triggered violent responses
from certain men. These considerations force us to see that there are
different levels of causes and drivers of GBV, and that we need to
understand and apply these causes correctly if we intend being
effective in the battle against GBV.

At this second level we need to assess each and every situation on its
own merits, and as much background information should be gathered.
For a correct solution we need an accurate assessment.
Here, on the one hand we notice the enormity of the problem, how our
GBV problem is inextricably linked to a network of wider economic and
societal problems and dysfunctions, how there is not, and cannot be, a
single silver bullet solution, as much as we want and need a quick fix.
On the other hand we also face up to the reality that reducing or
containing GBV need not be tackled as a monolithic problem, and that
each of us can chip away at the stone with a variety of conflict tools,
remedies that will work best when seen as effective in bringing about
small nudges of progress as opposed to huge leaps of success. This
thought process also, hopefully, helps us in fighting off despair at the
seemingly endless parade of GBV atrocities that we observe.

Here we also find conflict causes that are at once more subtle to find
and correctly assess, but which also gives us a better chance at
resolution. These causes can include the subtle influences, acceptance
and expectations of patriarchy (or to use Raymond Suttner’s descriptive
word, “hyperpatriarchy”) (where it is assumed that it is acceptable to
physically “discipline” women, for instance), fear of failure, shame and
inadequacy, letting loved ones down, an inability to deal with
accumulated pressures and bad coping mechanisms, undeveloped
conflict management skills, and other emotions, fears and insecurities
that are caused or exacerbated by any of the abovementioned causes.
It also provides us with a backdrop of the emotional and psychological

327
landscape within which these conflicts are occurring, and which we
need to factor into our assessments and strategies. So we find, for
example, that nearly two thirds of women in South Africa believe that
spousal abuse is sometimes acceptable, and over 50% of men believe
that it is acceptable to physically assault their wives.
Again, as we cautioned earlier, this understanding of these causes in no
way excuse or mitigate them, but it brings into focus the true causes so
that we can put together more effective strategies.

(b) Theoretical solutions to gender based violence

Debates about GBV and what to do about it is certainly never short of
suggested solutions. Some of these solutions are rather obvious, and
follow from the nature and characteristics of that cause or driver.
So we can say that an improvement in our economy across the board
should lead to a reduction in unemployment and inequality, which in
turn should lead to a reduction in GBV incidents. We can argue that an
increased education and understanding of different sexual and gender
identities should lead to such a reduction, or an improvement in
structural realities (say housing and transport, for example). Improved
legislation and law enforcement, including the incarceration of
offenders often get mentioned as solutions. Moral regeneration
programs, community upliftment programs, the empowerment of
women and children through various initiatives and a long list of other
solutions are debated and at times implemented, with various degrees
of sustainability and success.
Adding up the number of theoretical solutions and programs may create
the impression that there are many feasible solutions to the GBV
scourge, and that it is simply a matter of choosing and implementing
one or more thereof. As we can however see from our everyday life and
statistics about GBV, this is not that simple.

328
(c) Suggested practical solutions to gender based violence in
South Africa
Britton conveniently divides improvement efforts into what she calls
the four p’s, being place, people, police and points of contact. As her
book (see suggested reading section below) expands on, these
categories and realities will need a multi-disciplinary and multi-faceted
approach to resolution. Even that resolution should be seen, at this
stage, as an incremental battle of improvement, of step by step
reductions in these GBV events.
The broad canvass over which these factors and dynamics are spread,
from public power to private abuses and conflict causes, should be well
understood and comprehensively applied. Given a conflict management
lens through which to view these events, we can fruitfully approach our
GBV problem as one involving conflicts on many fronts, and we can,
with or without adaptation, apply those well-established principles and
tools, such as we find in the rest of this book as an example, to many
of these conflicts.
Conflict management would, for example, invite us to assess and fully
establish the exact causes and triggers of a particular GBV environment
and the parties involved, we would see the results as part of a larger
web of events and inputs that cause the results that we end up working
with. We would understand that we need to not just work with the
symptoms of these events, but that we should try and address
effectively the causes of such events. I believe that this is one of the
main reasons why we see so little real improvement in our GBV
statistics: we understand, and treat, the symptoms (and to an extent,
the causes) thereof in isolation. While a multi-facetted approach is
essential, I believe that the field of formal conflict management can,
and should, play a far larger role in addressing the challenges.
Whether we are sceptical (or worse) about the prospects of economic
improvement and recovery, remedies like that will, at best, take time,
time which we seem to have all but run out of. In taking a proactive
stance that conflict management should become a frontline strategy in
our efforts (local and national), we seek to put an immediate tool in
the hands of those who need it most.

329
As elsewhere in this book, I argue here for an urgent education of our
most vulnerable societies and groups, for them to be made conflict
competent, in various ways that can be implemented as a matter of
urgency and with a relatively minimal expenditure of resources.
Schools, communities, homes and individuals can be trained to be at
least minimally competent in the wide array of conflict management
strategies and techniques that are available, all dealing with the
problem right here and right now.
Such a focus on an increased conflict competency and maturity would
not need the needle to move on any of the other conflict causes for it
to be effective and of immediate relief. These strategies can be made
culture and community appropriate and contextualized properly with
minimal adjustments. If such interventions start taking effect there
should be a crossover effect with some of the offenders learning how
to become better at resolving their conflicts, which in turn should in
itself lead to a reduction in GBV events.

Vulnerable communities, families, women and children, activists,

schools and educators, law enforcement officials and other targeted
individuals and groups can be given conflict management courses
appropriate to their specific circumstances and requirements. These
programs, if correctly designed, will be very real conflict skills, for
immediate use in GBV situations. This can be done in a matter of days,
presented by suitably qualified local people and community leaders.
This can be supported at various levels by local and national
government. The direct and indirect benefits, such as transferable
conflict skills, increased conflict confidence, community and family
cohesion and several others are all small, incremental steps towards
resolution, but done with sufficient community buy-in and appropriate
support this can become a national movement, a very specific example
of incremental, real progress.

One of the real benefits of such an approach will, I hope, also be a

change in perspective from waiting for others to come and help us to

330
helping ourselves. If nothing else, this in itself will be an important
conflict management success.

Online gender based violence

I want to conclude this essay with a brief look at an aspect of GBV that
may not seem as pertinent as the other forms and incidents of GBV, or
at least it may seem as a less urgent form thereof. Given the
pervasiveness and sheer influence of social media, however, I am
convinced that we will in time accept online GBV events as often being
as important as other forms thereof when it comes to the effective
conflict management of these events.
In dealing with this specialized topic I am particularly indebted to the
thesis work done by Savannah van den Heever, a Master’s student at
the University of Cape Town.
She points out that while there are significant volumes of research data
available for online violence that would qualify as GBV incidents for the
global community, such research information specifically for South
Africa is “sparse”.
Such online behaviour that should properly be viewed as incidents of
online GBV would include the sharing and dissemination of “the
expression of dangerously toxic beliefs and ideas about women”.
Van den Heever explains that “Such attacks may include threats of
violence, sexual assault or rape threats (sexual cyber-harassment),
revealing the offline identities of the victims (doxxing) online, or using
gender-based insults..”
Her work shows a marked increase in these forms of online gender-
based attacks, especially after the Covid pandemic.
I expect, and hope, that we see some focused work on the South African
experience on this important topic in the near future.
(Elsewhere in the book we deal with some more general social media
conflict strategies.)

331
 Conclusion
And so we see the cyclical patterns, the conflict loops, created by our
society, feeding the results of our unresolved conflicts on the terrains
of politics, reconciliation, migration policies, workplace conflict and so
many others, into our GBV and domestic environments, where it does
its ongoing harm, and how these GBV incidents and consequences then,
in turn, again have a bearing on our conflicts at the workplace, in the
political sphere, our communities.
The problem is clear enough, the suffering is everywhere, so we cannot
say that we do not know, or that we cannot help someone in real,
immediate ways.
Personally, I have learned to approach my work in the GBV field in an
incremental, day-by-day approach. Progress and solutions seem slow
and, at times, nebulous. Working with who is in front of you seems all
we can do at times, and maybe, for now, that is all we have.
A wish-list for the effective addressing of our GBV problem on a national
level would follow from the issues and dynamics that we have discussed
above. On a more immediate level I would simply want to see an
improved conflict competency among victims and those active in the
field.

332
 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READING
(Chapter 12)

1. Ending Gender Based Violence, by Hannah E. Britton, University of

Illinois Press (2020)

2. My own personal involvement with GBV took a sharp turn from

2013, a part of the journey of which can be seen here Rape
suspect's family hopes for bail (ewn.co.za) and Law firm offers
free help to rape victims (iol.co.za)

3. No Visible Bruises, by Rachel Louise Snyder, Scribe Publications

(2020)

4. Femicide in South Africa, by Nechama Brodie, Kwela Books (2020)

5. Savannah van den Heever’s thesis work at the University of Cape

Town. Not publically available yet, but keep an eye on her work.

6. I include, with some hesitation, my article at The Conflict

Conversations on MEN OF VIOLENCE - A survival guide to gender-
based violence - The Conflict Conversations (conflict-
conversations.co.za) on a few practical conflict techniques to bear
in mind when faced with immediate violent domestic conflict. This
type of situation, and the application of these techniques, are to
be avoided where possible, and these comments are only relevant
for consideration when you quite literally have no other option but
to make use of it.

333
 CHAPTER 13: CONFLICT IN OUR SCHOOLS
Conflict in schools and practical conflict
management assistance for educators

Punished students exhibit a domino effect: they blame teachers,

take out their frustration on peers and passively resist
assigned work.

Lorraine Stutzman Amstutz and Judy H. Mullet

The goal of restorative justice is to provide an experience of

healing for all concerned.

Howard Zehr

We can empower one another with our stories.

David Hartsough

Not being overwhelmed by what is greatest, while still being

attentive to what is smallest – that is divine.

St. Ignatius

334
 Introduction

We need not debate here whether we as South African society

adequately manage to protect our children from physical harm and
conflict, we can simply read our GBV statistics, our violent crime
statistics and other parameters, and we should be able to draw our own
conclusions. Our children often bear the brunt of our societal and
structural dysfunctions and inefficient leadership, of our unresolved
community and national conflicts.
It is the experience of far too many South African parents that their children
have to experience high levels of unexpected and unacceptable levels of
conflict, including violence, bullying, sexual harassment and worse at our
schools. These conflicts are no longer really to be seen as rare events in our
modern school calendar.
How do our children deal with each other, with the more personal conflicts
that they will inevitably have to endure and navigate as they grow up in our
school system? The bullying, the real or threatened violence, the sexual
harassment and worse, the potential class and race conflicts, the social media
battlegrounds, the old and the new personal conflicts that they will need to
experience? Can parents, guardians, educators, politicians, religious bodies
and others bring the specialized skill of practical and age-appropriate conflict
management skills to our children? If we prepare our children to be adept and
socially skilled in a variety of academic and related skills, do we not have a
moral duty to also teach them the essential skill of being conflict competent?
What would our future society look like if we break the chains of cyclical and
generational conflict by transferring sufficient conflict skills to a first
generation that knows how to transcend conflict, to use it as an energy to
address and constructively resolve personal and community conflicts?
In my view the questions really answer themselves – we have work to
do, our children deserve better than muddling along, making the
mistakes we made, ending up as conflict averse, unskilled participants
in what often feels like an inevitable slide into helplessness. Their
experience with conflicts, with others, all contribute to how competent
they are in conflict as adults. Significant conflict patterns, such as
conflict aversion, inappropriate conflict behaviour and helplessness are
mostly formed in our youth, so these are crucially important days for
them.

335
In this essay I initially want to briefly look at two issues arising from
those questions, that is what resources are available to parents,
communities and others in order to transfer these skills, and then also
to look at a few examples of conflict skills for children to showcase
what is possible. We can then conclude our study of conflict in schools
by looking at a few practical ways that educators can be assisted with
their experience of conflict in schools, and how we can help them with
this necessary skill. As we start this assessment we should briefly note
that we as the adults responsible for starting this journey for them, the
ones that will need to build and implement the system, are generally
not very good with conflict ourselves. Our repetitive and destructive
conflicts, on a national, community and often personal level reflect
graphically how we grew up without any semblance of an
understanding, much less application, of conflict principles. But let that
irony then be the motivation for us to break the cycle, and to ensure
that we do not allow our children to repeat our conflict mistakes.
What resources can parents, organizations and communities then use to
acquire and transfer these skills? As complex a field as conflict
resolution can be, with its university level research, case studies and
development, it can also be engineered into inexpensive, concise and
measurable programs for schools, educators and involved groups, and
as conflict coaching for smaller teams and individuals. The academic
and philosophical underpinning, the practical skills and techniques are
all completely transferable, and a sensible point of departure for a
school, community or organization would be to get an individual or
small group trained and to then build and run their own programs from
there, with no or minimal involvement from the original expert
necessary in future skills transfers. Such programs can be run by SGBs,
educators, parents and volunteers and be highly community focused,
with several simple frameworks and models that should be successful.
Conflict resolution is a complex, multi-disciplinary field, with ongoing
developments in best practices locally and internationally. The original
qualification of the first individual or team will be crucial, as this will
be the basis from which future training is launched, and strengths and
defects in such skills transfer will of course simply be perpetuated.

336
Established mediators, conflict specialists and other people working in
various conflict fields can be invaluable in this first big step.
Once the initial framework is in place that community can expand on
their knowledge and personnel as the operational needs and resources
may dictate. When a basic operational functionality has been
established one would like to see a free exchange of knowledge,
experience and ideas between communities and areas. By the very
nature of the project this is not a competitive endeavour. Resources
can eventually be pooled in this manner, and differences in dynamics
such as age and gender, educational levels, different experiences and
causes of conflict can be addressed more systematically. In time local
conflict practitioners can develop their own unique system for their
specific community. Such a project would not need anything new as far
as infrastructure is concerned. Individual training can happen in schools
and homes, and for bigger groups existing venues such as schools and
town halls can be used. Such a program can easily be incorporated into
the normal school day or home routine, and can be effectively
presented without much written material or textbooks being required.
Experimental roll-out programs can be designed for a particular grade
at a school, or for a few children in a street. There need be no formal
testing and grading of progress, and the challenge to transfer as much
knowledge, practical application and confidence would be a challenge
that the presenter(s) can work with. Any improvement in the conflict
competency of a child or educator is to be valued.
What would a few examples of the skills to be transferred look like? A
first challenge would be for conflict to be redefined in the mind of the
child as something that can be a positive force in a community. Sadly,
this is not always the experience of our children. They experience and
live with conflict as a destructive force, well outside their control to
influence or steer, and it is often, in their minds, something simply to
be endured or survived. This unfortunately causes markedly negative
conflict patterns in their lives, often transferred into adulthood,
including conflict avoidance, inappropriate conflict behaviour,
regressing into observed patterns of violent and abusive conflict
behaviour and so on.

337
Children should be assisted and enabled to internalize the fact that
conflict is an energy to be directed and utilized for the benefit of those
involved, not something to be avoided and suppressed. They should
hear and see that we need better conflicts, not necessarily less
conflicts. They should see conflicts as opportunities to understand and
address community interests and values, and most importantly, they
should see that they can make an actual, real difference in the conflict
that they find in their lives, to their own benefit and those of others.
As part of this important re-calibration of their conflict competency
they need to understand the difference between conflict well-handled
and conflict mismanaged, and how that directly impacts on the
community and in their own lives.
They can, even at a young age, be taught to understand to some extent
the causes and triggers of conflict, how cyclical conflict gets created,
and how it gets managed and ended. Such a program can do critical
work in addressing some of the causes and triggers of gender based
violence, and equipping children to deal with gender based conflict in
a constructive manner. Simple techniques such as empathetic listening,
respectful framing of a dispute, the value of dissenting opinions and a
long list of others can all be made a part of a child’s life skills from an
early age. Such training can be delivered or reinforced via community
figures known to the children, and parents can be drawn in and made a
part of such projects, with obvious benefits for all. Methods of training
can include role-playing and fun workshops, making use (where
appropriate) of actual community events and experiences.
Children can be taught to have confidence in conflicts – that it is
acceptable to disagree, that differing voices and opinions can be
community strengths if properly channelled and applied, that problem
solving is the best way to move a community forward, and most
importantly they can see the harm that results from unresolved
conflicts and how there are alternatives to such ways of thinking and
acting. They can be taught simple and practical how-to conflict
techniques, for example how to de-escalate anger in an environment or
situation, how to deal with value and identity based disputes, how to
play a meaningful role in their own domestic conflict situations and so
much more. The benefits of conflict competency from an early age, and

338
the fact that such benefits are measurable and visible for negligible
expenditure in time, money and application to the individual and
communities make projects such as these urgent practical and moral
imperatives.
Seen from the perspective of the individual child, parents,
communities, organizations and politicians such projects really have no
meaningful counter-arguments. Any doubt or hesitancy can be
addressed by way of local or national pilot projects. Hopefully, as the
ease of management and demonstrable cost-benefit analyses will show,
government can even become involved in such projects.
History will already judge this period in our country harshly. Our
unresolved conflicts and the bitter fruit resulting therefrom that future
generations will inherit can be altered, in a relatively short period of
time. The simple decisions and actions outlined above will however
need to be taken…. by us….now. What will our children see when they
look back at the way we dealt with this important and simple challenge?

We turn then to a consideration of a few practical conflict management

interventions and tools to assist our educators. The strategies that we
discussed above can of course include educators, but what follows is a
specialized look at the conflict needs of educators. I often deal with
educators who feel very vulnerable and ill-equipped to deal with
conflict in the modern school environment. They deserve better than
what we are providing them with.

Standing alone
- specialized conflict management training for educators

South African educators are generally faced with a myriad of challenges

that have very little to do with the primary reason why they have
embarked on their callings. In addition to the expected professional
challenges inherent in teaching children, they are also faced with a
multidisciplinary barrage of additional risks and expectations, all
seemingly conspiring to make the educator’s daily task more difficult,
if not downright impossible.

339
We see examples of these extra problems in our news – departmental
financial constraints, poor leadership and management results, poverty
and inequality in communities spilling over into the school environment,
hostile and aggressive learners, and an endless array of modern
challenges continue to make the life of an educator difficult, often to
the point of their resignation.

Misdiagnosing the problem

Debates about resolving this national crisis mostly centre on a need for
additional finances, with occasional references to better training,
better leadership and better management skills. Sometimes we shake
our heads and blame technology, modernization, social media or “this
generation”, parents or some other excuse. All of these proposed
solutions are true to some extent – but they confuse the solution with
the cause.
Of course many schools need more money, better support and better
management skills. These are however symptoms of a larger malady,
one that hides in plain sight. Most if not all of these symptoms, such as
management and leadership errors, poor provisioning, a lack of real-
world skills, threats and violence in and around the school
environments, poor results and others can and should be traced back to
their source: unresolved structural and personal conflict. Such
unresolved conflict, those that we see in factionalism, cronyism,
professional disputes, political influence, community interference and
manipulation, dysfunctional families and so on all flow downhill and end
up in the educator’s classroom.
In getting the diagnosis wrong, we throw money at it, we have meetings
and we make promises that will be broken, we blame each other, we
make new appointments, we draw up new lists and performance
agreements, and we know that they will fail, with very few exceptions.
We have become a part of the problem, in that we continue to deal
with the symptom, and we never get to the disease.

340
This creates cyclical conflicts, despair, a lack of trust and confidence
in the involved systems and in each other, it directly impacts on
productivity, educational standards, educator retention and several
important other professional markers.

Standing with our educators – the solution

The general school conflict situation that we have discussed in the

earlier part of this essay will take time to consider and implement. In
the meantime, educators have to deal with the warzones that some of
these schools have become. In addition, any structured conflict
management program at a school is often seen by management as an
unaffordable expense, too much work or a nice-to-have that can be
considered next year.
Once we understand that all of these symptoms, from poor performance
to community conflict to leadership failures ever so often arise from
unresolved conflicts such objections should disappear automatically.
What then can be done on a more localized level while the macro-
situation hopefully makes progress?
I have been involved with a multi-level conflict management roll-out at
several independent and public schools nationwide. A combination of
research, case studies and experience with best practices have in time
resulted in three levels of specialized conflict management assistance
being developed and becoming available to educators. The application
of these levels depend on several dynamics such as the size of the
school, the level of conflict experienced at the school, the operational
requirements and goals of the environment and so on, and it is tempting
but unwise to draw up a one-size-fits-all approach. A proper assessment
of the challenges and needs of every school should preferably be done,
from where the specific strategies and implementations should then
follow.
We can distinguish these three basic levels of application that could
serve as a point of departure for school management’s assistance. A
brief summary of these conflict management levels can be set out as
follows.

341
LEVEL 1: Working with the school, community and other involved
parties
Here a full assessment of the prevailing unresolved conflicts is done,
and all involved and affected participants are included in the conflict
system that gets designed specifically for that situation. The specific
school remains the driver and main decision maker, but resolution
extends to political and departmental conflicts and obstacles, service
providers, communities, the students themselves and, of course, the
educators on a personal and group level. Such a program includes
bringing to bear all conflict resolution mechanisms and skills in order to
identify, resolve and transcend such conflicts in a lasting manner, and
to leave behind robust and self-maintaining systems and processes. In
addition to consultation processes, mediation and other remedies, a
tailor-made program is designed for the school, training and coaching
is done, and the major existing conflicts are addressed. Fully
transferable conflict skills form an important part of this level of
conflict management. Group and individual coaching at the appropriate
level is recommended. At this level we address and resolve conflicts
that the school is involved in with these parties, and then do as much
conflict coaching at the required personal and team levels as may be
necessary.

LEVEL 2: Working with the school only

Here the wider community of political and departmental leaders,
community involvement, service providers and others are not included
in the resolution, design and implementation of the conflict
management program, and only the specific school is focused on. An
assessment of conflict causes and triggers at that level is conducted,
specific conflicts are addressed and educators (group or individuals) are
coached to effectively handle classroom conflicts and onsite parental
conflict. As with the previous level, the specific deliverables and
measurable outcomes are designed in conjunction with the school and
designated or affected individuals.

342
LEVEL 3: Working with individual educators only
As we mentioned above, it is of course understandable that not all SGBs
or educational decision makers will agree on the extent of and solution
to the conflict management challenges faced by the educators. This
still leaves the educator at the coalface of the problem. We have also
noticed recently that some educators do not want their schools and
colleagues involved in combating these challenges, they simply, as
individuals, wish to lose their fear of or discomfort with these conflicts
and be more conflict confident and conflict competent, and in those
instances we simply work with such individual educators (either
publically or confidentially and privately) to achieve these goals of
theirs. As with the other levels such educators receive comprehensive
coaching designed around their own needs and challenges, at a pace
that suits them.

Conflict management applied to South African schools, using

selected modern research and practices

Earlier on in this essay we briefly considered a few examples of the

practical conflict resolution knowledge and techniques that can be
brought to bear on the situation by various concerned individuals and
groups. In this section we turn to a more in-depth look at some of these
available remedies.
While the various tools of educational conflict management have made
great strides in becoming preferred conflict options in many overseas
countries, we lag behind in understanding and harnessing the immense,
cost-effective and simple benefits available to our educational systems
and educators. A few summarized examples of these solutions may
illustrate what may be if we open our minds to these solutions.

New concepts and approaches

The conflict management field of study and research traditionally feeds

from a variety of other disciplines, such as psychology, social and
behavioural sciences, neuroscientific developments and a host of
others. These are not fads and experiments, but proven techniques

343
designed to effectively deal with the conflicts that lead to the cyclical,
even generational conflicts that we seek to escape. So, for example we
see a renewed understanding and valuing of conflict itself as a creative
power, we see the various techniques and solutions flowing from the
concept of restorative justice, a rejection of the older approaches of
conflict avoidance, an emphasis on accountability, offender
responsibility and victim protection, the resultant reintegration efforts
and techniques necessary and so on.

The design and implementation of conflict stories

Great work is being done in the recasting of conflict narratives as honest

and constructive conflict stories. This prevents the failed strategies of
ignoring such historical events, or minimizing them, or editing them in
harmful ways. The design and implementation of conflict stories is a
most effective and measurable way of resolving school conflicts.

A wider focus than just putting out fires

These modern case studies and research, including an effective

application of the restorative justice principle, means that such
communities, schools or individuals will be set free of the reactive way
of either trying to prevent conflict from happening, dealing with
isolated events on an untrained and ad hoc basis (often doing more
harm than good), and move them to a much more sustainable, healing
and healthy way of dealing with conflict. Conflict avoidance and
conflict dread is replaced with conflict confidence and conflict
competence. This empowers the educator with a far more holistic
ability to deal with conflict ranging from disputes centred in
performance, race, gender, class to other, more operationally based
categories.

A specific focus on local traumas

This way of approaching conflict, with the educator at the heart of the
process, enables the participants to acknowledge the role of trauma in

344
local, community and individual instances, and to truly heal and
transcend the problems that are often ignored, misunderstood or
exacerbated. Educators are often leaders in their communities, and
teaching them current, advanced and profession specific conflict skills
may very well transfer to those communities, both in far as conflict
competence and conflict confidence is concerned.

Conclusion

Many of the older methods of discipline and educational conflict

management have not been meaningfully re-assessed in decades, and
several of the techniques and programs used in our schools actually and
demonstrably do more harm than good in some instances, and in others
simply are the wrong tools for the job, leading to the unintended and
ongoing consequences we dealt with earlier in the essay. The solutions
are there, they are costs effective, they can be internalized and rolled
out in a manner of weeks, they are fully-transferable long-term
solutions and they transform lives. These solutions should be
implemented. This includes the need to see conflict as the very basis,
the foundation, of these problems. Without seeing this as the true
cause, without understanding how to competently deal with this as the
cause for these myriad problems the educator gets forced to cyclically
deal with the symptoms of the unresolved conflicts.
Just as in educational and political terms we speak of a “lost
generation” we can also, in a more constructive manner, consider the
national and societal benefits from teaching even if just one generation
of South Africans to resolve their conflicts in a better, more effective
way. Imagine the benefits, the confidence, that will run through a
community, a region if our young people become instrumental in
breaking our harmful and cyclical conflict patterns.
These are not utopian dreams, but achievable realities, these are
responsibilities resting on the shoulders of current decision makers.

345
 RESEARCH AND SUGGESTED READING LIST
(Chapter 13)

1. An interview I had on this topic that were carried in News24 can

be found here
Children and conflict - The Conflict Conversations (conflict-
conversations.co.za)
2. Restorative Justice, by Howard Zehr, Good Books (2014)
3. The Little Book of Restorative Discipline, by Lorraine Stutzman
Amstutz and Judy H. Mullet, Good Books (2014)
4. Building a trauma-informed restorative school, by Joe Brummer,
Jessica Kingsley Publishers (2021)
5. A real world guide to restorative justice in schools, by Nicholas
Bradford and David Lesal, Jessica Kingsley Publishers (2021)
6. Hacking School Discipline, by Nathan Maynard and Brad Weinstein,
Times 10 Publications (2020)

346
 CHAPTER 14: CONFLICT STREET FIGHTING
Conflict techniques for our everyday conflicts

What we have come to understand is that, if unexamined, conflict

has a way of readily enveloping us and taking over our lives. When
conflict takes over, it creates its own reality. It dictates the terms
on which we experience a conflict as well as those on which we try
to deal with it. And it often does so in insidious, unseen ways that
make us and others hardly recognizable to ourselves, never mind
to each other.

Gary Friedman and Jack Himmelstein

Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is

our power to choose our response. In our response is our growth
and our freedom.

Viktor Frankl

In today’s polarized and uncivil society, we can no longer treat

peace as a noun, it is a verb.

Douglas E. Noll

347
 Introduction

This chapter is mostly a simple set of techniques that can be adopted

without much knowledge of the underlying conflict principles involved.
It is a “street-fighting manual” for modern conflict situations, a few
examples of the practical value of conflict techniques. It can serve as
simple entry-level tools that can help build your conflict confidence and
give you a hint of what full conflict competency can add to your
professional or personal life. It is predominantly focused on
interpersonal conflict, not group or team conflicts.

A word of caution

At the risk of making this section sound like the waiver section of a
product, there are a few important considerations to bear in mind
before you start using these conflict techniques. There is an important
balance between our need, our right to be conflict competent (and
confident) and an abuse of our knowledge. The more you study conflict
the better you will become at it, and just as knowledge of firearms,
self-defence systems or a legal system can be abused for nefarious
purposes so too can the knowledge of conflict be abused. Your conflict
competence and confidence should always be aimed at defending
yourself and others against unwarranted or unreasonable conflicts or
attacks. None of these techniques are intended to harm anyone else,
and if they are used to “win” arguments or conflicts you have not yet
read the other chapters in this book. The aim is to prevent or to
minimize a conflict, to stand your ground and to protect you and your
loved ones, to resolve conflict, to transcend it, where possible for the
gain of all involved.
Using these techniques without a thorough understanding of some of
the important philosophies and knowledge that comprehensive training
and experience will teach you could also minimize the positive results
that you could have derived from such techniques. I think here
specifically of conflict components such as timing and sequence. Using
conflict interventions or techniques without a practical understanding
of say non-verbal communication, preparation or differentiation can

348
lead to unexpectedly negative results. If the conflict involved is of a
relatively minor or unimportant nature be patient with the technique,
try it out a few times as necessary and see where you can improve.
Often, simply being aware that you have a conflict technique available
to you, or that one is being used against you, brings some relief and
confidence in itself. With more important or impactful conflicts,
consider getting more detailed conflict coaching from an experienced
conflict practitioner before you start using these techniques. They are
all designed to be practical and relatively easy to use, but the factors
that we have mentioned here could all influence the outcomes of such
conflicts.
If a particular conflict is random, avoidable without long term
consequences or of minor importance, simply ignore it. We do not have
to fix the world. That nasty social media message directed at you need
not cost you any further anxiety or waste of time. Use these techniques
only when really necessary.
Please also bear in mind your own mental health during these conflicts.
If you experience undue or unexpected anxiety levels or other health
concerns, please consult an appropriately qualified medical
practitioner.

With that in mind then, some conflict Cliffs notes.

(i) Rapoport’s Rules when you have to criticize someone

Not many of us like to be criticized, and many people react quite
negatively to such criticism. An easy rule of thumb is to simply reduce
our criticism of people. It is often simply not necessary, and little more
than a selfish indulgence. On the other hand, our undertaking to have
better conflicts must also lead to a commitment to be willing and able
to criticize someone in a conflict if that could help lead to resolution.
Such criticism can be necessary during, for instance, the differentiation
phase of a particular conflict, as we have seen in earlier sections of the
book. Whether in our personal lives or at the workplace, constructive
criticism is an inescapable reality, and we need to be properly prepared
for this event.

349
The well-known game theorist and conflict expert Anatol Rapoport
designed four steps in such a process, with these steps proving so
effective in real application that they have over time become known as
Rapoport’s Rules. They are simply:

Rule 1: Attempt to re-express your opponent’s view so clearly that he

would agree with it (Example: “So you are saying that you are
often late because there is simply no reliable transport in your
area”);
Rule 2: List any points of agreement that you may have reached so far
(Example: “We have agreed that punctuality is important in
our job, and that making exceptions cause difficulties”);
Rule 3: Mention anything that you may have learned from your
opponent (Example “I was not aware of the transport problem
in that area”);
Rule 4: You may now make your point(s) on the merits and
constructively criticize based on the facts, clearly pointing out
the consequences of the criticized behaviour).
These rules may not be easy to stick to, especially when the argument
gets heated, but it will (if delivered effectively) create several benefits
for that situation, such as lowering your opponent’s defensiveness,
showing that you are busy with a problem solving exercise and not a
personal attack, raising trust for future conflicts and making it clear
that there is a way forward that could be beneficial for everybody. You
change the focus from the criticism (and all that accompanies that) to
one of creative engagement.

(ii) Throwing light on the gaslighter

The term “gaslighting” is bandied about often, especially on social
media, and this term (see the 1944 Ingrid Bergman film “Gaslight” for
the origin of the term, and which term is also Merriam-Webster’s Word
of the Year for 2022) deals with a conflict reality that is very difficult

350
to effectively oppose. A seasoned gaslighter is a manipulator that uses
a variety of techniques to make you doubt your own reality, and it can
have devastating consequences for the victim, including a loss of
confidence and agency, an increase in anxiety and related symptoms,
an escalation of conflict (especially in a marital setting) and other
adverse outcomes. Favourite gaslighting strategies include the denial
of events and things that were said, a redefining of those events or
statements and a general rewriting of events, sometimes in very subtle
ways.
This manipulation is really difficult to combat, especially if the victim
can be induced to start doubting her recall of events, and practice
shows how people simply go along with such efforts by conflict
avoidance and even agreement, often spanning years.

At the outset, we must be clear that not every disagreement or disputed

factual recall is a gaslighting event (if we believe social media
commentators just about everyone is a gaslighter). Gaslighting is a
conscious, intended attack, not an accidental or occasional mishap or
disagreement. It is best confirmed by way of noticing repeated
patterns, such as disputed or contentious family topics.
We must also be very realistic about the prognosis for the cure of the
true gaslighter. While I am very reluctant to concede a dead-end in any
conflict, modern research paints a rather grim view of this particular
conflict phenomenon, and the cold, short version is that you should not
expect the serial gaslighter to improve much, if at all. Unless they are
prepared to get meaningful professional help (an unlikely event in
itself, as this calls for recognition of the problem by the gaslighter),
your efforts to change them will just lead to disappointment and an
escalation of your conflict, often with negative secondary results (lack
of confidence, doubt) for yourself. This of course may have certain
implications for that particular relationship.

If, however, you wish to, or have to, interact with such an opponent,
the following are a few practical conflict techniques that could be of
value:

351
(a) Set and maintain clear boundaries
Set very clear boundaries as to conduct that you will not tolerate, and
clear consequences for transgressions of such rules, such as the
termination of phone calls, a refusal to remain at a table with them, a
closing down of a conversation, and what would trigger such a reaction
from you, such as their insistence that you are wrong on an event,
ridiculing your recollection and so on. The gaslighter will generally not
respect these boundaries, but that gives you a measure of control over
events, and you can terminate unpleasant behaviour.

(b) Keep a written record of significant events

In other words, secure the reality that they will seek to bring into doubt
or recreate. Keep a diary or a series of voice notes as to what was said,
be as accurate as you can. In openly hostile situations, write to the
gaslighter recording events that you believe will be edited later on.
Record events using technology. Ask trusted friends what their recall of
such events are. This can be as subtle as a few texts or screenshots.

(c) Limit interactions where possible

Marital situations may bring about stark choices, but workplace
gaslighters can be treated by asking for transfers, insisting on
appropriate channels for communication, and formal disciplinary
processes can of course, where relevant, be used to enforce such
decisions.

(d) Where appropriate, create support structures to help you

If the gaslighting is causing you to start doubting your own reality, and
the interactions cannot be terminated or appropriately limited, try to
create an informal support structure such as friends or professional
advisers to assist you in maintaining your self-esteem and remaining
grounded in reality.

352
Gaslighters are not necessarily bad people, but deeply insecure
individuals that can do a tremendous amount of harm. Be very careful
before you take them on in protracted conflicts.

(iii) Dealing with anger during conflict

Psychologist Paul Ekman, who pioneered much of emotion and conflict
research in the 1970s (and on whose work the television series “Lie to
Me” was loosely based) did some important work on anger during
conflict. He pointed out rather dramatically that “Anger calls forth
anger”. This is observable and quite widely experienced. Anger in
conflict causes escalation, a breakdown of clear understanding and
communication (quite literally) and a decrease in our ability to spot and
evaluate best options.
Anger runs on chemical processes, and we are often caught up in those
processes before we know it, or before we can avoid the terrible
consequences that anger can lead to. Anger is often a symptom, not a
cause, and it is often a reaction caused by fear, frustration, offense
being taken, or some threat being perceived. Ekman says that we need
to understand the source of that anger before we can really understand
and deal with the conflict itself. Effectively dealing with anger during
conflict has two practical components that we need to deal with – the
overall cause(s) and the immediate, in the moment anger. It also relates
to our own anger and that directed at us by others.

The wider perspective, the reasons for our anger we can calmly dissect
and consider, preferably as far away as possible from the actual conflict
events. Why do I get angry when money, or my ex-wife, or the children’s
holidays are mentioned? What repeated patterns are observable?

353
For the more immediate and urgent conflict techniques involving anger,
we can do the following:

(a) Anger causes what is known as a refractory period, where we have

a cocktail of chemicals dumped in our systems, and where our
nervous systems and temporary emotional biases severely impact
our ability to accurately assess the information around us, or for
us to assess our best options. This is a neurobiological reality, and
there is very little that you can do about it, other than (where
possible) trying to create a brief space where this can become
neutralised. Delaying a response, calling for a time out, getting up
to make coffee, all of these breaks can help while your body
catches up. Try to teach yourself the habit of giving yourself this
space when you get angry.

(b) Probably one of the most difficult pieces of advice in this book –
try not to meet anger with anger. Do not return insults. Do not
blame. If hard truths (including insults) have to be shared and
decisions have to follow from them, let them be done when you
are calm and after you have considered the consequences, facts
and best options. This in no way means that you are being soft or
weak, or that you are agreeing with your opponent. I am certainly
not asking you to suppress your thoughts or to prejudice your
rights, but I am asking you to deliver your message at the right
time, and doing so when you are angry is hardly ever that best
time.

(c) Slow events down as much as possible during conflict that angers
you. This gives you time to think things through, and research and
experience show the mutual influence on the mind slowing the
body down and vice versa. This could be achieved by simple
actions such as moving slowly, changing position, taking a quick
cell phone call etc. It may also give the impression that you have
your thought processes under control, and this may in turn calm
your opponent down and defuse escalation. Keep an eye on those

354
 non-verbal messages – the waving of the hands, close physical
proximity, the raising of voices and so on. Slow it all down. This
also serves to keep you more mindful and in the moment, aware
of what you are doing. Some people also report an increased sense
of having some measure of control over the conflict scenario.
Combine this technique with slowing your breathing down, and
being consciously aware of your breathing.

(d) Train yourself to watch your anger. Mindfulness programs help us

with this practical skill, and it is a very effective (if deceptively
difficult) technique – simply remain aware of your growing anger.
You do not judge it, you do not intellectually understand or justify
it, you simply notice how you are getting angrier. If you are lucky,
the mere noticing should help you to keep it from escalating into
the unmanageable areas.

(e) Try to anticipate anger events. While we often get angry quite
unexpectedly, there are certain patterns and cyclical events
where we are more likely to end up angry, or on the receiving end
of anger. These can be interactions with colleagues, teenagers
when discipline is discussed and so on. If you can anticipate the
event, simply tell yourself that you are in all likelihood going to
get angry, and mindfully watch your emotions as you go into that
event. The mere noticing of the emotion is often enough to control
it. Remember, you are noticing the emotion, not judging or
rationalizing it. Try to identify your anger triggers (a particular
person, a topic, a phrase) and simply notice it when it arises.

(f) When you are discussing someone else’s anger in their presence
and while it is occurring, be careful to use the term “anger” when
describing their conduct or emotions. It is a word loaded with a
lot of baggage for some people, and it is often seen as a weakness
or a lapse of judgment. If the topic gets discussed constructively
consider replacing it with something like “frustration”.

355
(f) Learn to listen while these angry events occur. When we get
hooked into the responding tit-for-tat response cycle we tend to
lose sight of valuable signs and hints, information that we can use.
Listen to what is said, but also to what is not said, what lies behind
the words. Conflict is often a cry for help, an invitation for
understanding, a suggestion that things could be different.

(g) Do not downplay or deny an angry situation. This is a popular

strategy, we downplay an angry outburst or words said, and when
this is done while the event is still ongoing it often leads to
escalation. That topic is important to the angry person, and
downplaying it (often with good intentions) simply gets
experienced as disrespect or an unwillingness to understand the
person’s position. Acknowledge and be honest about what is going
on and what is being discussed. No sugar coating.

(iv) Dealing with bullies

As discussed earlier, if you can completely avoid interaction with bullies
then that is your primary strategy. Avoid them. But let’s assume that
you do not have the luxury of that option, and that you have to face
the workplace or family bully.

The bully profile

The bully’s primary strategy is to intimidate. They love to tell us how

they do not care what people think of them – but they do, deeply so. It
is in fact one of the triggers of these conflicts, when they perceive that
their assumed status is not recognized. It is a form of insecurity.
The following are a few strategies that you can use to either move the
bully over to your side, or to at least minimize or negate conflict with
them in instances where you cannot, or choose not to, avoid it. Again,
please be careful of these situations, as bullies can often resort to
violence of some level.

356
Strategies for conflict with bullies
(a) Deal with those insecurities. Compliments make them feel
better and less threatened. Identify their conflict triggers
(discussions about education, or income etc.) and then either
avoid that or make them feel better about those areas.
(b) Help them to succeed. Deal with the insecurity you have
identified, and help them reach targets that could be beneficial
both to the workplace or family, as well as themselves.
(c) Adapt your language. Instead of giving orders (“Do ABC by
Wednesday”), adapt that to something that sounds as if it is
closer to a question, that you are asking for help (“You know so
much about ABC, is it correct that …..”).
(d) Where appropriate, give them freedom and control to show and
confirm their expertise, especially as it may relate to their
conflict triggers. Make no mistake: bullies can be good leaders
when harnessed effectively.
(e) Set and enforce consistent boundaries with them. This will be
one of the battlegrounds they choose to test you on. It is easy
to clearly communicate a boundary and to then see to it that
you firmly enforce it. It also gives them an acceptable, face-
saving justification to step back from such confrontations, given
the existence of the rule or boundary.
(f) Avoid power struggles. Bullies will eventually feel the need to
have these battles, which can be public and very harmful. Try
to keep these interactions as objective and rule-based as
possible, making your points based on existing rules, boundaries
and facts as opposed to personal views and arguments. Try to
keep the power struggles as impersonal (from your side, at
least) as possible, with a face saving option for the bully where
possible. Again, remember the best option: avoid bullies if
possible.
(g) This includes, for your sake, not taking their insults personally.
Easier said than done for most of us, granted, but their insults

357
 and personal attacks are often simply the products of their
insecurities and a test of those boundaries. This means that the
less you take these insults as personal attacks the less of an
impact their bullying has on you.
(h) Remind yourself, before these bullying events, of the
consequences of escalation. This can be a simple mental
walkthrough of what would happen if you respond and do
something unwise one Monday morning at work in reaction to
such bullying. These are your guard rails, your reasons for not
getting drawn into bullying. This context and relative
assessment of this particular conflict is easier done when we
are away from such probably heated moments.
(i) Refresh and reaffirm your reality. Bullies are often gaslighters
as well, and they can use gaslighting as one of their bullying
strategies. Make sure that you own your reality (see section
above on gaslighting).
(j) Make sure, where possible, that the workplace is a bully free
zone. This can be done very effectively by ensuring that
workplace policies, disciplinary codes and processes are all
designed to effectively deal with workplace bullies. The new
Workplace Harassment Policy is compulsory as from 2022, and
in the right hands it is a thing of beauty in the fight against
workplace bullies.

(v) Some social media conflict strategies

Arthur C Brooks is an American leader in conflict communication
strategies that limit the harm that we suffer from modern
communication realities. As far as our social media habits are
concerned, our consumption of these social media events often feeds a
cycle of harm and escalation that is extremely toxic and difficult to
break out of.
A simple and seemingly harmless scrolling session leads to real and
perceived insults occurring, real and perceived injustices becoming a

358
part of that day’s experience, emotions being triggered, and we end up
with very real results for our physical and mental health.
Very real harm suffered by children and adults, high costs in mental
health concerns and a seeming unwillingness or inability by the social
media platforms to effectively curate content and interaction cause
some to abandon these sites, or limit their social media interaction and
in so doing these decisions often prejudice these people in cutting them
off from sources of information and growth. To find that spot of
calmness, of productive and pleasant social media use, is not as easy as
it may sound.

Let’s look at a few of these strategies that Brooks suggests we follow.

(a) Refuse to be used – online conflict often requires, and runs on,
social groups and associations, and they often need your
participation, your voice to achieve their goals, and these goals
may not be in line with your own best interests even when you
are a member of that group. This subtle form of manipulation
can include your aggressive posts getting liked and other methods
of pushing you in front of the tanks. Keep an eye on those
“sides”. If you are brave enough, call out people on your “side”
that participate in unacceptable behaviour.
(b) Escape the bubble – be a fresh and original presence where
possible, speak to (and listen) to the “other”. Learn to disagree
without drama, and accept that it is ok to have different points
of view. If you are stable and secure in your own worldview you
should have no problem in at least occasionally listening to
others. Or to simply ignore them.
(c) Say no to contempt – here Brooks suggests that we treat others
with love and respect, even when it is difficult. Draw a clear
distinction between important and unimportant online
relationships. The unimportant ones we need not engage with,
we can avoid them without any harm, but for those social media
relationships that we want to or must encourage, this is a great

359
 (if difficult to apply at all times) rule. As far as possible avoid
mockery and insults. Here we need to emphasize an important
point. This advice is not advocating being “nice” for the sake of
politeness or even because the other party somehow deserves it.
This behaviour is in your best interests. A lot of empirical
research show clearly that this approach makes you more
persuasive, and it is actually more beneficial to your physical and
mental health. That social media insult delivered to our “enemy”
may feel good (and get lots of likes) at that moment, but it is
harmful to you in the long run.
(d) Disagree better – run your social media accounts as a place
where fresh ideas and points of view, within reason and your own
comfort levels, can be exchanged. Allow and encourage healthy
debate. We do not need less disagreement; we need better
disagreement.
(e) Tune out more – try to teach yourself to be better at assessing
which online debates and arguments should be engaged in, and
which you can really just scroll on by.

(vii) Dealing with insubordination

Our workplace interactions often lead to a thin line between an
employee expressing helpful, justified dissent on the one hand, and
insubordination on the other. The former is a creative and healthy
aspect of workplace communication, the latter is a harmful, corrosive
example of workplace misconduct that needs urgent management.
Getting the assessment and/or the management thereof wrong leads to
an escalation of distrust, a deterioration of the working relationship,
power struggles and other preventable management problems.

A summarised list of conflict management techniques for this particular

conflict type, to be used by management or team leaders, would
include:

360
(a) Meet in private. Insubordination events often have hidden
agendas, and public reprimands simply create a stage for
those agendas to be exploited. Bear in mind that it is
insubordination that you wish to deal with, not healthy
expressions of alternative ideas and opinions, and that staff
may struggle to always know the difference when observing
these interactions. You may create an impression that you
are critical of any dissent, which then may lead to all sorts
of other conflict causes.

(b) Make very clear that you describe the offensive behaviour,
and why it is unacceptable and insubordinate (Example:
“That is not the first time that you refused to meet a
deadline in the presence of your colleagues. This sets a bad
example for someone as senior as you, it confuses your
colleagues, and it distracts all of us from what is really
important. These results are completely unprofessional and
harmful to the business, and I cannot allow this to continue.”
This sets and explains boundaries.
(c) Allow the employee a fair opportunity to explain her side of
the event. Remember that what appears to be
insubordination may be inadvertent, unskilful, isolated, or
even justified behaviour. This can be initiated by a simple
request for them to explain their side of what happened, or
what it is that they need (for example, more time, specific
resources and so on).
(d) Specifically ask them what they can do better. Leave this (at
least initially) as an open-ended question, let them do the
work to get to the result that you need. This opportunity (“I
can stop arguing with you about deadlines while we are in
meetings”) as a self-generated solution as opposed to “That
is the very last time you speak to me like that before you get
fired” imposed on them may lead to a better quality
resolution. Make it clear that, now that the problem has
been aired, you are open to problem solving, as long as it
does not descend into a both-siding exercise. Explore and be
open any possible areas where you may be able to

361
 constructively assist with the problem (say by being more
realistic with deadlines, in our example).
(e) Document the insubordination and the discussion, including
the solution arrived at, even if the event is not escalated to
a warning. The company’s disciplinary code and procedures
should take cognizance of this possibility, and support
management in that. This documentation serves as support
for conflict management and a prevention of future,
escalated conflict, and not as an insult or conflict cause in
itself, and this must be conveyed to the employee.
(f) At this level of the engagement, try to avoid overt threats.
Although insubordination is serious misconduct in most
workplaces (and can lead to dismissal, in many), we often
react strongly to it, and say or do things that may not have
been necessary upon reflection. As we have seen earlier in
the book, insubordination may strike us on a secondary,
deeper level than just the breach of Rule x in the Code, it
may be insulting, it may trigger concerns about our own
efficiency, job security and so on. Try to see the event in
context, and avoid over-reaction.
(g) Insubordination is often allowed to run on without any
intervention, often because it is sometimes difficult to
notice or be sure of in public settings, and then this
misconduct (or misunderstanding) is allowed to spread its
poison before it gets dealt with in one heavy-handed blow,
often to management’s strategic disadvantage. Deal with
these events calmly, immediately and consistently. Bear in
mind the conflict benefits of progressive discipline.
(h) Consider the boundaries of this problem, and get as
comfortable as you can in your specific environment with
those fence lines. You are (hopefully) trying to create a
dynamic, encouraging and safe workspace where people can,
and want to, express themselves, a place where genuine
mistakes are not punished needlessly, but where discipline,
dignity and respect are also valued and where rules of
conduct are important. Being an inspiring and effective

362
 leader means that you need to get this balance right.
Insubordination is often one of your most measurable tests.

(viii) Conflict in diversity

As South Africans we have a variety of backstories and historical
narratives that influence our conflicts, often making these conflicts
even more complex and unpleasant than they would have been had we
not dragged the baggage in the door with us. These conflict scripts and
stories in our head more often than not relate to our views of diversity
and how conflict with others different from us (e.g. ethnicity, gender,
age and a list of other categories) should be conducted.
In this way many of us have become conditioned towards one end or the
other on a sort of Politeness Spectrum, a perceived politically correct
sliding scale of how to have these conflicts within our diversity. This
often results in a variety of technically very significant conflict markers,
such as conflict avoidance, simplification of issues, bias, polarisation,
conflict rigidity and other conflict causes.
I am not necessarily here talking about conflicts about diversity issues,
but conflicts with someone falling in these diversity categories that we
are so good at constructing. Do a little informal survey among your
friends and colleagues and see if there is a general perception about
“how to” have conflicts with people in those other diversity categories.
For reasons good and bad, we have conflict scripts about how to
approach these people, over and above the merits of a particular
conflict. These conflict scripts are created, supported and maintained
by society, our friends, social media and other subtle forces. They can
be great aids to conflict management, but they can also be extremely
limiting and even harmful.
We often end up aiming at politeness or correctness, ignoring or
minimizing conflict that would have benefited far more from the
compliment of honesty and true concern.
South Africans have, quite rightly, become very aware of offending
people where diversity plays a role. But the realisation that we have
these diverse categories and that we should be better at living together

363
does not mean that we respond correctly and effectively to that
understanding. By minimizing diversity, by seeking a cookie-cutter
rainbow coloured South African response to diversity, by insisting that
black and white must lead to grey, we create new problems for now
and the future, and we deny ourselves the power and beauty (and fun)
that conversation across these diversity markers can have.
Communication and conflict across these diversity lines can be
extremely rewarding, not as a politically correct exercise, but as a
sheer extension and growth of our humanity, and in becoming more
conflict competent. Again, I am asking not that we have less conflicts,
but that we have better conflicts. This does not, in these instances,
invite or excuse rudeness and insensitivity, but calls for sincerity and a
practical level of compassion.
Before we look at a few practical conflict techniques that can be of
assistance to you in this regard, just a brief note at the beginning of the
discussion. Diversity conflicts more often than not have value or
identity components (see Chapter 4), and some of these disputes run in
deep water. If you find that conflicts involving say race, gender,
politics, religion or any of the modern day hot button topics upset you
inordinately and that you would prefer to continue to avoid such topics,
please continue to do so. There is much to be said for picking our battles
wisely, and if you do not wish to, or have to, then do not subject
yourself to these conflicts where possible and appropriate. As we know,
they can get quite heated.

If you are however willing to see and pursue conflict in diversity for its
empowering and transformative potential, and as the sincere gift that
it can be to others and to yourself, these are some techniques and
suggestions backed by research and experience.

(a) Reconsider the need to be right. Some of us have an absolute

over-reliance on being right, even where there are no really
important consequences attached to such debate. Learn, or
re-learn the wonderful art of just having conversation with
someone of that diversity group, learn to argue well without

364
 the right/wrong problem being so important. We all love to
be right, but how important is it in this relationship, or on
this specific topic? And remember that not being awarded
the I Am Right Prize does not mean that you are wrong.
Respectful disagreement does not signify acceptance or
agreement.
(b) Learn something. Educate yourself about other views coming
from those diversity groups. How does your transgender
colleague arrive at his views? What is important to people of
this faith? Learn to notice your own biases – for now, no need
to work with them or to be tough on yourself – just notice
them. Read something about or, even better, by one or more
representative contributor from that group. Again, your
knowledge, your reading, your openness, does not signify
acceptance or agreement. An unwillingness to be open to a
simple consideration and understanding of the views of
others is often an indication of a lack of confidence in one’s
own views.
(c) Learn to work with mutual understanding and not necessarily
persuasion. Conflict, or even communication, across
diversity lines often benefit from a simple better
understanding of each other even though the more elusive
(and often quite unnecessary) agreement may be
unattainable or a project that requires more time.
(d) Individualize. People have a tendency to generalize,
especially when it comes to diversity differences. It is often
a lazy mental short-hand designed to help us understand this
difference. This leads to those clichés and stereotypes, but
it carries over into our thinking quite easily and subtly.
Whether in a personal or professional setting, have a look at
the difference in emotional reaction when we stop seeing
someone primarily as a representative of Category A and
really just as an individual.
(e) Remember, and confirm, what you have in common with that
person or group during your conflicts. This brings to the fore
what is often of greater importance than a specific area of
conflict that may have become over-emphasized in the heat

365
 of a battle. Yes, we are in loud disagreement about who to
vote for, but we both want what is best for the country, we
both want to have economic prosperity and live in peace.
Every example of conflict, even those difficult ones, should
have one or more areas of joint interest and commonality.
(f) Mirror the type of conflict conduct that you would like to see
in this relationship. For instance, argue your points vigorously
but without being insulting or tying the conflict to that
diversity issue, fight fair, make appropriate concessions,
divide the issue from the person and so on.

(ix) Conflict at an impasse

Quite often our conflicts and negotiations hit a wall, and there seems
to be no way forward or back. There seems to be no constructive way
forward, and solutions seem non-existent. Our opponents seem to have
taken an unreasonable position, concessions have dried up, and there
could even be an escalation in conflict behaviour. Frustration begins to
creep in, and we feel quite justified in throwing in the proverbial towel,
and walking away from the conflict, resigned to accepting the non-
resolution thereof, and starting to consider other alternatives, often
clearly less attractive and even more harmful options.
Obviously not all conflicts are resolvable. The art is to recognize the
difference between a conflict that has run out of options and one that
is merely at an impasse, a deadlock. It is often in these apparent dead-
end streets that the best, most creative solutions to a conflict can be
found. This however takes a special kind of conflict skill (or
stubbornness). Teach yourself to know the difference between a dead-
end and a dead-lock, and to actually celebrate impasse as a place of
apparent breakdown that simply needs a refocus, a shifting of mental
gears.
Conflict research has done a lot of work on the topic, as these apparent
dead-ends could have far-reaching consequences for the parties
involved. The assessment of whether an impasse exists, and if so what
the best strategy forward may be, is a complex strategy, and one best

366
approached with due consideration of each and every case’s specific
facts and nuances. The following would however serve as a range of
helpful questions and considerations to guide you through some of the
less complex of these events.

(a) Are the true motivations of the parties really understood? A

party may benefit from failed conflict negotiations, such as
in face saving scenarios, political posturing or commercial
negotiations. Once this is understood and accurately
identified, you may see new solutions, such as reassurances,
a new focus on issues that may not have been discussed and
so on.
(b) Have you considered the input and potential deadlock-
breaking value of parties that may not be at the conflict
table, but who nevertheless have input and influence in the
conflict? Is there anyone else that can be involved at this
point so as to move the parties forward?
(c) Would a change in the existing time frame create new
solutions? This is often the case in commercial conflicts and
negotiations, where deadlines and unexamined timeframes
can create unnecessary deadlocks. We often limiting our
outcomes by these imposed deadlines.
(d) Have the conflict issues been framed in too general, or too
specific terms? Can an appropriate adjustment in the framing
of the conflict change perspectives lead to a breaking of the
deadlock?
(e) Is the impasse created by the demands of the opponents, or
their needs? Are there overlapping interests that could be
focused on?
(f) What insecurities or fears contribute to the impasse? Can
these be addressed?
(g) Would a party benefit from external expert advice, such as
share evaluations, audit reports, engineering advice, legal
opinion etc.?
(h) Are there any meaningful face saving concerns at stake? This
often cause impasse in conflicts, where a party may be quite

367
 satisfied with the negotiated solution, but where external
commitments, constituent expectations and other face
saving concerns may prove very strong. A party may, for
instance, be well known for a particular position that is
incongruent with the proposed solution, earlier expectations
may have been created, including publically and on social
media, and there may be financial considerations involved in
such solutions. Face saving concerns are crucial conflict
planning and strategic components.
(i) Have the benefits of cooperation and the disadvantages of
the failure of the resolution attempts been properly aired
and understood?
(j) Are the right questions being asked?
(k) What exactly are the options open to the parties? People
often do not accurately assess their own BATNA.

If you are dealing with a genuine impasse, and you are interested in
getting through that, make it clear to the parties that this is to be
expected, that it is a quite normal part of important and complex
conflicts, that it is not caused by the fault of the other, and that an
impasse often simply reflects the passion and sincerity of the parties,
and that this should be respected in moving forward. The
understandable stress and consequences of such an impasse often
causes parties to immediately ascribe blame for such event, and this
will invariably end up in blaming the other side. This now comes at a
time when parties may already feel exhausted or frustrated, and where
apparent deadlines or result expectations may be looming. We notice
from this that a skilful managing of the fact of the impasse in itself, not
just the deadlock on its own terms, is required.

(x) Assertiveness in conflict

Often in our conflicts the thin line between being assertive enough to
protect your interests on the one hand and being so aggressive that you
escalate the conflict on the other is a difficult line to find and stay on
the right side of.

368
Let’s consider the following as our assertiveness guide.

Firstly, let’s lose any squeamishness about being assertive. Done

correctly it is an act of care for yourself and for others. Conflict studies
and an understanding of their modern reach and application clearly
show us how not being assertive can lead to very toxic conflict cycles
such as those caused by conflict avoidance, we note that a failure to
assert our positions lead to communication problems, we do not do well
in the conflict differentiation stage and as a result of this people do not
know what we want, and conflicts have no real chance of resolution.
Resentments build, conflict rigidity enters the picture, and we are not
doing ourselves or our opponent any favours. Being assertive does not
mean that you have to be rude or unpleasant.

So, assertiveness done constructively can be an absolutely game-

changing conflict tool. Let’s look at a suggested sequence of techniques
in a potentially difficult situation, one that may escalate from a normal
social discussion or commercial negotiation into a clear conflict.

(a) Start your conversation on a positive, constructive note.

Example: “Our friendship is of great value to me, so that is
why I have decided to have this conversation with you.”
(b) Describe clearly and calmly what is bothering you. Use “I”
sentences and statements as opposed to blaming or
accusatory statements. Example: “I am very conservative
financially, and when I am asked for loans I feel very
uncomfortable. You have done this during this last year of
our friendship, and I am quite concerned about this. I feel as
if this is now affecting our friendship.”
(c) Ask and acknowledge. Invite the other person into the
conversation by asking for their opinion and input. Example:
“Have you noticed this? Why is this happening?” Thank the
person for that input, and where possible comment
constructively on that. Example: “Well, see how different we
are on that. I was not aware of that, thank you.”

369
 (d) In a respectful but assertive way, set new boundaries. The
problem and the response is now out there. This may be quite
uncomfortable, so slow things down, try to show that this is
difficult but valuable. Make sure that the other person knows
what is expected of them. Draw an unambiguous line in the
sand. Remember that blinking here causes problems later on.
You have done the hard work, push through and do a proper
job. Example: “OK, so that is clear now. You will not ask me
for loans again, and if you have financial difficulties you can
still talk to me about that if you wish to. I remain your friend,
I just do not want to be involved in that part of what you are
currently going through.” If need be, include a remark as to
what will happen if these boundaries are broken. It is best,
depending on the nature of the relationship, to escalate your
responses to such breaches, and to start with a mere request
for compliance, with no threats attached. Example: “I will
remind you of this chat if you forget.”
(e) Invite problem solving if appropriate and if required, but now
removed from the offending behaviour. In our example, your
friend can be invited to discuss the reasons for his dilemma,
what his plans are, you may be invited to give advice and so
on.
Remember that if you do this right and the other person takes offense,
that the problem may be with them and not with you. Assertiveness
delivered in a constructive, respectful and dignified manner should
never give legitimately rise to offence.

(xi) De-escalating powerful emotions

While most of the above nine conflict techniques may deal with strong
emotions, such as our section dealing with anger specifically, this
particular section will focus on a wider approach to those emotions, and
we will learn how to de-escalate those powerful emotions, whether
they are born from anger, sadness, frustration, fear or some other
source.

370
Before we look at the four-step de-escalation strategy, we remind
ourselves of the need to deliver our conflict help, either for the sake of
others or ourselves, with sincerity. A mechanical, colour-by-numbers
approach that fails to add a sincere delivery can often come across as
stilted, and perceived insincerity can be misunderstood and actually
lead to an escalation of those emotions.

The four steps then, or the Four A’s, as David Liddle calls them, are:

(a) Acknowledge – the sincere labelling of the emotion may help

a person struggling in the grips of strong emotions to be heard
accurately, and this may in itself lead to a de-escalation.
Even if you (sincerely and respectfully) get this labelling
process wrong, the person has an opportunity to correct you.
This acknowledgement is not a seminar on the emotion, you
do not discuss or, worse, judge it. Acknowledge the emotion
before you move on. Example: “I can see that you are very
sad about this.”
(b) Affirm their emotions – gently confirm that what they are
feeling is understandable under the circumstances, without
patronizing or insincere comments. Example: “It’s perfectly
normal to cry when this happens.”
Side note: refrain from parallel talking. Example: “I can see
that you are sad. I remember when my mother died, I could
not stop crying for weeks.” There will come a time for
exchanging experiences, now is not that time.
(c) Ask – ask open ended questions to try and ascertain the
correct cause of the emotion, if it is not given accurately.
Bear in mind that the person may not be aware of the true
cause, or be willing to share it. Even when identified, you
need not mention it or be seen to be judgmental about it.
Example: “I can see that you are anxious about something. Is
it something that happened here, in the office?”

371
 (d) Alternatives – when the situation allows, start to gently
explore options and alternatives. Please remember that this
need not be a corporate problem solving situation, and ideas
and decisions can always be revisited later at a better,
calmer time. All you want to do now is to distract the person
from what is overwhelming them, and to give them some
hope that the situation may not be as grim as they at first
may have assessed it to be. This must again be tempered with
realism and sincerity, and patently false hope or cheerfulness
is unhelpful here. Use affirming language, an appropriate
tone of voice and nonverbal communication, and be wary of
causing further frustration or despair in the way that you
approach the situation. As we dealt with earlier, also be
careful not to try and minimize the emotion felt by the
person (“Oh that, why are you so upset about it?”) At this
early stage alternatives are designed to show progress, the
possibility of problem solving, and even a bit of hope.
Questions here, at this stage, should be open-ended and
allowing the affected person agency and input. Example:
“What do you want me to do right now?” or “What do you
want to happen next?”

Please remember the correct application of context and individual

characteristics. The expressed strong emotions of others often draw us
into our own emotional escalation, and some reflection and practice
with a mindful noticing of these emotions, its escalation and how it
influences us could be of great profit to us all. If you feel drawn into
such escalation, especially during the earlier part of such conflict
development, simply use silence wisely. A respectful silence,
accompanied by the respectful and well-timed use of nonverbal
communication, such as the nodding of your head as encouragement,
can in itself de-escalate an initial emotional escalation, especially in
contrast to more harmful behaviour of your own that tend to escalate
such conflicts, such as matching their tone and volume, insinuations
and insults and so on.

372
 Conclusion

Conflict techniques can, as we can see from these selected examples,

be very practical and a part of our everyday life skills. Conflict
competency can be approached, just like music, art, chess, or one of
many other skills, on a spectrum of proficiency starting with some of
the advanced conflict concepts we deal with in this book, to these more
simplified techniques that may serve their purpose in specific problem
conflicts that we may have to deal with. Improving our conflict skills
along any part of that continuum is of lasting benefit to, at the very
least, ourselves.
We do not need to be victims of these conflicts, we need not feel as if
we have no or limited control over matters that are personally or
professionally important to us. We also need not be limited to the
superficial and often outdated conflict options that we see in use
around us. The fight or flight dichotomy has far more nuance than what
we may have used in our lives this far.
These are real world skills, with a positive impact in just about every
sphere of our lives. An increase in conflict competence, often even just
a marginal one, leads to an increase in confidence, which in turn often
leads to beneficial mental health results. We can be so much better at
our conflicts.

373
 RESEARCH AND SUGGESTED READING MATERIAL
(Chapter 14)

1. My article on social media conflicts and strategies can be found at

SOCIAL MEDIA CONFLICTS - A SURVIVAL GUIDE - The Conflict
Conversations (conflict-conversations.co.za)

2. A few practical techniques that may be used in domestic conflicts

can be found in my article at PEACE AT HOME - a few techniques
for domestic conflict - The Conflict Conversations (conflict-
conversations.co.za)

3. De-escalate, by Douglas E. Noll, Beyond Words Publishers (2017)

4. I write a weekly conflict column for The Herald newspaper. These

articles are short and often full of very practical conflict
techniques. They can be accessed by a subscription to The Herald
or purchasing a copy, and they appear every Friday morning. A 12
month collection of them can be found at One year of Herald
newspaper conflict articles... conveniently collected in one space
- The Conflict Conversations (conflict-conversations.co.za)

5. A few selected conflict techniques to be used when dealing with

the irrational can be found in my article at CONFLICT WITH THE
IRRATIONAL - The Conflict Conversations (conflict-
conversations.co.za)

6. For our conflicts with psychopaths, a few techniques that can be

found here CONFLICT AND THE DARK SIDE – CONFLICT WITH THE
PSYCHOPATH - The Conflict Conversations (conflict-
conversations.co.za)

7. Love Your Enemies, by Arthur C Brooks, Broadside Books (2019)

374
8. Conflict Resolution Playbook, by Jeremy Pollack, Rockridge Press
(2020)

9. Disarming High Conflict Personalities, by Jeff Riggenbach, self-

published (2022)

375
 CHAPTER 15: CONFLICT WITH OUR NEIGHBOURS
Policies and attitudes toward migration

Let them come and see men and women and children who know
how to live, whose joy of life had not yet been killed by those who
claimed to teach other nations how to live.

Chinua Achebe

Our leaders have responded by predominantly labelling

xenophobia a crime. This is true. In an obvious sense. But also
only partly true. The bigger, more horrendous truth is that it is
crime with an edge – an anti-migrant crime, an anti-African
migrant crime.

Edwin Cameron

Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu

African proverb

Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some

have entertained angels unawares.

Hebrews 13:2 (The Bible, RSVCE)

Complex challenges arise when our neighbour happens to be an

immigrant.

Pope Francis

376
 Introduction

The bronze sculpture “Angels Unawares” on St. Peter’s Square grimly

depicts migrants and refugees from different cultures and moments in
history. It reminds us of this perennial human situation and how various
nations have had to deal with this economic and moral challenge
throughout the ages. It also reminds us that the question still demands
an answer, an urgent response. This essay seeks to examine the current
South African policy and practical response to the question of migrants
and refugees present or coming into the country, whether our response
can be seen to be xenophobic or justified, what impact the current
position has on this particular and related conflicts, and whether there
are any measures that we can adopt to prevent or mitigate any
problems found in such assessment. The assessment will be viewed
mainly through the lens of conflict management principles.
In 2019 some 7% of South Africans were foreign born. By those same
statistics we were the largest recipient of immigrants on the African
continent. Migrants and refugees of various classes and causes live
among us and seek to start a new life here, or at least to try and earn
an income on a temporary basis. Adding significant numbers of people
competing for already scarce resources and jobs in a country still
suffering from jaw-dropping levels of inequality, poverty, lack of
relevant and commercially viable skills and education, unemployment
and the distrust, paranoia and fear that result from that was always
going to cause further conflict and tension.
Our legal framework is quite clear and unambiguous in dealing with
immigration. Our official policy recognizes immigrants and makes use
of various categories (for example those who can contribute to the
economy and those who cannot) to deal with the situation. Our
Constitutional Court judgments generally follow and apply a modern
and liberal approach to these rights and protections. It is however
closer to real life on the streets where the picture starts to change.
The general perception of the migrants, these Others, among the South
African public shows the tensions we referred to earlier in stark
numbers. A Pew Research poll conducted in 2018 concluded that 62%
of South Africans viewed immigrants as a burden on society (by taking

377
jobs, social benefits) and that 61% of South Africans thought that
immigrants were more responsible for crime than other groups. The by
now rather regular attacks on foreigners (see for example the May 2008
or April 2015 events) all emphasize the simmering unease, distrust and
resentment that many South Africans feel towards these immigrants.
Conflict with them always seems one incident, one torch-waving tweet
away.

Anti-migrant sentiments and policies approached as a

conflict resolution challenge

Sources and triggers

Conflict resolution theory and practice both exhort us to accurately find

the source(s) of these conflicts before we try to remedy it. While some
of these sources and triggers are quite self-evident (competition for
scarce resources, inequality, unemployment), others are less apparent.
The sense of threat perceived by the average citizen is turned into a
powerful political fuel, drumming up support and votes, deflecting from
governmental ethical and service delivery failures, creating a sense of
action, that something is being done about the other symptoms of our
often dysfunctional state. Whether by design or sheer insensitivity, we
regularly find public statements by senior politicians like Lindiwe Zulu
(Small Business Development Minister) claiming that foreign business
owners cannot expect to co-exist peacefully with local business owners
unless they share their trade secrets, or Gayton McKenzie tweeting that
“we will make life hell for illegal foreigners this year” (tweet dated 4
January 2022), and followed up with several similar tweets. A five
minute search on Twitter will gather an untold number of similar
sentiments, including those from senior politicians and leaders.
Researcher Christopher McMichael captures this tendency well:
“This shared state-corporate project of building up a 'fortress
South Africa' also reveals a deeply entrenched seam of
xenophobia, in which undocumented migrants and refugees from
African countries are painted as a security risk akin to terrorism
and organised crime. Parliamentary discussions on border security
are rife with claims that foreign nationals are attempting to drain

378
 social grants and economic opportunities from citizens. The
packaging of illegal immigration as a national security threat,
which often relies on unsubstantiated claims about the inherent
criminality of foreign nationals, provides an official gloss on
deeply entrenched governmental xenophobia, in which African
immigrants are targets for regular harassment, rounding up and
extortion by the police. This normalisation of immigrants as
figures of resentment may also fuel outbreaks of xenophobic
violence.”

Immigration has become an important conflict wedge strategy for

populist and right-leaning groups the world over, and it is irresponsible
conflict management to simply leave the issue to resolve itself. In
complex conflicts like migration policies and practices the original facts
and considerations get lost in the sound and fury, and the us-versus-
them dynamic takes over.
From the cautious denial and scepticism of presidents Mbeki and Zuma
to the more nuanced policy statements on immigration found in modern
day party political manifestos this cyclical conflict between South
Africans and migrants are rarely effectively addressed by South African
politicians. Our government’s recent public dispute with Zimbabwe on
the issue of special dispensation permits seem to be another example
of a migration issue that could have been handled better. Whatever the
origin of this inefficiency may be, whether it is for malicious political
gain or by sheer inertia caused by other seemingly more pressing crises,
our political structures should at this stage be seen as a part of the
causes, triggers and perpetuation of this simmering conflict.
Other, less apparent causes for these views must also be acknowledged
before we can be assured that we have accurately assessed the causes
of the conflict. The lasting effects of apartheid, especially where
people often had no other perceived remedy to oppression and threat
other than violence are there for all to see. We are an incredibly violent
society, and much of that has its roots in our past. Violence is still seen
as a solution to threats, real or perceived, especially when these threats
deal with the survival and prosperity of the parties. Properly
understood we then see the interconnected nature of our various

379
economic and political problems all clearly manifesting in our responses
to these” others”.

“So what is wrong with being xenophobic?”

To what extent though is the general reaction to foreigners unjustified?

How much commercial and moral value do international best practices,
policies and the experiences of Europe, the US and South America really
hold for a South African parent or child on the receiving end of
unemployment, hunger and other real world symptoms of our unequal
society? Does charity not begin at home, should South Africans not have
preference when it comes down to sharing out scarce resources? An
honest initial answer must probably be “Yes, of course”.
But does that solve any of these problems? A large number of South
Africans, if not a majority, hold very strong migration views that range
on a spectrum from increased and improved influx control to an actual
closing of our borders. It is disrespectful and, certainly from a conflict
resolution perspective, unhelpful to simply reject such views. Here our
society is indeed distinguishable from several other jurisdictions in
important respects. Our levels of inequality and unemployment often
make these conflicts much more of a perceived zero sum battleground,
at least in the popular understanding, than what may be the case in
Europe, where immigration may simply serve to (in reality or
perception) adversely affect issues relating to lifestyle, culture and so
on. The EU has, as a possible comparative example, extensive
experience in immigration disputes and related policies.
As a result of conflict work done in recent years the European concept
of liberty has evolved to mean, inter alia, that persons should have
direct access to and the capacity for participation in multiple
communities. Internationally we find several examples where
countries that have successfully integrated migrant groups reap the
benefits of such integration. The US is (despite its current disputes) a
particularly clear example of a beneficiary of the skills and power that
integrated diversity can bring, as is Switzerland and a few others.
Practical statistics on comparable African countries are harder to
assess. Anatol Rapoport reminds us of the problems surrounding

380
xenophobia and witch-hunting that we saw during the years of Soviet
isolationism. Brexit seems to be telling its own cautionary tale about
such isolationist policies.
John Paul Lederach, in his wonderful book “The Moral Imagination”
argues that
“We must not fall prey to the trap of narrowly defined dualisms,
which severely limit the framing of our challenges and choices. We
must find ways to nurture an inquisitive capacity that explores
and interacts constructively with the complexity of the
relationships and realities that face our communities.”

Other conflict experts, like Amanda Ripley, warn that

“Any modern movement that cultivate us-versus-them thinking
tends to destroy itself from the inside, with or without violence.
High conflict is intolerant of difference. A culture that sorts the
world into good and evil is by definition small and confining. It
prevents people from working together in large numbers to
grapple with hard problems.”

Any xenophobic tendencies here, if you want to argue that they exist,
would have to be seen through several historical conflict lenses. One of
those lenses is the debates around capitalism (in its many modern
forms) and its place in Africa. Inevitably, this debates spills over, and
should in all fairness, be included in the migrant debate in South Africa.
Agnes Wanjiru Behr states the capitalist-sceptical view as follows:
“Uncontrolled capitalism appears to favour the global North by
extracting resources from and exporting cultures to the South. It
weakens state powers, causing conflicts in the South. Where some
developing countries show some form of capitalizing like in South
Africa, it is not enough to cater to the population, leave alone the
immigrants it attracts. This form of “copycat” capitalism triggers
xenophobia. The neoliberal world outputs vulnerable, angry, and
fearful people due to job and social-cultural insecurities that
diminish social wealth.”

381
Pro-migration arguments abound, whether couched in in economic,
religious, moral, ethnic or other terms. An unemotional look at these
arguments of course show us that they are not compelling, not here,
not in many other countries, to the average citizen on the receiving end
of a series of real world results caused by poor leadership, service
delivery failures, unemployment, inequality and Covid-related results.
Populists will continue to find people willing to listen to their arguments
while these conflict cycles continue. If properly managed and
effectively integrated migration policies are going to become a part of
the South African reality. If, as I suggest that they can and should
become a part of a more focused and open debate national, then a more
practical approach to this process must be adopted than what is
currently the case.

Migration policies and xenophobia seen through the lens of

modern conflict resolution

And herein lies the benefit of taking a classical conflict management

approach to the question of our migration policies and alleged
xenophobia – questions such as whether it is in fact advantageous for a
country to allow migration need not be definitively answered before we
can move on and start making measurable progress. While I am
personally convinced of the commercial and moral wisdom of following
an enlightened migration policy, it is of tremendous strategic (and
hence political) value not to have to first deal with this debate before
we start working on the project itself. To solve the problem we do not
need to allocate a winner in the current debate.

Practical remedies

So let’s look at a few practical measures, taking this specialized conflict

resolution approach, that we can bring to our migration debate.

382
(a) Assess and confront the causes and triggers of the conflict
Here we need to avoid an understandable tendency to deny the problem
of xenophobia in South Africa. These efforts can be seen and heard from
political rallies to social media. Where incidents of xenophobia occur,
we must call them out and deal with them according to our laws as they
are in place already. We do ourselves as a country, and those suffering
from the conflict the most, no favours by denying the extent of the
conflict. On the macro level this of course means that government
should create jobs, revive the economy and renew confidence in social
structures, but of course individuals and communities can start
addressing this at grassroots level.

(b) Change and manage the narrative

South Africans often take offense at being termed xenophobic, and this
tag simply brings up the defences, which in turn leads to either a never-
ending or unproductive debate about preferences, relative rights,
loyalty of politicians and so on. Accept the legitimacy of the concerns
at the negotiating table and work from there. Break the us-versus-them
paradigm, and discourage politician and public figures from
manipulating this as a tool of division. Focus on, develop and publicly
discuss the joint goals and shared interests that South Africans may have
with immigrants (shared skills, employment creation, skills transfer
etc.). We can all change the way we look at this, speak of it and
approach actual incidents in our lives.
(c) Start using the correct tools for the job
Most organizations and individuals in South Africa that do participate
in the immigration debate still mainly use a fact based argument for
their respective points of view. Statistics and spreadsheet approaches
are used, and these facts are arrayed against each other in the various
instances of the conflict. While such facts are of course important at a
relatively minor level, such a strategy uses the wrong tool (fact based
arguments) in a conflict that is essentially one of values and identity.
Here case studies and research show convincingly that such fact based
arguments simply entrench people even further and cause further
polarization and cyclical conflict, despite the objective accuracy and

383
best intentions of the parties using such strategies. The arguments we
often see on social media and on the political platforms therefore
simply lead to further harm and conflict. The persuasive tools to be
used in identity/value based conflicts are very different, and those
involved in these debates and conflicts need to become competent in
applying them (see Chapter 4). Bluntly put, it is simply not good enough,
or of any meaningful use, to simply take a stand on the political
spectrum and to argue the matter from there.

(d) Build and enable community structures

Xenophobic violence is often caused by feelings of localised
helplessness, a feeling of being isolated and disregarded or
disrespected, a community’s sense of having run out of options, with
no reasonable alternatives left to them. Government and other able
organizations or individuals should create community level structures
that can effectively deal with the specifics of an escalating conflict.
This should include a certain level of organization and coherence,
persons skilled (at some level) in a practical understanding of the causes
and triggers of xenophobia, being able to mediate successfully and to
approach these escalations as joint problem solving demands, not as
acts of war to be retaliated against. Teach such groups basic conflict
resolution skills and ensure transfer and practical application of that in
that specific community. These informal structures need not be
standardized nationally, and effective models that respectfully deal
with local customs and problems can be engineered and even resourced
by government or anyone that sees the value of such a structure. It
need not even be new structures, as this function can simply be
incorporated into existing structures such as community forums, faith
based organizations and so on. Government may serve its own purposes
well by playing a limited role in education and maintenance of such
local groups.

(e) Ensure that all parties involved are heard

A large part of xenophobic violence that we see are the end result of a
period of pent up frustration, of individuals and communities coming to

384
a conclusion that their voices are not heard. The skilful management of
this, immediately, effectively and consistently, will prevent or reduce
much of these conflicts.

(f) Communicate better – create small victories, create hope

Government, these community structures and anyone involved at
grassroots level in these conflicts must seek to break the established
thought patterns of despair, defensiveness and hopelessness that may
be prevalent in that community. This must not be done with clichés and
polite rhetoric, but actual examples of hope and progress – small
successes in creating employment, collaborations between citizens and
“the other” that benefitted the community, examples where dialogue
brought about resolution and so on. This momentum must be built,
maintained and effectively communicated. The country’s problems
need not be solved overnight – for now just our street, our community,
with the inclusion of strangers among us. It is here where the provisional
acceptance of all views will be tested, and in time stand or fall.
Academic or intellectual arguments in favour of immigrant integration
and against xenophobia will be stillborn if the success and mutual
benefits of such integration cannot be shown to work over time.

(g) Other conflict strategies

A conflict resolution approach to the problem can be as integrated or
as localized as people may want to engineer it. Local conditions,
histories and perspectives can be accommodated respectfully and
weaved into short and long term solutions. In the beginning, teams of
trained mediators and other conflict practitioners can work with
communities to transfer the skills necessary for such communities to
take these projects further themselves. Several models for such work
exist already (for example the mutual obligations approach advocated
by Michael Emerson and George Yancey), and existing principles and
techniques can be adapted easily for local conditions. As several
historical examples have shown, such a campaign against xenophobia
can show very successful results if built around or supported by a
charismatic figure or respected local leaders. Campaigns can be built

385
around sport and entertainment figures. Inspiring work is being done
with storytelling and identity integration with children and adults. Many
of the tools engaged in establishing and propagating this “othering” so
inherent in xenophobia can be used to reverse such harm. Born of the
conflicts of Europe in particular, Pope Francis has advocated a simple
four phase strategy that could very well work in our environment, that
is to welcome, protect, promote and integrate.

Is there a commercial case to be made in favour of a pro-

migration policy, and what elements should such a policy contain?

We are considering migration and its related topics from a purely

conflict management and peacebuilding perspective. As such we may
be tempted to think that we need not be constrained by ordinary
political or economic considerations, and indeed, there are quite a few
conflict programs that seem to operate in that theoretical wonderland.
We however realize immediately that, for conflict management to
inform the real world of political and economic realities, and to
contribute something of real and lasting value to these problems, it
must indeed, inescapably, come up with solutions that earn their keep
in the realities of these environments.
I would argue that the abovementioned list of practical strategies
indeed are just that: real and measurable conflict management
solutions that have the benefit of research and experience behind
them.
But, as we have done with the question of workplace diversity (see
Chapter 6), we should have the confidence in our assessment of the
situation and not just rely on clichés and political slogans. Can a socio-
economic case be made for liberal migration policies, or would we need
to use conflict resolution principles to practically show, and convince,
South Africans to build workable consensus, empathy and other realistic
conflict outcomes?
It is one thing to simply ask South Africans to accept these assertions
on ethical and moral grounds (as if those are common cause), it is quite
another to be able to show them that the acceptance of a pro-migration
set of policies and societal attitudes is of benefit to them commercially

386
and socially. As we have alluded to earlier in the essay, it is not just
ineffective but also unfair to expect someone struggling for survival
amidst inequality and poverty to accept a set of policies because “it’s
the right thing to do”.
Such a strategy simply loses sight of the way that conflict causes
operate, and adds nothing to the stated goal of sustainably managing
the conflict and building peace.

In its best form, the anti-migration argument has a few threads that are
often repeated and which can be found in various forms in manifestos
and policies. These general foundational arguments say that:
(a) With our unemployment figures there is hardly any work for
South Africans, much less for competition from across our
borders;
(b) These migrants place a heavy burden on our already
dysfunctional or strained public services and benefits,
especially our health system;
(c) Migrant populations cause inordinate levels of crime, which
obviously then further negatively impact on South Africans;
(d) South Africa should be for South Africans, and an influx of
foreigners is generally harmful to our interests as a country.
These basic arguments then get mixed with rhetoric and misinformation
as the particular platform may require, and as we can see on social
media and on some political stages, these arguments take on a
particularly polarising tenor.
Statistics exist to bolster or counter these four main arguments, without
there currently being much meaningful consensus on any aspect
thereof. Where statistics do exist, one way or the other, it seems to
have very little practical influence in changing the minds of the
respective groups and alliances. Here we again see a very practical real
world application of the conflict principle that “mere facts” do not
really influence or persuade people if unskilfully applied in identity and
value conflicts.

387
As we have seen elsewhere in the book (see for instance Chapter 4),
the use of objective facts in value and identity based conflicts (which
the migration conflict would be a very clear example of) must be used
with great understanding of their value, and considerations of timing
and actual use are crucial. The wrong use, as we have seen, actually
exacerbates the problem. On this point we see ample examples of this
exact conflict management warning: repeated cycles of insult and
attacks on various positions in the media and from political platforms
simply drive people to double down on their positions, and the conflict
spirals and polarization gets worse.
Facts and statistics can, and should be used in these debates, but as we
have seen, this must be done in a particular manner, and in an enduring
national debate such as migration, these conflict management
principles will have to be applied in a sustained manner over a period
of time. Statistics that exist at this stage that speak to the four
questions that we highlighted above are generally contentious, at least
in the various ways that figures are used, and I believe that more work
will be necessary before a generally accepted case can be made on
purely socio-economic principles that would be persuasive to the South
African people. Until then, conflict resolution principles as we discuss
here will have to be used.

Polarization in South African society as caused by

the migration issue

Several of the conflicts and economic problems besetting South African

society contribute meaningfully to the escalation of this conflict, to the
increasing conflict rigidity amongst the various groupings, and in
general to a polarization that if not impossible to reverse, will be very
difficult to reduce and contain in future efforts.
We have the obvious contributions from inequality, poverty, economic
mismanagement, leadership failures and political manipulation, the
more subtle (if no less effective) causal link between the direct and
indirect manipulation of people by playing on their identity and value
concerns, exploitation of various insecurities and a long list of other

388
buttons and levers that continue to be used for profiting in votes,
financially and direct power.
This is a global phenomenon, and the creation and maintenance of an
external Other, an enemy at the gate, has never been easier for
leadership to parade than in the 21st century.

Some local reflections on our migration policies and

social attitudes toward migrants

If we accept that our migration policies and social attitudes towards

migration can, and do, play enormously influential roles in local and
national conflicts, it follows that as a country we have to effectively
deal with this conflict, both from the perspective of current, existing
conflicts as well as future causes and triggers for conflicts. Simply put:
do our recent policies and attitudes effectively limit or prevent local
and national conflicts (whether current or future conflicts), or do they
contribute to and exacerbate such conflicts?
These debates often stall right at the first hurdle: are we xenophobic
or not? For understandable reasons, it would be strategically unwise for
a group to admit to such xenophobia, so the intensity of this preliminary
issue can be understood.
For us to be effective in moving forward from where we are, we need
to take a cold, hard look at whether we are, either as a nation or in
specific instances, guilty of xenophobic conduct. This is, as we have
seen, a difficult and polarizing question in itself. We can gain some
insight into the question by a comparative study of the views of other
stakeholders and participants, in South Africa and in the broader African
context.
As far back as 1995, a report by the Southern African’ Catholic
Conference mentioned evidence of “xenophobic sentiments” in the
country. Since then the accusation has been raised and repeated often
by a variety of internal individuals and groups, and these often not
being migrants themselves.

389
Fritz Nganje of the University of Johannesburg reminds us of some of
the recent leadership responses we saw in the migration debate. He
says:
“In the aftermath of the 2015 xenophobic unrest in major urban
areas across South Africa, efforts by the Orange Farm LPC
(editorial insert: Local Peace Committee) to promote
reconciliation between foreign nationals and their South African
counterparts were held hostage by political party posturing within
the committee.”

He continues with his unflinching look at our policies:

“In South Africa, where a xenophobic attitude is entrenched in the
dominant power structure prevailing in townships and informal
settlements, some LPC have tended to embody and reproduce the
marginalization of, and discrimination against, migrants from
other African countries.”

These LPC’s have of course largely fell into disuse, even if the spirit of
their intended work and some of these goals remain.
Nganje credits more positive work, and the potential of the LPC system,
in the fields of conflict transformation, mediation training and so on
(citing for example the work done by the Action Support Centre).
Stephen Phiri (UKZN) cites Harrison Bronwyn’s grim reference to
“Indeed the shift in political power has brought about a range of new
discriminatory practices and victims. One such victim is The
Foreigner”.

African perspectives on South African migration policies

and xenophobia

Insofar as African perspectives on the manner in which we conduct our

formal and informal migration policies and attitudes are concerned, we
can have a look at a few of these perspectives and comments in recent
years. This comparative study is of value in that it prevents us from
becoming too parochial in our thinking on these challenges, and I would

390
like to think that we remain open to some persuasion or guidance from
the rest of Africa.
Of course here we need to recall, for necessary context, and as Arjun
Appadurai so vividly described for us, that “the past becomes a scarce
resource”. Africa is replete with xenophobic violence and migrant
related incidents, harsh policies against migration and the treatment of
foreigners and other conflicts which really leaves all of us looking at a
history that should have read better, with more instances of hope and
inspiration. Throughout this history, even if we only focus on the last
few decades, we see that push-pull conflict cause of an absolute lack
of migration control in its traditional sense in some areas, coupled with
harsh anti-migrant sentiments and de facto practices on the ground on
the other. History and opinions of that history as it relates to these
conflicts, how they influence these conflicts and policies all become
contested and the moral and ethical high ground shifts constantly.
This history, contested as it is, also leads to a conflict environment that,
as Anthony Oberschall sums up:
“After years of ethnic violence and xenophobic propaganda,
the restoration of live-and-let-live cooperation is problematic.
Mistrust, animosity, avoidance and ethnic separation becomes
the dominant folk beliefs and sentiments, and behaviours
in ethnic relations.”

(The quote is directly related to the Yugoslav migrant conflicts, but

remains fully relevant to the African experience).
We also, in this comparative study of the general African perspective
on our migration policies, encounter the argument that we are not so
much dealing with xenophobia, as Afrophobia. Sabella Ogbobode
Abidde and Emmanuel Kasonde Matambo argue that:
“This injurious phenomenon has opened the narrative that what is
often characterised as xenophobia in Africa and especially in
South Africa is, in fact, nothing short of ”Afrophobia”: disdain for
Africans by fellow Africans.”

391
Regardless of our views on this statement, it would be more difficult to
disagree with Victor Mlambo (UJ) and Andiswa Mkhwanazi (TUT) when
they say:
“While the South African government has argued that South Africa
(SA) is a welcoming country, its successive failures to address
poverty, inequality, and unemployment has contributed to South
Africans labelling migrants as job takers. Therefore, one would
argue that at the core of xenophobia are South Africa’s
socioeconomic problems. However, periodic utterances by
politicians who blame migrants for South Africa’s misfortunes
have also become a major factor instigating xenophobia.
Whatever the major causes of xenophobia are, continentally, for
SA, xenophobia has been devastating for the country’s political
influence.”

This remains true even if we wish to argue against the existence of

xenophobia and if we choose to replace that word with something else,
such as anti-migration sentiments. The South African government is
quick to dismiss anti-migrant violence as ordinary criminality, which is
not helpful.
There are arguments in this category that ascribe any South African
xenophobic tendencies to a legacy of the apartheid past, of being
isolated from Africa and for its divisive and brutalizing effects. This is
a popular argument on the continent, and does contribute value to an
accurate assessment of our position.
As essay after essay in the magisterial study Xenophobia, Nativism and
Pan-Africanism in 21st Century Africa (full reference in
reference/suggested reading section below) clearly indicate, South
Africa’s approach to migration policies is generally not well received in
the rest of Africa. The charge of xenophobia is argued from different
perspectives, and is difficult to completely dismiss.

Our migrant conflicts set in a global context

We should not lose sight of the fact that our migration policies,
attitudes and conflicts play out against a global backdrop of economic

392
and political dynamics that have an inevitable influence on our
situation. Migration debates and conflicts are nearly daily news events,
from migrant caravans in the US to the various European disputes.
Omar Grech, dealing with these conflicts in a post-Covid world, sums
this up particularly well:
“For local communities, increases in levels of unemployment and
decreases in levels of disposable income may likewise cause social
discontent. The tendency to perceive migrants as being too
numerous and that they cannot be integrated socially and
economically may also increase in a post-Covid world of economic
decline and booming unemployment. In an environment where
feelings of insecurity are growing, the “migrants steal our jobs”
mentality may only be exacerbated irrespective of its
factual basis.”

The pandemic has had significant consequences in the way that we

view, and apply fundamental human rights, and this has crucial
implications for these conflicts. Grech again:
“If in the post-pandemic phase these inequalities are not
addressed or are even exacerbated, the risks of a “war between
the poor” in the form of conflict between the worst-hit locals and
migrant communities, will become more likely. Post-pandemic the
current dominant model of economic growth at all costs will only
increase tension and possible conflict if expected inequalities
arise.”

Existing inequalities are thrown into sharp relief by these

developments, and polarization, with all of its attendant conflict
drivers, sets in even more quickly and more efficiently.
These perspectives can hopefully serve to guide us in the difficult
debates that lie ahead, and also serve to remind us that we are not
living in an isolated corner of the continent, but in a vibrant,
interconnected world where isolationist policies, for all their apparent
populist attraction, simply do not work.

393
 Conclusion

I do not believe that we are inherently xenophobic. To the extent that

such tendencies may be present in our society they are created or
exacerbated by the threats that we looked at above. This understanding
does not excuse any of the parties involved in xenophobic conduct and
rhetoric in this complex, cyclical conflict. Far too many acts of
criminality involving immigrants exist, far too many acts of xenophobic
violence fill our media and our communities to be excused or wished
away. Our politicians often play a toxic role in this process, whether it
is in the discreet dog-whistle to their current or new followers, or the
crude and blatant war-cry. It is high time that our politicians (at all
levels) take responsibility for the fire that they are playing with.
Migration policies and rhetoric have all the dynamics of conflict
manipulation and abuse, as we can see worldwide. Any successful
national policy to oppose xenophobic tendencies should make use of a
combination of socio-economic measures and improvements, human
rights, conflict resolution and peacebuilding techniques.
Globally, there are efforts at social reconstruction happening that are
mirrored here in our policies. National conflict management in the
modern world, especially the post-Covid world, requires an
understanding that there may be a practical difference between
peacebuilding and justice. The goals of justice and peace must both be
pursued at all necessary levels, but they may have different journeys
and different requirements. Nowhere is this important difference more
clearly emphasized than in migration debates. The effective balancing
of peace goals with practical, everyday justice requires a deep
understanding of conflict causes, amongst other disciplines. The one
goal cannot, at this level, exist without the other one being achieved,
at least to a degree.
Until such time as we can assure South Africans of hope and a future,
this festering conflict will continue to grow in hostility and social
polarization, and create its own conflicts. Approaching this situation
from a focused conflict management perspective brings all of the above
benefits and addresses our other problems at the same time. We can,

394
as activists like Ben Phillips so often show us, build power together. And
who knows, in doing so we may meet some angels.

RESOURCES AND SUGGESTED READING MATERIAL

(Chapter 15)

1. My News24 article on our migration challenges, “Angels

Unawares”, published as a two part piece, can be found here
Angels Unawares... our News24 article on xenophobia - The
Conflict Conversations (conflict-conversations.co.za) and here
Xenophobia... "Angels Unawares" article, part 2 - The Conflict
Conversations (conflict-conversations.co.za)
2. My television interview with ENCA on some of these migrant
conflicts can be viewed here: Conflict between South Africans and
foreign nationals... the developing situation - The Conflict
Conversations (conflict-conversations.co.za)
3. In 2022 I was a panellist on Prof Thuli Madonsela and the
University of Stellenbosch’s Law Trust Chair in Social Justice
Expert Roundtable discussion on immigration, xenophobia and
these related topics, some of which details can be obtained here
Prof. Thuli Madonsela's Expert Roundtable discussion on
xenophobia - The Conflict Conversations (conflict-
conversations.co.za) and here Media release: Expert roundtable |
The Law Trust Chair in Social Justice (sun.ac.za)
4. Essay on Migration and the Covid-19 pandemic” by Omar Grech in
“Conflict resolution after the pandemic” as edited by Richard E.
Rubenstein and Solon Simmons, Routledge (2021)
5. Xenophobia, Nativism and Pan-Africanism in 21st Century Africa,
edited by Sabella Ogbobode Abidde and Emmanuel Kasonde
Matambo, Springer (2021)

395
 CHAPTER 16: RECONCILIATION IN SOUTH AFRICA
Is there a place for reconciliation in South Africa?

Memory is a weapon.

Don Mattera

Apartheid has fallen, see, we die right next to each other now, in
intimate proximity. It’s just the living part that we still have to
work out.

Damon Galgut

… when the previous relationship between the parties has only

been conflictual it is illogical and demeaning to the victimized
group to expect them to put aside their differences and focus on
some phantasy of a shared, harmonious past.

Valerie Rosoux

I wondered if that was how forgiveness budded, not with the

fanfare of epiphany, but with pain gathering its things, packing
up, and slipping away unannounced in the middle of the night.

Khaled Hosseini

396
But to look back from the stony plain along the road which led one
to that place is not at all the same thing as walking on the road

James Baldwin

Reconciliation deals with the residues of conflict and trauma:

events that have brought pain and suffering to a great number of
people.

Emma Hutchison and Roland Bleiker

Once the realization is accepted that even between the closest

people infinite distances exist, a marvellous living side-by-side
can grow up for them, if they succeed in loving the expanse
between them, which gives them the possibility of always seeing
each other as a whole and before an immense sky.

Rainer Maria Rilke

397
 Introduction

Personally, I believe that at least the question of reconciliation in South

Africa affects all of us here, whatever we believe the answer should be,
and whatever happens with this question in our future. Even the
question itself seems to often run on various levels – the practical, the
political, the emotional, the economic, pure conflict resolution
principles, and several others. Arguments seem to deal with one topic,
but often include one or more other conflict causes, drivers or results.
In whatever way we choose to deal with the question, even if it is only
to ignore it, it is a constant companion, one that continues to have a
marked effect on our current and future conflicts, our prospects, our
hopes and dreams.
If you tend to agree with me on that, whatever the content of your
reconciliation narrative may be, it hopefully follows that there is a
value, a heuristic process at play here whereby there is a value in the
questions themselves that we ask ourselves, over and above the answers
we may come up with.
Conflict resolution theory certainly shows us, as some of the topics in
this book reflect, the strategic value in asking the right questions, in an
extensive differentiation phase, in ensuring that the dynamics of timing
and sequence (the ripeness of a conflict) and the necessity of having all
the information on the table before we start building solutions.
With that in mind then, I continue to find value (and comfort) in
struggling with these questions, as much as they may seem to be
generating new questions and problems, and as frustrating as our
apparent lack of progress may be.
Throughout this essay then, we will try to ask the right questions,
hopefully thereby continuing and invigorating the reconciliation debate
in ways that could lead to new answers and solutions.
In doing so, we take a relatively fresh look at the challenge, specifically
in approaching it not as a primarily political or economic question, but
as a conflict resolution challenge. This does not necessarily change

398
what we see, but it changes the place from where we see the facts, and
sometimes that perspective change brings about its own benefits.

Let’s then add a few more questions to the inquiry. Have the various
groups and factions involved in the protracted South African conflicts,
as caused and triggered by apartheid and its aftermath become
reconciled? Have meaningful numbers of individuals done so? What is
this reconciliation that is mentioned, and what does it look like in
practice? Is it morally defensible in the South African context, and is it
necessary for any national interest? Can an argument be made for
national reconciliation and its pursuit simply on the basis of a
realization that failing to do so continues to create new, cyclical
conflicts?

What is reconciliation?

Like so many important concepts in the South African political arena,

reconciliation seems like a simple idea, until we start to really look at
it from up close. When can we say that conflict parties have become
reconciled? When there is a formal peace treaty or written agreement
of some sorts? When a formal peace process like our Truth and
Reconciliation process has been concluded? When people live together
in peace, or accept each other at some meaningful level? Have South
Africans become reconciled in any sense of the term? Is reconciliation
a process or a result?
Was the rainbow nation a mirage? Does anyone still believe in the goal
of reconciliation? In many important respects, South Africans remain as
divided as ever, if not more so. While Bruce Whitfield (in "The Upside
of Down") rightly points out the progress made in important areas, and
our attendant unfounded pessimism in certain instances, the additional
and sustained pressures of the recent Covid pandemic, its enduring
consequences and the relentless parade of leadership failures all
continue to place pressure on already fragile relationships.
The cracks are widening in several important areas. From sustained
calls and campaigns for the secession of the Cape (in many shades of

399
detail), an apparent increased shrillness in political discourse, even
among colleagues in the same party as well as across party-political
lines, from paid social media influence campaigns and interest groups,
from persistent factional feuds to cronyism in government, it would
take a brave or deluded soul to claim that we have reached
reconciliation as a nation.
But what does this holy grail of reconciliation mean? When are we
reconciled? Is it an objective goal, does it rely on numbers or statistics
of some sort? Is reconciliation of any practical value to anyone in South
Africa, leaving aside any considerations of moral or ethical value?
The premise of this essay is that we have not achieved reconciliation
(in any of its normal uses) by any meaningful matrix, that it is not
strictly necessary that we do become reconciled, that it is nevertheless
important and of great real world value that we do so in one or another
definition of reconciliation, and in a legitimate and credible manner,
and that we need to start working on this project as a matter of some
urgency. The closest that we have come so far in achieving
reconciliation, if we argue that reconciliation is a process, is that we
have at some level started with that process. As far as that is
concerned, I do not believe that reconciliation is a process or a result,
as that causes significant difficulties in the practical application and
use of the concept. It should best be seen as a hybrid of both, part
process and part result.
More specifically, I am calling for a return to a more substantive
reconciliation negotiation process by all interested parties in trying to
achieve this goal. I find it disconcerting that for some we have become
reconciled and that it is time to "move on" - for others, we are doing
alright and we can muddle along, and for others still that time for
reconciliation has passed and that the time for alternatives has arrived.
None of those conclusions are entirely accurate or in our best interests,
either as individualised groups or as a nation. The way that we have
been going about this these past three decades is outdated and
insufficiently courageous. We have time left to us, but not much, and
we need to get it right this time.

400
 Working concept of 'reconciliation'

Let’s see if we can pin down a working concept of "reconciliation".

We have to get as close to the idea as possible for effective debate. In
order to do so, a few additional questions may illustrate the complexity
of even the definition of the term. Can reconciliation be negotiated?
How do we distinguish between reconciliation and restitution? Is this
the same as forgiveness?
Not surprisingly, academic and even fieldwork show little consensus as
to what reconciliation is, and what the necessary conditions for that
would be. Some very good South African books on the topic in recent
years have underscored the definitional and conceptual difficulties that
some of these debates run into right at the start, and how that bedevils
further constructive discussion. Conflict resolution and peacebuilding,
as academic disciplines, have continued to research and debate these
concepts quite vigorously, with the result that we have an increasingly
robust understanding of some of these concepts and challenges, as well
as an increasing array of possible solutions. In approaching the concept,
and the debate, from political, social or economic perspectives only
much of the benefit of the conflict resolution work has been lost or not
optimized.
In comparing a few of the more rigorous attempts at such a definition
we find that it is often an attempt at pinning the elusive concept down
by using other nebulous concepts. So we find such definitions seeking
to define reconciliation as "trust", as arriving at "the truth", as
"transformation leading ultimately to an identity change". None of
these efforts are of particular practical help, and we can hardly arrive
at reconciliation if we do not know what it looks like. A truly South
African definition would therefore best be crafted before any further
work on this gets done (in my view, as part of an extended and
revitalised return to a formal negotiating process), but let's get back to
the definition challenge below.
While we do not need to specifically assess and discuss the contents of
each of these divisions, I agree with Valerie Rosoux that it is helpful to
approach political reconciliation with three categories in mind, the
structural, the psycho-social and the spiritual. A further and closer look

401
at this shows that the first division deals with the issues at stake, while
the latter two mainly deals with the relationship between the parties.
Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd referred to this third
category as “the sacrament of reconciliation”, a rather apt description
under the circumstances.

Why is reconciliation necessary?

I have, in struggling with this question from a South African perspective

for many years, come to a simple answer: reconciliation isn’t strictly
necessary. If the question is structured as a simple invitation to
convince the listener conclusively of the need to reconcile then the best
debate in its favour must simply lead to the exercise of a personal
choice, a preference. I believe that a compelling case can be made for
reconciliation (once we know what that is) in South Africa, and that this
can be done on two main grounds, but I do not accept that
reconciliation can be compelled by force of these arguments alone, or
that this will be necessary.
As we will see in this essay, I believe that a strong if qualified argument
for reconciliation can be made based on the entirely personal benefits
that can flow from reconciliation, and a possibly more mercenary
argument based on the benefits that can be achieved from the stability
that may follow on old conflicts and new being resolved successfully
and in a lasting, transcendent manner. We will briefly consider both
these arguments here.
Reasons why we have not reached reconciliation

One of the main reasons why I believe that we have not reached the
reconciliation that we need as a nation is the inchoate state of the land
question. Recent research on the land question, as well as some
objective statistics in the experience of land claims, have shown that
the land issue may be over-emphasized or even misunderstood as a
conflict driver, but it remains an emotive and important facet in the
debate, and as a tool in the strategies of many politicians.
Reconciliation in a South African context will, to a large extent, be built
around restitution and the delivery and management of perceptions and

402
expectations around that topic. In many respects, this requirement is
simply a manifestation of the conflict resolution principle that
resolution, and by extension reconciliation, is not possible unless it
includes justice.
What exactly this land issue entails, what the options of resolution are
and other practical considerations should all form part of this
discussion.
The skewed power relationships of the past have led to skewed land
ownership, and this, like in conflicts such as Palestine, Zimbabwe, the
Balkans, Liberia and so on, must be acknowledged as a legitimate and
crucial part of the debate. What the true need and demand for “land”
may be, what alternatives exist and what modern expectations of that
outside of political rhetoric are could certainly do with clarity and
focus.
Our own reconciliation efforts lost speed and energy very early on, as a
result of a range of apparently justified reasons. Topics like the land
question were seemingly deferred because of its potential for conflict,
and there was also clearly an expectation that a democratically elected
government would effectively run with such reconciliation processes
themselves.
Even the academic field of conflict resolution lost interest in South
Africa as a laboratory, presumably for the same reasons. These
considerations, laudable as they may have been at the time, have,
however, led to a few clear fault-lines in our society and its efforts at
crafting its own identity and the reconciliation of seemingly divergent
interests and even values.
The best we can say in the defence of these delays and neglects of the
pursuance of the reconciliation project is that timing is a crucial
dynamic in conflict resolution, and that the present moment is a better
opportunity for taking further such reconciliation efforts than say the
transitional period would have been.
But there are other reasons why we cannot say that we have reached
reconciliation, by most definitions of the word. Here I have to agree
with Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela, a South African clinical psychologist,
who argues that in all the good work done and achieved by the Truth

403
and Reconciliation Commission, it has not sufficiently addressed and
dealt with the emotions of those traumatised. As several examples of
conflict in this book show, we are not as rational, as cold and
commercially interested as we would sometimes like to believe. Our
conflicts often run on other, more important tracks than a simple
“reasonable” approach.
This is certainly not to turn these events into a soap opera of cheap
emotion or opportunism, but to identify, acknowledge and respect the
deep seated emotions, their triggers and conflict drivers that people
are still dealing with to this very day. Between well-intentioned
ignorance, time and resource pressures and a current, more cynical
demand to “move along” we have never really dealt with the trauma of
this conflict as a nation, and I still regularly meet people who clearly
have not had the benefit of those emotions being acknowledged or dealt
with. The passing of time is of no solace or help in conflict trauma if
the root causes and triggers remain, if the conflict trauma is left as is,
embedded in everyday life.
This is also not an isolated opinion. It has nothing to do with cheap
emotions or sentimentality. Hutchison and Bleiker (see article
reference below) argue convincingly that to seek to exclude emotions
from these conflict processes is an approach borne out of an earlier
understanding of emotions as irrational, possibly harmful to reasonable
thought processes, and of justice as a result free of passion, as opposed
to a process that respects and includes emotion.
Modern conflict resolution understands that perceptions, reflections
and our choices are often “an inseparable mixture of emotional and
rational processes.” Logically, these unresolved emotions create
communities of fear and anger. Fear, anger and resentment remains,
even though the primary and more visible conflict causes and triggers
may have been removed or minimized. The prevailing approach, in
political, law enforcement and even peacebuilding arenas remain one
where security and stability are the main, or only concerns.
Psychological concerns are seen as being of a lesser priority, something
that can be addressed later.
This is exactly what the Truth and Reconciliation Commission got
wrong. Too many of these deep-seated emotional traumas and

404
unresolved conflicts were acknowledged, but not resolved, and tacitly
or otherwise left for “later”. This is not to say that security and stability
should not be our primary concerns, only that the emotional impact of
unresolved conflict leads inevitably to lasting, cyclical and generational
conflicts. This, the emotional component of these unresolved conflicts,
is where we find both an important cause of current and future
conflicts, but also a compelling reason why reconciliation, for whatever
stated reason, can benefit the individual and communities involved, as
well as the country itself. To turn the question here into our earlier
division: is reconciliation necessary when we consider these ongoing
emotional concerns and faultlines? Presumably not, in the strictest
sense. Is it advisable, is a common good, something that people can
greatly benefit from if we do become reconciled? Yes, when we
consider these emotions and how they remain unhealed and unresolved
all these years later, the benefits of comprehensive reconciliation
should become clearer.
As Gobodo-Madikizela illustrates, the current models of reconciliation
and healing are simply not enough. These should include strategies that
foster meaningful interaction between victim and perpetrator,
between different groups, if true reconciliation is to be achieved.

A process for moving forward: a Truth and Reconciliation

Commission (TRC) 2.0

In trying to continue to see the challenge through a specialized conflict

resolution lens, I call for a more focused and dedicated renewal of these
reconciliation efforts, specifically some form of national reconciliation
negotiation forum - call it the TRC 2.0 - until someone names it more
appropriately.
Conflict resolution theory and practice inform us that cyclical and
complex conflicts reach a stage where parties start considering their
best alternatives to such conflicts when three requirements are met.
These requirements, namely instability, a mutually hurting stand-off
and a mutually attractive set of alternative resolutions that are seen as
better options, have, in my view, been reached.

405
As this brief discussion this far has shown, there are at this stage more
questions than answers. What will constitute a truly South African
reconciliation? Who should reconcile about what, when, how, why and
even if reconciliation is necessary - the fact that these questions seem
to have many possible replies underscores my (and others') suggestion
that the time has come for the urgent institution of such a
reconciliation forum, one supported and implemented by the
government, one having as open and robust a discussion as necessary
across as wide a canvass as possible and including as many parties as
possible.
The more isolated call for submissions on the land question recently has
shown some semblance of what can be achieved if this is conducted
efficiently and managed properly.
Such a process, advisably guided or even conducted by skilled
mediators, can in a relatively short and cost-effective manner bring
great clarity to our questions as raised above; gather invaluable
information, take great strides towards the resolution of intrinsic
questions such as the land question, and above all, work towards a
specific reconciliation programme, with goals and timeframes
determined as a part of such a respectful, inclusive process, where the
ultimate achievement is a marked and measurable improvement in our
reconciliation as a nation.
I would suggest a two phase approach to such a reconciliation process,
with the first phase collecting information from individuals, activists,
local communities and as wide a range of stakeholders as possible, and
which information then gets discussed and used constructively at a
second phase by a selected group of politicians, business leaders and
other constructive contributors. Such a process can be guided by
modern mediation guidelines, and can, if so decided, culminate in
meaningful legislation.
As even a brief consideration of the questions and issues at hand shows,
these challenges will need patience and skill. Definitions and outcomes
cannot be imposed, at least not without a thorough reconciliation
process and programme having been conducted. Anything short of that
would, right from the outset, be antithetical to the very concept of
reconciliation.

406
 A brief note on reconciliation and power

Any reconciliation efforts in South Africa, at any level possible, must

bear in mind the influence of power on reconciliation – power that was,
power that tries to hold on to the status quo, power that seeks to simply
change dictatorships, power that seeks its own benefit rather than
societal benefit.
Power is a crucial dynamic in conflicts, and in a protracted,
generational conflict such as the South African political environment it
has of course had decades in which to become entrenched and hidden
in all walks of life.
Conflict expert Kenneth Cloke describes these power dynamics well,
and there is much here for us to take heed of in our conflict
environments.
“For these reasons, power always triggers resentment, along with
a desire for its equalization and a demand that it be transferred
or shared. These incite power to defend itself and counter-attack,
recycling the conflict, justifying its escalation and discouraging
completion, closure, disappearance, and prevention. What is more
important, these dynamics occur in all conflicts regardless of
scale, allowing petty, purely personal conflicts to fuel significant,
social ones, and vice versa.

Thus, small-scale interpersonal brutalities lay the foundation for

large-scale dictatorships, torture and the systematic organization
of social hatreds. Even the smallest bully creates a space and an
archetype for larger ones, making bullying socially acceptable and
encouraging it to spread. In this way, every small-scale demeaning
or diminishing behaviour, every refusal to listen or negotiate,
every exercise of power or contempt, every effort to repress or
curb one’s opponents, magnifies the social and political power of
tyranny, making completion and closure more difficult on every
scale.

There is, of course, a fundamental distinction between power

against, which instills fear; power over, which triggers
resentment; power for, which encourages participation; and

407
 power with, which builds collaboration and trust. Power is a
relationship rather than a thing. Through its diverse forms, one
can distinguish debate from dialogue, adversarial from
collaborative negotiation, and moralizing from consensus over
shared values. Power arises in every human interaction and is
invariably present in conflict. Yet power is fluid rather than
fixed, allowing one kind of power to be transformed into another.

In this way, changing the nature of people’s discourse and moving

from debate to dialogue, or from lecturing to listening,
fundamentally alters power relationships, increases genuine
humility and collaboration, and encourages resolution,
forgiveness, and reconciliation through interest-based processes
that lead naturally to completion, closure, disappearance, and
prevention. As rights are ultimately based on power, they are
similarly impermanent and dependent on society’s willingness to
limit abuses of power, and stabilize the ways it will be shared,
balanced and manifested. In a muted way, everything that can be
said of power can also be said of rights, except that rights rely on
technical distinctions, bureaucracy and institutionalization, which
power simply ignores. For this reason, while power encourages
contempt, resistance and rebellion, rights encourage alienation,
cynicism, and purely procedural interventions.

In the end, power and rights are both inconsistent with affection,
collaboration. and integrity, partly because they generate
contempt and indifference, while affection, collaboration and
integrity dismantle them. Carl Jung also found these elements
mutually exclusive, writing: “Where love lives there is no will to
power; and where power predominates, there love is lacking. The
one is the shadow of the other.”

This shows us the interlinked dependencies between power and rights,

and how these considerations have an impact on our conflicts in
general, and reconciliation in particular.

408
 A duty to repair our reconciliation efforts

If reconciliation is regarded as a common good, as something worth

achieving even if for pragmatic or selfish goals, then we now have an
opportunity, even a duty, to repair or build on the reconciliation efforts
of the recent past.
A well-constructed and implemented reconciliation process, such as we
referred to above, would benefit from all our combined, focused and
expressed anger, frustration, hopes and dreams, and wise leadership
would be able to take all the current dispersed energy and build
something worthwhile and lasting from that... a South Africa that is
reconciled as a result of a modern, updated process that its own people
designed, debated and implemented.
In addition to these initial challenges inherent in a meaningful
reconciliation project for South Africa, including a suggested process
that could get and keep us focused in order to become a reconciled
nation, I have argued that I believe that we are not, in any meaningful
sense, a reconciled nation, and that we have urgent, complex and
important work ahead of us.

We have asked more questions than arrived at answers in our discussion

thus far. These are difficult questions, running along deep emotional
lines, involving narratives that are of crucial, identity-shaping
importance to the majority of the people involved. The briefest
investigation around the braai fire or on social media will show that, as
can be expected, South Africans do not agree on what this
“reconciliation” should entail. For some, it has a largely economic
meaning – reconciliation must come with tangible, immediate economic
benefits. Failing to do so, by this understanding, means that inequalities
caused by the past remain unresolved, and this could never form the
basis for any meaningful reconciliation. For others, reconciliation would
mean that we move on from the events of the past, and that, as they
would seek to convince us of, enough time has elapsed for us to now
focus on what lies ahead without the need for meaningful compensation
or redistribution of assets.

409
This brings us back full circle to my earlier observation that the mere
question of our reconciliation has value to us, and the different heated
or indifferent reactions to the topic should tell us that much remains to
be done. As Rwandan survivors wish to remind us “People are not here
any longer. But ghosts stay around.” Maybe, as Richard Holbrooke
reminded the people of Berlin post-conflict, a sounder strategy is not
to wish those ghosts away, but that they should remain, be
accommodated, be respected, that they are there to remind us of the
past.
Reconciliation cannot, should not have one simple meaning, but we do
need to find some level of agreement on what that concept would
include, what aspects of the conflict and the aftermath would need to
be addressed for any such efforts to count as real reconciliation. Other
shades and hues of meaning ascribed to this concept of reconciliation
can of course be found, but these seem to be the most popular two
divisions.

As if to emphasize the need for urgent progress as far as reconciliation

is concerned, I believe that we are witnessing an increased polarization
between the abovementioned groups, some ironically still seeking
reconciliation in apparently incompatible ways. The “other side” is
increasingly vilified and viewed with distrust. The one group is accused
of confusing reconciliation with economic self-enrichment and another
group with wanting to “move on” in order to safeguard their privileges
and unfairly gained assets, with many other nuances and distinctions
added to the question. This lack of progress with reconciliation
inevitably leads to frustration, a loss of confidence in the process and
its possibilities, and it provides a fertile environment for those
benefiting from our continued polarisation and other, more anarchic
options.

Even with a formal reconciliation negotiation process as I have called

for earlier, a fine line will have to be walked by those involved in such
process between an authoritarian declaration of what such
reconciliation must look like, and being held hostage to malicious or

410
unrealistic views of reconciliation. I believe that an urgent, skilled and
representative process can achieve this goal in a matter of months, and
with minimal costs involved.

The framework of the eventual concept of reconciliation will, in my

view, include a few important concepts that few people of goodwill will
argue with. Reconciliation cannot be successful without justice,
without comprehensive representation from the largest group to a
single street community, it has to be transparent, the process has to
have as much integrity as can be mustered, and must be conducted in
a robust but respectful manner. A multi-disciplinary use of best
practices in fields as diverse as conflict resolution, land and spatial
planning and development, economics and finance and others as may
prove necessary must be valued and pursued. Politicians must have an
important but not dominant role in these discussions. The two tiered
approach that I have suggested earlier on can give them an increasingly
important role as we leave the data and opinion gathering stages and
move into the formulation and implementation stage. And right there
we have the start of a foundation upon which the harder, more
contentious work can follow.

As the concept hopefully starts to appear clearer as we chip away at

the rock within which it is encased, we may achieve further clarity by
adding a few ideas as to what reconciliation is not, or should not be.
Reconciliation, if done correctly, is not cheap emotion, it is not an
effort to turn us all into one homogenous group of best buddies. It is
not a substitute for the hard work that lies ahead to fix our economy,
our unemployment, our education and skills challenges. It is not a
delaying tactic to achieve justice or a solid foundation upon which to
build the country that our children deserve. It is not a quick fix, it is
not disrespectful or dismissive of the blood and the tears that brought
us here. Reconciliation is not revenge, it is not a subtle continuation of
dominance of the one group over the others. It is not a shield to protect
those who should step forward and accept responsibility and
accountability.

411
What remains to be discussed and negotiated once this level of clarity
has been reached? Conflict resolution research and case studies show,
as indicated, that reconciliation on the national level consists of three
major components, being the structural (the interests and issues at
stake), the psycho-social and the spiritual (the latter two dealing with
the relationships between the parties). In our position the former can
really be focused on through discussions on institutional reforms that
may still be necessary. The guiding philosophy here can be the
integration of all groups in a democratic polity, the restoration of
human and civil rights where this may still be lagging, and a fair
redistribution of wealth. As far as the relationship between the parties
are concerned the healthiest approach would be to lay the foundation
of a new relationship between them, while fully respecting and
acknowledging their past relationship in as open and honest a way as
possible.

What is the “justice” that we should be seeking during such a process?

Does it have a mainly economic component, can we afford to meet the
expectations that have been allowed to grow in the darkness of political
neglect of the reconciliation project? Is it enough to remove as many
obstacles and disadvantages to human flourishing as we can manage
given our constraints? How long should such a process run for, should
be community or state driven, managed and guided? The contentious
and complex nature of these questions, as simple examples, again
highlight the urgent necessity for the inclusive and urgent reconciliation
process discussed earlier.

Does reconciliation include, or even require, forgiveness? This term

does not have to be seen as a theological concept only, as policy makers
and scholars have convincingly argued. As much as FW de Klerk, for
example, has often argued that forgiveness is less an outcome or result
than it is a precondition for reconciliation, I do not believe that these
two concepts are synonymous or that forgiveness needs to be such a
precondition. There are several current modern models of

412
reconciliation that allow for co-existence without forgiveness. Whether
forgiveness has other personal advantages I will leave up to the
individual reader to decide.

Reconciliation, remembering and the narratives of truth

In an importance sense any debate about reconciliation requires a

debate about the narratives we have about the past, what needs to be
done, what is important and who creates and controls those narratives.
Truth finding, truth retention and the importance of divergent
narratives of that truth should all be considered and understood.
Here I would like to think that South Africans in general have the
benefit, if we want to be constructive about this, of a relatively clear
understanding of what happened in at least their recent history. As a
result of various reasons the apartheid past has been relatively well
preserved, and I cannot see much of a significant challenge to what
happened being put forward. It seems more in the arena of what to do
with that information, where to and how to move forward that we are
getting stuck. By this I do not mean that there does not exist a wide
array of past narratives, but in its essence I believe that we have a clear
enough picture of what happened in, say the last century, to be able to
work with that as our foundation.
This question of truth narratives is of greater practical importance than
what may be apparent at first glance. While some may easily suggest
that we disregard this “truth”, any requested or expected deviation
from an accepted truth narrative may very well be experienced as
demanding and threatening to some parties.
Prof Rudolf Schussler (University of Bayreuth) has done valuable conflict
work on reconciliation and how these truth narratives can lead to some
very difficult questions around moral compromise. His work shows how,
as seen from our respective truth narratives, any movement towards or
compromise with an erstwhile opponent may seem like a moral
compromise, something which not many people want to do. Schussler
however shows rather effectively how moral truth is in any event often
very difficult or impossible to establish, and that we make these moral
compromises all the time in other spheres. The result is then that if we

413
bracket these apparent compromises, to use his term, and set
legitimate conditions for that bracketing or limited acceptance, there
should be nothing untoward in making such moral compromises. We do
not need to feel as if we have violated our truth narratives or values.
Schussler also warns against enforced homogenization of these truth
narratives. He makes the point that, as an example, enforced or
coerced continued public apologies can quickly become performative
and lose any integrity and sincere value that they may have had, and
that we should not “impose indignity as penalty” on previous
perpetrators.
More important than the establishment of a single “truth”, as we can
see if we follow this line of reasoning, would be other common goods,
other end goals to be pursued. Here we could make use of goals such as
Margaret Walker’s moral repair, with its six requirements of
(a) assumption of responsibility by the wrongdoers
(b) acknowledgement of wrongdoing
(c) reinstatement of moral standards for conduct
(d) building of trust in standards and compliance with them
(e) building of trust and trustworthiness between persons
(f) strengthening of adequate moral relationships between
perpetrators and victims
In dealing with these topics Schussler is aiming for no more than a so-
called modus vivendi (an arrangement between conflicting parties to
coexist peacefully, one of the conflict models that would not require
forgiveness). This approach has the benefit of not having to deal with
competing truth narratives or in achieving any of the more lofty and
ambitious traditional reconciliation goals that inspire some and leave
others demotivated or despondent. Schussler concludes with:
“However, to my best knowledge no empirical proof
exists that more than a modus vivendi is required for a
reasonably well-functioning political community.”

414
As we can see, the truth and people’s difficult journeys in retrieving it,
maintaining it, acknowledging and respecting it, is of great importance
in our assessment of our conflicts here in South Africa. The truth,
however defined, can lead us towards healing and stability, or deeper
down our paths of destructive conflict. These conflicts must be skilfully
managed, not neglected like we are seeing so often. Our Truth and
Reconciliation project has done invaluable, if incomplete work in that
regard. In the intervening years conflict studies have come to a more
comprehensive understanding of truth and how it can be retrieved and
managed effectively. As we have seen, the question of what to do with
the truth, if and when we arrive there, is in itself contentious. An
insistence on truth retrieval and retention is important, effectively
dealing with it is important, and this process we will need to get right
this time. It may very well require a creative engagement with the
different truths, without causing any of the causes, triggers or
insecurities that we have dealt with. It may require, to use the
wonderful term coined by Laura Filardo-Llamas (in relation to the 1998
Northern Irish Good Friday agreement), engagement with a
“discursively paradoxical reality”.
How this complex but crucial subject can influence us, and how to
approach it, can maybe best be glimpsed from the following excerpt,
using various sources, from Prof Paul Arthur’s excellent study on
Memory retrieval and truth recovery:
“A complementary question would be to ask: why not leave the
past behind? There can be perfectly understandable reasons why
people insist on remembering. It is a way of avoiding oblivion. A
Guatemalan human rights activist provides one reason: ‘The war
created fear, a lack of communication, a lack of confidence, an
inability to resolve conflicts. You can’t reconcile with the living if
you can’t reconcile with the dead’.”

Further on in the same essay he says:

“Remembering and forgetting, then, carry their own health
warnings. Memory is multifaceted and manipulable. It is traumatic
and capable of political appropriation. But lack of it can lead to

415
 oblivion. Perhaps the best we can expect is that we acknowledge
that ‘the past is one of those issues that can only be dealt with
when it has become less important, and this occurs when the past
is about the past and not about determining the future’. It was
the South African TRC that reminded us in the most dramatic way
possible that ‘the most difficult task of all…is to remember and
forget-not in the sense of collective amnesia, but in an altogether
different way: as a release from the full weight and burden of the
past.”

(For the full references and authorities cited in this passage, see the
Paul Arthur article reference in the suggested reading section below.)

Peacebuilding and reconciliation

As we will see in the next essay, the concept of peacebuilding and how
that is structured has significant consequences for the chances of
reconciliation to be a viable option in a society. Has the way that our
initial peace been structured, with the negotiated trade-offs and the
TRC approach, retarded or compromised our reconciliation?

Important conflict variables in the reconciliation process

Valerie Rosoux very helpfully points out three important variables that
we need to consider in our assessment of our chances of anything
approaching a successful reconciliation process. These three variables
are
- Leadership: leaders play an essential role in successful
reconciliation efforts. Someone should at least start the process
of a better understanding of the other, and to motivate others
to make a journey that this leader has undergone as well.
Examples would include Charles de Gaulle, Nelson Mandela and
Bishop Tutu. As Prof Mark Anstey points out: “The use of violent
and contentious tactics by an opponent is far more helpful to
those resisting reconciliation than those supporting it.”

416
 - The robustness of institutions: this includes societal and
governmental levels. Former adversaries will only work towards
reconciliation if they perceive such process as useful and
profitable. To establish and run joint projects and joint
platforms for this to be achieved would mainly be the work of
those institutions. This is a fundamental requirement in order
to obtain popular support for such effort. Our past has created
cyclical conflicts and violence that gets perpetuated into our
daily lives, and robust and enduring systems are essential for
this to be done in a sustainable way. Does South Africa have any
such remaining institutions?
- Timing: the crucial conflict element of the ripeness of the
conflict and the willingness of the parties to consider
reconciliation is here of some importance. Time in itself, as I
argue here, however, is not enough to bring about such conflict
ripeness, we also need other factors to be in place. Has the
passing of three decades since democracy hurt our reconciliation
aspirations, or are conditions ripe for progress with such efforts?
Do we need more time?

Conclusion

What should our aim then be as far as the question of meaningful

reconciliation is concerned? Is it too late, can it be ignored, will it arrive
all by itself after enough time has elapsed? Is a modus vivendi all we
can, and should, be aiming for?
Can we gather practical guidance from other countries and post-conflict
groups?
Professor Mark Anstey asks the very pertinent question whether we can
distil valid and helpful principles and lessons from other, global
reconciliations that have worked (say Franco-German or US-Japanese
examples), or whether each conflict will have to be approached as
being unique. Sri Lanka, Burundi, Rwanda and South Africa all face
internal reconciliation challenges, but it is prudent to acknowledge
their very different conflict realities. I lean towards acknowledging the
value and importance of general principles but an accompanying

417
understanding that every conflict and its reconciliation will ultimately
stand or fall on the reading and implementation of local conditions.

Anstey sums up our specific position with customary insight:

“Belligerents have competing memories over the past, different
views about dealing with these, and once shared hopes for a non-
violent future have been expressed, different expectations as to
how relations should be structured moving forward. Simply finding
a way to co-exist into the future without resort to violence may
be sufficient for some, but others demand justice for previous
abuses and atrocities, or aspire to a deep qualitative change in
relations, and beyond that, fundamental changes in the shape of
political and economic relations. In these differences lie the seeds
for further rounds of violence-and conflicts that simply mutate in
their expressions and form. In South Africa steps to transform the
demographics of ownership and participation in the economy have
given rise to new conflicts even as parties broadly agree that
change is required. Understanding the need for land reform for
instance does not deal with who it should be removed from,
or shared with, or keeping farms productive or wider
food security issues.”

We have looked at the various benefits that reconciliation, in the wide

sense of that word, may bring about on a personal or even community
level. I would suggest that reconciliation is a worthwhile and even
commendable goal for us here in this conflict ravaged country, but that
it cannot be imposed on people. We have taken some initial steps on
the road to a reconciled future, but those efforts have been
inadequate, and they have become stalled. Too much of the benefits of
reconciliation have been left in the hands of political and other leaders,
left in the very hands of people who may benefit from our division. We
have looked at a suggested joint national project of reconciliation, and
how the mechanics of such a project can be constructed if there is
sufficient political and popular will for such reconciliation to happen.
It is not going to happen just because we live together, or just because

418
enough time has elapsed. Time, as we can now see in South Africa,
harms unresolved conflict more than anything else.

One thing that seems clear above all else in considering the contents
and place of reconciliation is that we cannot be prescriptive about any
part of it. Compelled reconciliation is an absurd concept. If
reconciliation is going to happen it will need certain structural reforms
and campaigns, such as some of the ideas that we have discussed here.
It will need a real, on-the-ground sense of justice to be achieved by the
majority of South Africans. It will, maybe even more than any such
structural steps, need a lot of personal and individual effort, such as
we have seen these last three decades. Reconciliation work on
ourselves, helping our families and communities, helping those who
need, and want, help in reconciling, are all good places to start for
those who wish to work with reconciliation. The motives for such
reconciliation, whether they are of a purely selfish nature, for personal
healing, for stability, for economic growth or whatever else seem of
secondary importance.

But conflict studies also show us other lessons learned from global
conflicts and their aftermaths. We see, for instance, that reconciliation
efforts are hampered seriously if a party feels that they are being
humiliated in the process. Our considerations earlier on about the value
and importance of face saving in conflicts, as one instance, should help
us with better understanding these processes. We see from other
conflicts that the search for the truth, however defined, can in itself
become a new battleground. How is this issue impacting on our own
reconciliation debate? Have we managed to successfully reframe the
lenses and focal points through which the past conflict and future
reconciliation is to be approached? And speaking of the truth, what
progress have we made insofar as apologies, remorse and reparation
are concerned? These are all essential conflict building blocks. Do we
have what Steven Pinker calls the moralization gap, where victims tend
to enlarge their suffering while perpetrators minimize their culpability?
Personally I believe that we have generally made good progress with
establishing the truth of what happened, even though we have a long

419
way to go on what to do with that truth. Big questions remain, as we
can see. We can continue to add new, relevant ones as we go along. For
example, when, in what way, and by whom, should the past at some
stage be relinquished, if at all?
How important is our economy to all of this? How many of these complex
conflict considerations would remain if we had low single digit
unemployment figures, if we had a booming, stable economy? Without
economic stability and sufficient growth, how should reconciliation
efforts be adapted?

As this essay shows so clearly, there are so many remaining questions.

Maybe we are so bereft of answers because we have not been asking
the right questions. For those of us, amongst whom I count myself, who
keenly believe in the need for and eventual success of reconciliation, it
feels as if we have wasted so much time, that we have so very little to
show for the last three decades.
In its own strange way, I believe that the way that we debate the
question of reconciliation will in itself have consequences and an
impact on any future negotiations. If this is correct, what damage is
being done by efforts to secede parts of the country? Anstey clearly sees
reconciliation as a form of preventive negotiation. As the current
debate around reconciliation shows us vividly, reconciliation needs to
adequately respond to a wide spectrum of involved parties, far wider
than just those conventionally found around the negotiating table.
Wrapped up in the question of reconciliation lies buried so many other
emotions, concerns, aspirations. This serves to confirm the clear
conflict resolution principles involved in the entire process. Conflict
resolution, mediation, peacebuilding and other related disciplines have
crucial contributions to bring to what lies ahead.

Henry David Thoreau asked us whether we can think of a greater miracle

than seeing the world through each other’s eyes, even if for an instant.
Maybe that is all the reconciliation that we are capable of at this stage,
maybe that is the best place to start. Maybe that miracle is all we need
to get us going.

420
 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READING
(Chapter 16)
1. On the question of the morality of reconciliation, see my article
at THE MORALITY OF RECONCILIATION IN SOUTH AFRICA - The
Conflict Conversations (conflict-conversations.co.za)

2. Negotiating reconciliation in peacemaking, edited by Valerie

Rosoux and Mark Anstey, Springer (2017)

3. My December 2021 radio interview on reconciliation with 702’s

Mandy Wiener can be found here: Reconciliation interview on
Radio 702 - The Conflict Conversations (conflict-
conversations.co.za)

4. My article on social identity and intergroup conflict can be found

at SOCIAL IDENTITY AND INTERGROUP CONFLICT IN SOUTH AFRICA
- The Conflict Conversations (conflict-conversations.co.za)

5. No future without forgiveness, by Desmond Tutu, Rider (1999)

6. Essay “Reconciliation” by Emma Hutchison and Roland Bleiker in

Handbook of Peacebuilding (1st edition), Routledge (2013)

7. The Crossroads of Conflict, by Kenneth Cloke, Good Media (2019)

8. Handbook of Conflict Analysis and Resolution, edited by Dennis

J.D. Sandole and others, Routledge (2015)

9. Essay Memory retrieval and truth recovery by Prof Paul Arthur, in

the Handbook of Conflict Analysis and Resolution, supra

10. On some of the current dangers of mishandling unresolved

conflicts, and opportunities lost, my CapeTalk radio interview with
Refilwe Moloto on the Zuma incarceration crisis can be found here
How the Zuma stalemate might have been resolved, says dispute
specialist (capetalk.co.za)

421
 CHAPTER 17: PROJECT PEACE
Peacebuilding and nonviolence in South Africa

The elements of a conflict interact like a system or machine where

each part of the conflict interacts and reinforces other parts of
the system. There are no quick fixes or impacts in most complex
conflicts. Often, multiple parts of a system need to change before
the system of conflict changes.

Lisa Schirch

I say hope is not negotiated. It is kept alive by people who

understand the depth of suffering and know the cost of keeping a
horizon of change as a possibility for their children and
grandchildren.

John Paul Lederach

Human rights, focusing on securing enough for everyone, are

essential-but they are not enough.

Samuel Moyn

There is no peace because there are no peacemakers. There are

no makers of peace because the making of peace is at least as
costly as the making of war.

Daniel Berrigan

422
 The life of peace is a difficult balancing act between the inner
work and the public work, a high-wire trapeze walk that requires
calm, patient, step-by-step mindfulness toward our goal.

John Dear

The wealthy and the privileged often determine the problems and
solutions without having a single conversation with those who
need the help. Not only does this disrespect the very people we
are called to prioritize and honour, its ignorant posture often gets
the proposed solutions tragically wrong.

Charles C. Camosy

In the final outcome the state in liberal democracy ceased to be

an institution pursuing the common good, but became a hostage of
groups that treated it solely as an instrument of change securing
their interests.

Ryszard Legutko

Poverty is fundamentally about a lack of cash. It’s not about

stupidity. You can’t pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you
have no boots.

Joseph Hanlon

The more we sweat in peace the less we bleed in war.

Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit

423
 Introduction

The well-respected development economist Paul Collier estimated a

few years ago that the average civil war in Africa has an economic
impact in excess of US $64 billion. Closer to home our own conflicts,
from the unresolved conflicts lingering from apartheid days to
corruption, poor leadership and management, inequality,
unemployment, factionalism and a seemingly endless list of others all
continue to take an incredibly destructive toll on our economic and
developmental potential and threatens our future prosperity and
survival.
In this essay we will have an in-depth look at the conflict concept of
peacebuilding, especially the integration thereof with other related
disciplines, and how that can be used as a conflict management tool
that also brings us to stability and growth such as we need so
desperately. In that process we will also consider a few other conflict
tools that can be used in our South African context as an effective
remedy for our specific problems, and here we will study the theory
and practice of strategies such as nonviolence and a few others.
While peacebuilding, in its widest sense, often does get used to steer
groups at war to peace, we will see that it has a wider, more relevant
contribution to make in the South African socio-political environment.
We have a variety of conflicts that have by now formed an interlinked
loop of self-perpetuating cause and effect environments, the one
conflict contributing and complicating the next. All of this plays out in
what could arguably called a peaceful environment. As Prof Roger Mac
Ginty reminds us, the absence of conflict does not necessarily imply the
presence of peace. Peacebuilding, as we shall see, is an active and
constructive way of dealing with the everyday problems and conflicts
of a country and/or various groups.
These many complex conflicts, with their many causes, triggers, co-
dependencies and suggested solutions, require a more scientific, multi-
disciplinary and focused response from all involved, and I believe that
it is here that conflict resolution in general, and the peacebuilding
strategies discussed here can, to varying degrees, make significant
contributions to South Africa’s Project Peace.

424
At the outset, and as this is a specialized conflict study, we need to ask
ourselves whether South Africa is ready for these strategies. One of the
important conflict resolution principles used in complex, protracted
conflicts is, as best explained by scholars such as William Zartman, the
question of “ripeness”. In simplified terms this reminds us that specific
conflict stages exist, and that techniques and interventions must be
timed and sequenced correctly to derive maximum benefit. Efforts at
settlement, negotiation, reconciliation and practical solutions to the
conflict can be conducted too early (when certain events are still too
fresh or unassimilated), or too late (when a sense of distrust and despair
may have settled in). I believe that South Africa has reached such a
stage of ripeness of several of its larger conflicts, despite our political
dysfunction.
Peacebuilding, including in Africa, has achieved an established and
respected place in conflict studies and practice, as confirmed by Festus
Kofi Aubyn (speaking of developments since the 1992 use of the concept
by Boutros Boutros-Ghali in the landmark UN Agenda for Peace):
“Since then peacebuilding research has emerged as a recognized
domain of rigorous study of peace and conflict in Africa.”

Some of these conflicts find their causes and triggers in the economic
dysfunction of our country, others will need our endemic corruption,
unemployment, inequality and poor service delivery to be effectively
addressed. For that to be addressed in the time that we may have
available to us, government would need to play a significant role in the
elimination or alleviation of these conflicts. But to what extent can we
realistically expect government, at national or local level, to be willing
and able to do so? At best, what are the timeframes involved? The South
African experience the last two decades have shown that, far from
being a source of imminent solution and progress, the government has
been utterly inefficient at addressing most of these conflicts and their
causes, and in many respects have been an important part of the causes
of such conflict. Trust in and respect of government abilities and
institutions as effective answers to our problems seem to have
diminished to an all-time low across a wide array of communities and

425
social strata. Recent times have seen the rise of alternative political
parties and groups, political debate is more urgent and focused on
change, and even the national debate on the migrant situation is, in its
own important respects, a sign of large sections of our nation being fed-
up with government’s continued failed promises.

What then is peacebuilding?

PEACEBUILDING – an extended definition

For purposes of this essay we will need a slightly extended definition of

the concept than the working summary we looked at in the definition
essay (Chapter 2).
Peacebuilding is not easy to define and pin down, and a quick read
through available literature or listening to practitioners discussing their
work will immediately show how many diverse and nuanced versions
and understandings of this concept there are out there.
Prof Solon Simmons sets out the different “types” of peace that we
could be dealing with in this wonderful summary:
“Hobbesian thinkers dream of peace as security for the political
community. Lockean peacemakers, dream of peace as liberty for
the rational individuals that make up society. Marxian
peacemakers dream of peace as economic equality for the people
who labour with the sweat of their brow. And Fanonian
peacemakers dream of peace as dignity for the oppressed
peoples, who have been left outside the categories of prior
politics. Each of these forms of peace is about overcoming
injustice. Each is about the appropriate uses of power. Each is
about realizing core values.”

We will return here to an increased understanding of peacebuilding as

a concept, but for now we can note its complex nature, its many
different applications and that it is a set of techniques and strategies
that assist parties in their conflicts (whether before during or after wars
and major conflicts of different types) in arriving at constructive
resolution and the maintenance of such progress through various

426
mechanisms, so as to truly achieve the full potential (in economic and
political terms, at least) of those groups and regions.
Peace in the modern world, and as I work with it, is rightly such a
difficult and complex concept. It means so much to so many people,
but it means different things to different people. And that is as it should
be.

Possible uses of peacebuilding and related strategies in

South Africa

What practical uses would the knowledge and implementation of

peacebuilding and related strategies have in modern day South Africa?
While some of the more well-known campaigns and individuals of the
field arose from countries and areas that were in the process of
democratization and even proceeding with war, most of the current day
conflict principles of peacebuilding remain. The discipline has also, as
we can see in some of the definitions, expanded quite consciously so as
to now include post-war conflicts and the efforts of people to live
together as constructively as they can.
Whether we view South Africa at this stage as a post-war or post-
conflict society, or simply a society that has been through the
equivalent of a war and which is still working through its current
conflicts, we can see several areas of practical value for these
peacebuilding principles and strategies.
Such practical applications can, for convenience sake, be approached
as either democratic solutions, or solutions that may be argued are
slightly outside the normal democratic arena in that they do not always
use democratic principles.
In the former category our knowledge of these principles and strategies
can simply make us better politicians, or help us to guide, convince our
elected officials to productive and effective political, democratic
policies, and to hold them accountable. In the latter category we can
use these principles and strategies in more entrenched and intractable
conflicts, where standard democratic techniques such as voting do not
bring about the required conflict outcomes, and where more

427
unconventional (but still lawful) strategies like boycotts, social media
campaigns and some of the other strategies that we will be looking at
in this essay, can be applied.
We see traces of these strategies in South African society, often used
without a comprehensive understanding of the theoretical or practical
requirements of such conflict strategies, or its potential, especially in
grassroots community campaigns and media conflicts.

Peacebuilding – some caveats

Before we assess the contents and potential of peacebuilding as a

conflict management tool relevant for use in South Africa, we need to
be aware of a few challenges that contemporary peacebuilding, for all
of its popularity and growth globally, are grappling with.
While I see peacebuilding as the general solution for global and national
conflict, these limitations should be addressed and resolved in the
interests of transparency and the credibility of the involved processes.
Practitioners find ways to deal with these issues already, but further
scholarly and popular work on these issues can only benefit all involved.
This is, in my view, the more so if peacebuilding is going to find a place
of integrity and practical value in our landscape.
The challenge is succinctly stated by Prof Roger Mac Ginty in the
Routledge Handbook of Peacebuilding (1st edition):
The most significant ideologies that shape contemporary
peacebuilding are related to a liberal optimism that believes that
societies can be perfected, and a trust in institutional fixes. In
many cases these “liberal peace” interventions are well
intentioned, but they carry along with them immense cultural
baggage. The vast majority of peacebuilding initiatives occur in
the global south but are designed, directed and funded from the
global north. This is hugely significant. It means that, for many
people, peacebuilding is something that is “done” to them. It is
imposed as part of a wider set of power relations in which actors
from the global north, and elites in their own country, hold many
of the top cards.”

428
Global peacebuilding, both in its research and practice forms, is being
questioned on its pervasive assumption of certain common goods as
universally common good goals for all countries. These assumptions
include the establishment of liberal values such as the rule of law, open
economies, democracy, human rights and their interpretation along
liberal guidelines and so on. It is assumed, if not always explicitly
stated, that these values are key conditions for sustainable peace in
conflict affected societies.
This approach has gone hand in hand with a mode of thinking, again
often present if unspoken, that these external countries and
organizations have “the answer” to all global conflicts, and that this in
turn led to a standardised template approach to conflict resolution and
peacebuilding globally. These rather rigid approaches have been
propagated not just by the global North and western societies, as we
can see from this 1998 statement by the then UN Secretary-General,
Kofi Anan:
“… in the absence of genuinely democratic institutions contending
interests are likely to seek to settle their differences through
conflict rather than through accommodation,,, Democratization
gives people a stake in society. Its importance cannot be
overstated, for unless people feel that they have a true stake in
society lasting peace will not be possible and sustainable
development will not be achieved.”

Whatever our views on such an approach may be, this uniform approach
to some of these ideals, democracy in particular, have recently been
questioned by several scholars and research projects, showing that in
certain instances democratic competition can rekindle and deepen
conflict between groups. These developments act as valuable modifiers
and policy instruments in tempering the original one-size-fits-all
approaches. As indicated (inter alia by MacLeod):
“External attempts to promote …’peace’… will succeed only when
local notions of social order are accommodated”.

It is inspiring to see that these tendencies are being tempered, in theory

and in practice, by moves towards a recognition of those universal
principles and strategies, but that local conditions, wisdom and

429
solutions must also be included in both the strategies and the grassroots
level implementation of peacebuilding. This widening of perspectives,
methods and solutions is partially driven by a more multi-disciplinary
approach to peacebuilding, with important input provided by social
psychology, economics and anthropology. The various conflicts that
South Africa has endured, from colonialism to apartheid to the post-
apartheid conflicts, often exhibit relatively unique causes and
symptoms, and a template approach will clearly not assist us
comprehensively. This expansion of original approaches is leading to
hybrid solutions, especially in the global South, conceived and applied
as local conditions and histories require.

We will keep an eye on these valid concerns throughout this essay, and
address these concerns as part of our wider discussion. It is of
immediate value to realize that the value and benefits of peacebuilding
as a body of conflict interventions can be used internally, by the
political or community structures, or even by the individuals, or a
country or region, and that any concerns about motives or outside
manipulation can largely be addressed in that manner.

Peacebuilding and the problem of problem-solving

A heading like that, while quietly reminding us of the all too common
paradoxes that conflict and its resolution bring about, also speaks to a
reality that needs addressing in modern conflict management and
peacebuilding.
Politicians, specific communities and various involved organizations
often focus exclusively on the short-term resolution of a particular
conflict. This is understandable, and as it should be. Peacebuilding and
conflict management work gets designed, commissioned and executed
with that specific goal in mind, and immediate relief is gained. My own
work illustrates this to me on a daily basis.
What modern peacebuilding studies however seeks to add to the tool
kit is an expanded view of these conflicts, and where possible, to design

430
and implement solutions that would have not just a short term impact,
but which may address and resolve longer term considerations.
Politicians and business leaders are often under understandable
pressures to “fix the problem now”, before the next election or board
meeting, and of course these conflicts and problems must be resolved
as best as can be under the circumstances. It is however also observably
correct to state that these conflicts can often deliver both long term
and short term solutions with the smallest change in focus and
emphasis. This requires a subtle but important recognition that the
quick-fix, the politically popular solution may not be the best resolution
of a particular conflict, and the inclusion of such reality in the skilful
resolution of that specific conflict.

Peacebuilding – taking back control

Well-placed cynicism and despair aside, government will have to play

an important role in addressing our larger cyclical, even generational
conflicts. But as our political dramas unfold and develop, with no real
guarantee of effective change, it is also becoming easier for South
Africans to become despondent, to wonder whether change is possible,
and to simply accept their burdens as inevitable. This type of situation
is of course, as recent international experience highlights so vividly, a
very receptive environment for several shades of populism and fascist
arguments to become popular. As people tend to suffer more against a
backdrop of despair, these “solutions” become more attractive and
easier for some politicians to exploit and use for their own agendas.
This is not the resolution of the conflicts, but simply exchanging the
name tags on our problems.
In this volatile vacuum we can consider the value of the individual and
community tool of peacebuilding. Simply put, this means the efforts of
individuals and groups to grapple with these conflicts in their own way,
often in a localized and unsynchronized manner, with no real over-
arching plan and often in a largely ad hoc manner. These would include
activists, non-governmental societies, and a variety of specialized
interest groups. Actual examples of such work in real life would include

431
GBV activists, service delivery community groups, environmental
activism and so on.
Peacebuilding is a wide term that, in its best form, simply indicates
these individuals and groups working towards the resolution,
preventing, limiting or transformation of conflicts in their private or
professional lives, in their communities and in such a manner as they
are able to. Such work ranges from the most informal, ad hoc attempts
to much more sophisticated networks and organizations. The scholar
and conflict expert Prof Roger Mac Ginty uses the wonderful term
“everyday peace” to discuss this tool, and it is perfectly descriptive in
its simplicity. Small acts of peace, that have the capacity to disrupt
conflict patterns and systems, and that have the potential to grow into
something more substantial, are all included in this useful umbrella
term.
And, as we can see, this is not “peace” as a pacifist, detached approach
to problems, this is not looking away, this is not meekly accepting our
conflict realities. And herein lies the inspiring energy of this concept –
the ability, the potential of everyday people to make a real and
immediate difference in their own lives, in their own communities
without having to wait for government or business or bigger
organizations to one day hopefully get to these results.
Well-known peacebuilder and activist Ben Phillips reminds us of our
responsibilities and the work that lies ahead:
“If there is one generalizable lesson of social change it seems to
be this: no one saves others, people standing together is how they
liberate themselves. It can be slow and it’s always complicated
and it sometimes fails – but it’s the only way it works.”

A timely reminder of our South African roots

While peacebuilding is a complex and developing field of study and

practice globally, we need not view this as a foreign transplant that we
now need to somehow make a part of our conflict strategies. As we will
see later on, we have the basic foundation for peacebuilding right here,
and the South African society has been using at least the concept and

432
framework for decades, to great effect. Our history, even during recent
decades, tells of practical, actual and very successful applications of
the concept, such as various non-violent and civil disobedience
campaigns, social and community support networks, a combination of
resources and ideas (even on a community level), co-ordinated protests
and so on. The very concept of ubuntu is in essence premised on
community coherence, co-operation and joint progress and benefit.
Before we then have a look at a few practical ways that we can bring
peacebuilding into our own lives, what would the benefits of such an
approach be?

Benefits of localized peacebuilding

Peacebuilding then, especially in the sense that Mac Ginty uses it, has
several real benefits that we can benefit from here in our current South
African situation. Some of these benefits can be summarized as
follows.
 It is an important type of peace, often the small, real examples
of what is possible, across racial, tribal or political lines,
consisting of single or isolated islands of examples, as
inspirations. Small, everyday examples of peace, dignity and real
progress built by real people in the real streets of their
communities start acting as inspirational examples of what a
better life looks like, not in abstract terms but in the lived
realities of people in that community.
 It encourages us to think beyond formalised, stale ideas of peace,
where peace only consists of efforts by governments, of formal
treaties and agreements. Local, street by street, house by house
peace and a transcending of harmful conflict becomes an
additional goal.
 It encourages us to rethink levels of connectivity and influence.
Peace, and the ability to achieve it, now not only lies in the hands
of governments or large groups, but in the ability of individuals
and groups to use local influence, contacts, resources,
knowledge to make progress.

433
  It forces us to respect and acknowledge localised experiences of
peace. There is a danger of falling victim to a hegemonic
narrative where we universalize some version of reality as “this
is how things are in South Africa”. This, as we have seen, can
lead to despair and incentives for harmful political rhetoric.
Peacebuilding shows us that different communities may have
different experiences, different skills, different results. We see
progress, positive results flowing from application, from
perseverance.
 In the same way, it forces us to respect, compare and possibly
use different methodologies in the day to day work we do,
learning from each other, from other examples. This tends to
support and strengthen small local networks.
 We get to re-examine some of the standard ideas of power, and
we can see living reminders of the power that may reside in
community structures, family units, elders, charismatic
individuals and the various real-world uses of power.
Peacebuilding should never be some patronizing series of gestures or
self-serving project. As Jay Naidoo, a seasoned veteran in the field of
community organising, says “This is what community organizing is
about. It does not seek to create communities of helpless or
disillusioned individuals, but to inspire people to see the potential in
themselves and others.”
Building our peace

Working with conflict in this way also reminds us how “peace” means
different things, at different times, to different people. To some it
entails the lack of violence and community strife, to others it means
freedom from crime and the ability to live a secure, safe life, to others
still it may entail economic opportunities and service delivery progress.
Peacebuilding as a conflict concept encompasses all of these
aspirations. How then do we use peacebuilding to disrupt conflict
systems and patterns? A few practical techniques would use the
following principles.
 Work locally, as your resources allow, but be open to wider
networks, form part of them, make your own work, skills and

434
 knowledge available to others, especially those not working in
your area. Do not hoard your skills or resources. Conflict scholar
John Paul Lederach has shown how it is often the types of
connections we can build that prove to be more helpful and
effective than just the size or quantity of those connections.
 Involve other people in your community. Where possible, build
networks, transfer skills, build encouragement and confidence,
show those small victories, learn to use influence and respect.
Do not perpetuate the phenomenon of people being spectators
in their own conflicts.
 Try to work outside your own discipline or area of expertise, to
the extent that you do not harm your own efforts. Hyper-
specialization often leads us to become blinkered to the efforts
of people working next to us, but in another field. How can we
help each other reach those small goals and victories?
 Respectfully, and with dignity, apply local resources and
strengths. This may be as difficult to detect as influence, strong
family structures, faith communities, enthusiastic individuals,
unique leadership capabilities etc.
 Show progress, plough back benefits into that community.
Tangible benefits power the machine.
 Expand your networks. Contacts, resources, information, skills
and other benefits – collect them, keep them available. Create
horizontal links between people, scale up these networks where
possible.
 Understand and work with, even disrupt systemic causes of
conflict rather than always dealing with symptoms and
individual examples of conflict. Try to change the cause of the
problem.
 Adapt and grow your peacebuilding work. Be wary of becoming
stagnant. Conflicts are dynamic processes. Teach yourself what
you need to know, use experts where possible, stay ahead of
best practices.
 Remind yourself that even the smallest act of peace plays a
role. Having one of “them” as a friend, helping someone with a
job, food, exchanging skills, one isolated act of kindness or
mercy can reverberate beyond your imagination.

435
  Be clear, and make others understand where you stand on
important issues. This work often requires a certain level of
impartiality, but often this is misplaced or misunderstood, or
unnecessary. People in the middle of conflict do not always
want neutrality.
 Do not build monuments to yourself. This is not your project,
your hobby. Relinquish control where necessary.
 Take the long view. Remain positive, expect setbacks, set and
achieve realistic goals. Push the envelope without tearing it,
learn when conflict helps your cause and when it hinders the
community.

Disruption as a peacebuilding strategy

Bernard Mayer often refers to a strategy called “disruption” as an

effective conflict and peacebuilding tool. Often in seemingly
intractable and enduring conflicts we are faced with difficult decisions
on strategies that may be effective while requiring sacrifices or
unpleasant strategies. Do we seek agreement and co-operation, do we
try to reach compromise, or do we actively oppose a particular
situation?
South Africa (and of course the world in general) has a variety of
economic and political realities that are extremely unpalatable for
many to face, condone or even be a part of. Poor service delivery,
corruption and other outcomes may simply be unacceptable, harmful
and even immoral to condone and to accept. We saw the moral
questions and practical difficulties that can result in these situations
throughout history, with Ghandi’s colonial opposition and the ANC’s
struggle against apartheid (particularly to use violence or not) as
illustrative examples.
There is something about political disruption in its visible, public forms,
that give many people pause. Maybe it is how we are brought up, or the
realization that such actions could have far-reaching effects and
consequences for us and our families.
As Mayer however clearly shows in his work, disruption is often
necessary, absolutely essential for resolution in certain types of

436
conflict. As Mayer tells it “Resolution of deeply rooted conflicts will
not occur without disruption”.
What does this disruption look like in practice? It cannot be unfocused
lawlessness, causing more harm than good, it cannot be unbridled
violence or other examples of sheer criminality such as we say during
the 2021 KZN social unrest. But does it always have to be lawful and
polite conduct? Was the US civil rights movement always lawful? Would
it have been fair to expect the liberation activists during apartheid to
stick to the rules? Clearly not.
Thomas Merton, in characteristically blunt mood, gives us a hint at the
difficulty of accurately delineating these lines of conflict:
“The problem of violence, then, is not the problem of a few
rioters and rebels, but the problem of a whole social structure
which is outwardly ordered and respectable, and inwardly ridden
by psychopathic obsessions and delusion.”

And it here where disruption is such a dangerous fire to play with, but
maybe for the same reason why it can be such an important and
effective conflict strategy in extreme situations.
To find the balance between criminality and legitimate social activism
is difficult, and it would be futile to even attempt a definition that
would be of much practical assistance in all circumstances. Maybe that
is as it should be, maybe that element of a fragile conflict situation,
without clearly agreed upon rules, an element of uncertainty, is
necessary to disrupt old, settled ways of looking at things. As we can
see from history, disruption in the hands of a skilled operator can be a
most potent force for change where change is due. It shows the conflict
opponent how serious the group is, it highlights the absence of feasible
alternatives with the resultant emphasis on solutions, it can attract and
build alliances and meaningfully shift power balances and paradigms.
Disruption as an ethical conflict tool has developed several guard rails
over time, through research, and through application in the trenches.
It should be seen, for example, as a strategy of last resort, as something
that is forced upon a community, something that cannot be achieved as
easily through other means such as litigation, democratic processes and
so on. It must be non-violent (although these boundaries differ from

437
activist to activist), and it must, when appropriate, remain open to
engagement with the opponent. It should remain as focused as possible,
such as in calling attention to oppression or violence, and seek not to
descend into ill-disciplined campaigns of harm or revenge.
It has taken several forms over the course of global history, from the
long list of individual to group acts of defiance, often visibly peaceful
and non-violent, and can be a refusal to comply with a manifestly unjust
law (the pass law strategies come to mind), work to rule campaigns,
sit-ins, pickets and strikes and a long list of strategies, all designed to
disrupt the status quo and to seek some benefit in that way.

Some modern developments in peacebuilding and its

application to South Africa

Peacebuilding as a conflict management and resolution tool, especially

in the larger, more global arenas, has had a fascinating era of
development and growth in recent decades. Being the new
multidisciplinary system that it seeks to be, and grappling with diverse
forms of conflict, it has had its fair share of criticism and under-
achievement in several areas. For all that it is increasingly a robust and
highly practical conflict management strategy that shows increasing
promise and potential. Criticism of it can often be placed in proper
perspective by asking what the alternatives are.
One of the most exciting and promising theoretical and practical
developments in peacebuilding in recent years is the widening of its
scope and application, and an integration of peacebuilding as an
essential component of other disciplines such as development,
construction, the stabilizing of institutions and even law enforcement.
From the research and practice thereof by an elite and small number
of researchers, intellectuals and practitioners such as diplomats, this
field now encompasses international and national debates, inclusion in
policies and processes, the United Nations to name a few. The World
Bank, governmental agencies and thousands of NGO’s and community
based organizations now focus all or most of their conflict management
efforts on preventing or resolving conflicts.

438
This integration and widening of the scope of peacebuilding is
predicated upon an understanding of the conflict principle that just like
there can be no peace without justice, there can be no peace without
stability and development. Peacebuilding cannot be an isolated
application of global or regional conflict principles, expected to achieve
positive results as if it is operating in some vacuum. These principles
and practices should best be applied and implemented against a
backdrop of and in conjunction with development and stability in other
important areas. At the very least, the work of peacebuilding becomes
easier the more stability and development there is in a particular
conflict environment.
Here South Africa, as in so many conflict textbook scenarios, provide
both valuable lessons as well as challenging opportunities for
peacebuilding. The possibly unintended consequences and shortfalls of
the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has demonstrated vividly how
peacebuilding in a vacuum, without the attendant and sufficient levels
of reconciliation, development and economic justice, can be an
exercise in delayed or underachieved conflict outcomes. Together with
that realization comes the challenge of now integrating the remaining
and new peacebuilding efforts with the required complementary
disciplines that will ensure development, stability and true
reconciliation, however modestly defined. Peacebuilding in South
Africa, for all its successes and progress, needs to be refocused and re-
energized by this integration process.
We can now look at a few conflict strategies that either form a part of
the peacebuilding category, or are closely related to it. As readers are
bound to notice, there are often overlaps in philosophy or practical
application among these strategies, and this should not detract from
their practical value. The label is not important, the result is.

Whole of society peacebuilding (WOS)

Whole of society peacebuilding (WOS) is a school of conflict

management thought that focuses on comprehensive conflict strategies
to combat the complex modern conflicts arising from peace campaigns,
security and development concerns. Here complexity and inter-related

439
or even opposing goals and ambitions are seen as opportunities towards
progress. It often works with structural conflict causes, and can be very
effective if sufficient societal support can be established and
maintained.
It brings a societal focus to peacebuilding, working with what is there
available on the ground. It has a firm and established following and
credibility in global peacebuilding scholarly and practical conflict work,
and its frameworks and guiding principles can certainly be applied
successfully in a South African context. It need not be seen as a distinct
policy framework, and can be applied as is to existing programs. Actual
examples of the WOS approach to peacebuilding can be found in the
European Union’s work in Georgia, Mali, Yemen and Kosovo.

NONVIOLENCE – the alternative to violent conflict

In South African socio-political conflicts the option of violent civil

resistance is always in the background as an option that is either seen
as attractive or inevitable by some groups. Socio-political violence is
seen as an alternative to the real or imagined failures of democracy, as
a short-term and necessary solution to redress past wrongs and the
perpetuation of inequalities in the commercial system of the country.
For communities who have had precious little benefit and relief after
three decades of democracy this can be a particularly compelling
argument, regardless of the political manipulation that may be present
behind such hints and whispers.
To continue to extoll the wonders and virtues of democracy, to send
people back to repair their communities at the ballot box may become
an increasingly ineffective request in South Africa. In this section I want
to focus specifically on nonviolence as a viable and real world
alternative conflict tool available to those who may have given up on
conventional ways of effecting meaningful change in their communities,
and who may be tempted by the perceived charms of violence in order
to bring about that change.

440
 Nonviolence – a definition

In their comprehensive treatment of the strategic value of nonviolent

resistance Why Civil Resistance Works: the strategic logic of nonviolent
conflict, the authors Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan define
nonviolence (by citing a series of academic works) as “a technique of
socio-political action for applying power in a conflict without the use
of violence” and specifically tactics that fall outside the conventional
political process (such as voting, lobbying etc.). This strategy uses
social, psychological, economic and political methods such as sit-ins,
boycotts, stay-aways, protests, acts of civil disobedience and various
other creative strategies to mobilize their target groups to oppose or
support policies, to delegitimize adversaries, or to affect the sources
of power of those adversaries. These strategies can be effected by acts
of commission or omission, or a combination of the two options.

A few examples of nonviolent campaigns

In South Africa the Defiance Campaign of the 1950s and 1960s is a classic
example of an applied nonviolent strategy. The ANC, over the course of
its anti-apartheid campaign, used both violent and nonviolent
strategies. The boycotts of various levels and focused areas used by
international groups and countries against the South African regime
during apartheid would qualify as nonviolent campaigns, and internal
consumer boycotts are all examples of the power of these strategies.
The civil disobedience strategies of the population of the village of Beit
Sahour on the West Bank during 1989, the campaigns against the Marcos
regime in the Philippines, the civil rights movement in the US, and
several other very public figures and campaigns complete the colourful
nonviolent landscape.

Nonviolence as a strategy for socioeconomic change compared

to violent options

Although this question will always be very nuanced and dependent on

local realities and developments, there is already quite a convincing
empirical case to be made in support for nonviolence not so much as a

441
moral alternative (which I believe it is), but based on simple, factual
arguments from history.
Chenowath and Stephan, in their important study of this question, come
to the following conclusions (their work is referenced in the suggested
reading section below, and highly recommended):
- between 1900 and 2006, nonviolent resistance campaigns were nearly
twice as likely to achieve full or partial success as their violent
alternatives;
- nonviolent campaigns involve communities at a higher level, and this
participation advantage becomes an important factor in conflict
outcomes, and this broadens the base of resistance, which in turn
may raise the opponent’s cost of maintaining the status quo, such as
repression;
- nonviolent campaigns, when they are successful, have a lower
probability of lapsing back into negative conflict outcomes such as a
relapse into civil war;
- that such a nonviolent campaign needs to successfully obtain
significant levels of participation, and they need to recruit a robust,
diverse and broad-based membership.
These extensive conclusions will need to be included in any conflict
directed at meaningful socioeconomic change, either in a regional or
national context. As a conflict tool nonviolence has many challenges
and defects, but as we have seen, it remains a more effective solution
than the violent option. Maybe, as Joan Baez taught us, “Nonviolence
is a flop. The only bigger flop is violence”. As studies like the
Chenowath / Stephan one show, the narrative that violence is the best
strategy of last resort, when all else failed, simply does not stand up to
the evidence. Nonviolent resistance has several strategic advantages,
even if (as we should be able to show) the morality of nonviolence /
violence options are left aside.
Nonviolence has also shown itself to be a very cost-effective conflict
strategy. As Chenowath and Stephan indicate:
“Our study suggests that nonviolent campaigns do not necessarily
benefit from material aid from outside states, though relatively

442
 small sums of money for items including cell phones, computers,
radios, fax machines, T-shirts, office space and other items that
nonviolent activists use for recruitment purposes can go a long
way. Nonviolent campaigns can, furthermore, benefit from
sanctions, diplomatic support, and allies in international civil
society, who can strengthen and diversify the membership base
that is so critical to success.”

Nonviolence as a peacebuilding strategy (and the Chenoweth / Stephan

study in particular) has been justly criticized in some instances (see for
example the work of Peter Gelderloos), but it remains a vibrant, always
viable attraction for some, including those in the scholarly or practice
sections of conflict resolution and peacebuilding communities.

A few other strategies for community peacebuilding

Although peacebuilding is clearly a wide and encompassing concept,

there are an additional number of smaller conflict strategies that have
shown success and promise in global conflicts, all of which can be
considered and implemented here in South Africa, even if only on a
community level. In addition to these strategies that we have then
already discussed here we can add transformative community
conferencing (which has had widespread success at grassroots level in
the US), focused storytelling (working on the observed conflict principle
that transformation occurs through the creation of preferred
narratives), peace economics, which deals with the study and design of
viable and sustainable conflict and post-conflict economic models, even
sociology and a few other models or lenses through which conflict is
being studied and approached.
We turn then to consider peacebuilding in South Africa as it would
interface with the chosen topics below.

Peacebuilding and our youth

The South African causes and triggers for conflict directly impacting our
youth are rather clear and easy to see. Inequality, unemployment,

443
corruption, political dysfunction, failing systems and processes all loom
large over the futures of young people here.
But conflicts, in general and our South African ones in particular, have
other more insidious and less obvious impact on them. This manifests
in particular in what is known in conflict research as adult territoriality,
where adults protect and preserve their own interests at the expense
of the youth. This has consequences, often unintended and
misunderstood, in fields as disparate as information production and
application, employment strategies, fund allocation, symbolism and
other uses of power in ongoing conflicts.
Some very valid criticism against peacebuilding in its classical liberal
forms have been brought by youth groups and researchers, such as its
inclination to lead to pacification of youth interests, its western-centric
strategies and some of the content (including agenda setting
considerations), while the youth (including here in South Africa) have
often been some of the most proficient and enthusiastic users and
advocates of peacebuilding in its many forms.
It is good that we keep, and are reminded to keep, the youth in mind,
as a respected, active and equal partner when peacebuilding strategies
and implementations are considered and effected. Globally and here,
youth groups traditionally play an important and inspiring role in
peacebuilding campaigns.

Peacebuilding and gender

Conflict resolution and peacebuilding theory, if not always in practice,

are fully supportive of a gendered approach to conflict. If peacebuilding
is going to be working with reducing the causes and drivers of conflict
in a society it is strategically absurd not to do so, regardless of any
other considerations.
Evelyn Thornton and Tobie Whitman, citing the research done by Hunt
and Posa, show that:
“The approach is driven by efficiency. Women are crucial to
inclusive security since they are often at the centre of
nongovernmental organizations, popular protests, electoral

444
 referendums, and other citizen-empowered movements whose
influence has grown with the global spread of democracy”.

This effectively removes the debate from a purely gender argument to

one of efficiency, a results-based answer to any objections that may be
encountered in any other debate focus. But there is an even more
forceful way to approach the necessity of a gendered approach.
Thornton and Whitman again:
“Many theorists contend that unless societies reconcile
unequal power relations between men and women,
insecurities and violent conflict will persist.”
These clear research and practical conclusions are increasingly
acknowledged and, more importantly built into policy and procedure
frameworks that carry significant practical weight for the protection of
women’s interests during conflict. Here recent developments such as
United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) 1820, 1888, 1889,
1960 and 1325 have become part of conflict resolution frameworks that
show real benefit.
South Africa’s legal framework, from its Constitution to its
sophisticated labour laws to a variety of civil and criminal laws, protect
the rights of women and include them, directly and indirectly, in
government and local peacebuilding efforts. Despite the wonderful
progress made, at least on the drawing board, we still note several
practical disparities and window-dressing of some level or another.
Women are still not as integrated in the run up to, conflict itself and its
aftermath as they should be. Much as in the observed instances of
workplace diversity and its patronising, compliance based approach to
legalism, we see some of this same destructive patterns in community
peacebuilding campaigns and programs. This is often not planned
consciously or even understood as such, but still very much prevalent
(and maybe therefore the more pernicious) in aspects such as agenda
setting, resource allocation, program design and implementation,
information control and other applications of power to conflicts that
affect entire communities.

445
 Peacebuilding and its promise

As this essay in particular and a more extensive study in general will

show, peacebuilding is a developing conflict discipline, with much
debate and some valid criticism leading to an ever-improving state of
the art of peacebuilding. These modern developments show, for
instance, how criticism of an adoption and implementation of a “liberal
peace paradigm” as guiding light of the peacebuilding project has led
to various important concessions and developments in this field. In
modern conflict practice we consequently see more of a developmental
peacebuilding approach to peacebuilding (of which China is a very vocal
proponent), where all of the previous principles of democracy, stability
and so on are accepted, but improved by larger debates and
applications of developmental principles and strategies. These are
refinements of conflict principles that guide these policies, and I would
suggest that peacebuilding and those who apply it are the better off for
these internal debates and developments.

Conclusion

One of the striking experiences of my work with communities involved

in complex, cyclical conflict is that they often do not realize that they
can make a difference in their own lives. Systemic conflict and
inequality have over time simply cast some of them in a narrative of
limited solutions, of inevitable and immutable suffering. This is where
South Africa needs to start with peacebuilding (in its most modern form,
which we can describe as developmental peacebuilding) as an
immediate and effective conflict tool. It can meaningfully address all
of our problems, from inequality to unemployment, from unresolved
realities and perceptions, from rule-based conflicts to relationship-
based challenges. At some level of course this work requires skills and
skills transfer. That can however be done informally, quickly and tailor-
made as a given community wants to build and apply it.
It can bring real, measurable and sustainable conflict resolution to a
nation that is tired, dejected and cynical. Everyone can contribute to
it, across party lines, and everyone benefits from it. It does not need
vast fortunes or commissions or years of study. It does not need central

446
control or management. While community work and peacebuilding in
itself cannot deliver economic emancipation and prosperity, it is one of
the major and realistic tools that we have available to us, to buy us the
time necessary to get the other pillars of economic and political growth
and stability in place.
Solon Simmons states the challenge of modern peacebuilding,
especially in Africa, with particular force:
“Peace as peacebuilding is important work, but it tends to leave
the big questions like global stability, the mode of production,
forms of government, and rule of law unanswered, borrowing
frameworks from presumably more rigorous fields. Peacebuilding
therefore tends to become an ideologically narrow frame of
reference, while the concept of peace, itself, like justice, is as
broad as we should ever want it to be.”

As much as this delineates the parameters and shortcomings of

peacebuilding as a global tool of conflict causes, it in those same terms
steps forward as just what we need in the modern day South Africa. It
is not, at this juncture, realistic or necessary to expect peacebuilding
to solve all of our problems, especially the larger, structural ones. But,
as these examples indicate, there is so much that can be done from the
ground up, so much that can improve the conflicts and their causes that
form part of people’s everyday lives.
John Paul Lederach uses the quirky concept of “critical yeast” in
peacebuilding, by which he means that in peacebuilding it is not always
just the quantity of people involved in these efforts and campaigns, but
also the types of connections that influential people can establish that
bring about meaningful progress and results. Lederach’s point, borne
out by practical observation, also implies that small changes across
multiple networks of activism and peace work, can lead to tipping
points and progress caused by the interconnectedness of such systems.
Using this approach to urban peacebuilding would require the building
and maintenance of horizontal links between such movements, and
building a diverse power base structure. These groups and movements
should seek to in turn link with urban governance systems in ways that

447
establishes hybrid forms of urban governance focused on conflict
resolution and problem solving as a joint and focused enterprise.
Along with several setbacks and failures, Africa has also shown some
successes and progress in peacebuilding, both in its major national
conflicts and the more localized, everyday peace sense that we have
been focusing on. We have no real option but to work hard at resolving
our conflicts. An awful mixture of lies, deceit, ineptitude and
selfishness has brought South Africa to the brink of a level of failure and
collapse that will be difficult to recover from, an environment which
will of course set in motion new conflicts and exacerbate existing ones.
We can no longer sit back and wait for politicians to do the work for us,
no one is coming to save us from these conflicts. We can create an
environment where we take back some of the control necessary to make
a difference, to set us back on the road to reaching our potential, where
we regain agency and influence in our futures. It can be our new
reality. If we are prepared to do the work.
In the words of Solon Simmons:
“Peace is a concept too big to be left to a narrow academic
specialization. Our thoughts about peace must be as large as the
social forces that threaten it, newly emboldened by the global
pandemic. This is why the time for big peace has returned.”

448
 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READING
(Chapter 17)

1. My 2022 interview with The Herald newspaper on community

conflict and its causes can be accessed here Community conflict
and violence.... getting conflict causes and triggers wrong
(newspaper article) - The Conflict Conversations (conflict-
conversations.co.za)
2. Contemporary Peacemaking (3rd edition), by Roger Mac Ginty,
Palgrave Macillan, (2022)
3. The Moral Imagination, by John Paul Lederach, Oxford University
Press (2005)
4. Essay South African Peacebuilding Approaches by Charles
Nyuykonge and Siphamandla Zondi, in Rising Powers and
Peacebuilding, edited by Charles T. Call and Cedric de Coning,
Palgrave Macmillan (2017)
5. Not Enough, by Samuel Moyn, Harvard University Press (2018)
6. The Neutrality Trap, by Bernard Mayer, Wiley (2022)
7. Faith and Violence, by Thomas Merton, Notre Dame Press (1968)
8. Resisting Throwaway Culture, by Charles C. Camosy, New City
Press (2019)
9. Change, by Jay Naidoo, Penguin Random House SA (2017)
10. Odyssey to Freedom, by George Bizos, Random House Struik (2007)
11. How to fight inequality, by Ben Phillips, Polity Press (2020)
12. Kasinomics, by GG Alcock, Tracey McDonald Publishers (2015)
13. Conflict resolution after the pandemic, edited by Richard E.
Rubenstein and Solon Simmons (2021)
14. Whole- of- society peacebuilding, edited by Mary Martin and Vesna
Bojicic-Dzelilovic, Routledge (2019)

449
15. Why civil resistance works: the strategic logic of nonviolent
conflict, by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan,Columbia
University Press (2011)
16. Integrated Peacebuilding, edited by Craig Zelizer, Routledge
(2013)
17. The Little Book of Transformative Community Conferencing, by
Dr. David Anderson Hooker, Good Books (2016)
18. Root Narrative Theory and Conflict Resolution, by Solon Simmons,
Routledge (2020)
19. Essay “Youth” by Siobhan McEvoy-Levy in Handbook of
Peacebuilding (1st edition), edited by Roger Mac Ginty (2013)
20. Essay Gender and Peacebuilding, by Evelyn Thornton and Tobie
Whitman, in Integrated Peacebuilding, supra
21. For community frustrations and unresolved conflicts, and the
consequences thereof, see my 2022 interviews with Business Day
here The Sundays River Valley conflicts - The Conflict
Conversations (conflict-conversations.co.za) and with the
Landbouweekblad here The Kirkwood /Addo conflict 2022 -
Landbouweekblad interview - The Conflict Conversations (conflict-
conversations.co.za). My interview (in Afrikaans) with Izak du
Plessis from Caxton about that unrest can be found here Kirkwood
and Addo violence... causes, triggers and solutions - The Conflict
Conversations (conflict-conversations.co.za)
22. Are our politicians equipped to lead us in our conflicts? Is this an
argument in support of our conflict self-sufficiency if they are not?
My 2021 article for News24 deals with that here Conflict and our
political leaders... our News24 article of 20 October 2021 - The
Conflict Conversations (conflict-conversations.co.za) and I did a
radio interview on the same question for PowerFM987 here
PowerFM conversation on politicians and conflict - The Conflict
Conversations (conflict-conversations.co.za)

450
 CHAPTER 18: CONCLUSION
Conflict in our future

In everyone I pass I can see a little of myself. I carry a little of

everyone I know in me.

K Sello Duiker

We may believe that we take either a thoroughly cooperative

stance or we zealously compete. In this way, conflict induces a
dualistic and simplistic way of thinking. But effective conflict
work requires a more sophisticated, nuanced and complex
approach that recognizes that in most instances, both sides of
these polarities must be embraced, and we have to get past
understanding them as contradictions.

Bernard Mayer

The challenge of our time is to mobilize great masses of people to

make changes without dehumanizing one another. Not just
because it is morally right but because it works. Lasting change,
the kind that seeps into people’s hearts, has only ever come about
through a combination of pressure and good conflict. Both matter.
That’s why, over the course of history, nonviolent movements
have been more than twice as likely to succeed as violent ones.

Amanda Ripley

451
 It is a terrible, an inexorable, law that one cannot deny the
humanity of another without diminishing one’s own, in the face of
one’s victim, one sees oneself.

James Baldwin

Who knows what one loving act can do? Who can trace the
measure of a single peaceful word said from the heart?

Robert Lax

...and I know that there’s an entire world that cares out there,
hiding behind a world that doesn’t, afraid to show who it really is
and with or without you, I will drag that world out of the dirt and
the blood and the muck until we live in it. Until we all live in it.

Iain S Thomas

452
 Introduction

Recent conflict research tools have allowed the international

community to assess and quantify the occurrence and cost of conflict
with greater accuracy. Globally, conflict is growing in disturbing ways.
Since 2010, the number of major violent conflicts have tripled, while a
growing number of lower intensity conflicts have escalated
significantly. Global vulnerability to specialized areas of conflict like
climate change, human trafficking and shifting power structures (as
highlighted by the Ukrainian war and others) have grown, with the
world’s most fragile and marginalized communities having very little to
show by way of increased protection and stability. International
peacekeeping organizations such as the United Nations are under
increasing operational pressure, with increased scepticism as to their
levels of efficiency. Global political polarization and the growth of
nationalist and populist movements highlight the underlying fault lines
running through many seemingly established societies. Our world after
the Covid pandemic (should we even speak of that in the past tense?)
shows new arenas of conflict, often perpetuated at an incredibly
sophisticated and nuanced level, particularly that of the rise of what is
known as radical uncertainty and the delegitimization of established
governance systems. From this uncertainty and chaos one thing is clear:
we are faced with some conflicts that will need decisions of lasting
consequence.

Covid has not so much brought about new conflicts, as exposed deep
structural and systemic existing conflicts and fault lines. This is
apparent from the way that we conduct our personal conflicts right
through to the conflicts on the international stage.

But these conflicts, new and old, will not necessarily be addressed and
resolved simply because of these new challenges and dangers in
themselves. It has become an established strategy to use the very
essence of a conflict, such as the deep division of a people (US
elections, fake news campaigns, Covid debates), to further the
interests of a particular group, without much thought being given to the

453
long term consequences of such strategies. This dangerous development
is mimicked in more interpersonal conflicts, such as the various cancel
culture campaigns and our social interactions on social media.
The sustained effort and application, and the move towards conflict
competency on various levels (political, professional, personal) and
other dynamics will need to be driven at all of those levels. Research
show, for example that people undergoing multiple crises are more
likely to view a defective system as the source of their problems, than
they are likely to ascribe it to bad leadership. This entrenches their
conflict causes, with predictable results.
Food security, online behaviour, economic fragilities, political upheaval
and so many other causes and drivers of conflict become interlinked
and both conflict competence and conflict confidence become more
difficult to attain for many people.
The effects of the pandemic on globalization (as a major driver of
conflict) are, at this stage, rather ambiguous, as certain globalization
effects have been reversed, while it also shows its inevitability.
Patterns of marginalization have been exacerbated and made visible.
New forms of activism and mobilization have come to the fore, and
conflict itself has overall become more complex and nuanced than ever
before (see for example the developments in meta-ethics and conflict
resolution). The pandemic has highlighted the simple conflict
management principle that conflicts like racism and inequality are
often not only conflicts of individual intent or attitudes, but of systems
that need change.
On the interpersonal level we find new manifestations of old conflict
causes, with the culture wars and the influence of social media
affecting all of us. Here too polarization and our socio-political
dysfunction have become significant drivers of a myriad of modern
conflicts. We are expected to belong to certain social groups and to
behave and conduct ourselves accordingly. Along with access to
information has come an unbalanced insistence on rights with very little
recognition of accompanying responsibilities. Social media giants seem
to have no real accountability for the harmful behaviour occurring on
their platforms, with ongoing debates and litigation seeming to be a
part of this important conflict landscape. Several modern studies (see

454
e.g. Mark Leonard’s excellent “The Age of Unpeace”) highlight the new
conflict challenges arising from connectivity, a frontier which I believe
we are only understanding in part at this stage.
The South African environment itself brings forward a set of
circumstances where South Africans are subjected to conflict in one
form or another on a daily basis. We seem to have transitioned from our
apartheid based conflicts to the remaining legacy of that as well as
brand new, modern conflicts without much progress on any meaningful
front. Our conflicts exhaust us, it depletes our limited resources, it
leaves us feeling helpless and hopeless, and cumulatively, it directly
affects our abilities in our next conflict.
Here the field of conflict management, both in its theoretical and
practical applications, bring several positives to the developing
responses to these conflicts. The opening of traditional conflict studies
to become a multi-disciplinary field of study and practice is an inspiring
development. The benefits for conflict resolution streaming in from
neuroscience, industrial-organizational psychology and many others
speak for themselves. The continued improvement in the measurement
of conflict causes, triggers and strategies have removed the last real
objection to the comprehensive inclusion of advanced conflict
strategies as a direct business management tool.
Our understanding of and the tools used in effectively dealing with
these conflicts have improved dramatically, with exciting developments
in the neurobiological and neuro-psychological disciplines. Our
experience with conflict assessment also show us that for all the
apparently new faces and forms of these conflicts, they still very much
run on age-old human causes and triggers such as resource conflicts,
social grouping disparities, biases and self-interest. We now simply
understand them better. Our increased understanding of conflict,
together with our expanded and improved conflict tools, mean that we
are not at the mercy of these developing conflicts.
It is particularly in the workplace and on the political arenas that I
believe that we can, and should, be so much better at our conflicts, not
(if that seems too difficult) for the sake of the other, the “enemy”, but
for ourselves and those we enter into these conflicts for in the first
place. We have become masters at creating new conflicts, in ensuring

455
cyclical, even generational conflicts in the manner that we conduct our
conflicts, all with nothing to show for it other than arguably some
personal gain for a select few. Unresolved conflict has all but destroyed
the promise of where South Africa should have been thirty years after
democracy. We continue to use the same old arguments, the same old
techniques and strategies, often fanned by our leaders through their
own chosen ignorance or for divisive agendas. We approach conflict like
a pub fight, and we are surprised at the appalling results that we
continue to get back.

What can we do about conflict?

As global conflict events show us so eloquently, it is important to guard

against conflict complacency and despair. In addition to simply not
always having the modern knowledge of our conflict options, I believe
that a large number of South Africans (I am tempted to say “the
majority”) have become completely numb to these conflict events and
outcomes. Political events, corruption, crime, a deterioration or
collapse of institutions and a significant deterioration in interpersonal
conflict behaviour have, justifiably or not, led these people to simply
accept that these are the options, this is the way it is and will always
be. That despondency creates its own harmful causes and triggers in
future conflict events. “If everyone acts this way, if there are no better
outcomes, then why should I bother in trying something different”
seems to be a widely accepted mantra.
Conflict and its management, when properly understood, is a
measurable process. It can be managed, it can be improved, adapted,
it can be designed to reach those difficult places. There exists modern,
proved and provable best practices that can be, with very little re-
engineering so as to reflect to local conditions and requirements,
applied to our conflicts. Great progress is being shown in our
boardrooms and on our factory floors during the last few years. As new
as some of them may seem, the causes and drivers of these conflicts
are age old, part of our DNA. There is no need for despair, even though
there is every need for urgency and focus.

456
South Africa has a complex and interlinked conflict landscape. From the
examples of conflict causes and drivers that we have examined in this
book we notice the need for a robust approach to conflict, whether at
the political, professional or personal level, where we seek to marry
the best practices available to us via the disciplines of conflict
resolution and its related fields with the political, economic and social
realities that we face.
We need to improve how we understand and approach our conflicts,
how we fight our battles. We have inherited certain causes and drivers
of conflict, and we continue to perpetuate and create new ones. We
live in the midst of violent conflict, in the wide sense of that phrase,
and all of it, every single one of our conflicts, can and should be
improved. We need, in the wonderful phrase of John Paul Lederach, to
develop and use our moral imagination. This, as he explains it, gives us
a set of moral principles that we can use in our own conflicts, whether
they be in the boardroom or the streets of our country. Lederach sets
this out as follows:

“Transcending violence is forged by the capacity to generate,

mobilize and build the moral imagination. The kind of imagination
to which I refer is mobilized when four disciplines and capacities
are held together and practiced by those who find their way to
rise above violence. Stated simply, the moral imagination requires
the capacity to imagine ourselves in a web of relationships that
includes our enemies; the ability to sustain a paradoxical
curiosity that embraces a complexity without reliance on dualistic
polarity; the fundamental belief in and pursuit of the creative
act; and the acceptance of the inherent risk of stepping into the
mystery of the unknown that lies beyond the far too familiar
landscape of violence.”

Even more practically, and simply as a list of real world examples, the
examples that we have considered and discussed in this book include
cost effective and immediate conflict benefits for the education
system, learners and educators, political conflicts can be improved to
focus on better, not less conflicts, workplaces can be transformed

457
through a range of programs that are extremely cost effective to design
and implement, and which will in any event pay for themselves in direct
and indirect ways.
But maybe the best strategy remains one where we improve our own
conflicts one by one, street by street, by improving the conflicts that
the individual experience, by showing individuals that the conflicts
which they have in their professional or personal lives can all have
better outcomes, from the factory floor to the boardroom table, from
political debates to our homes. Even a moderate improvement in our
conflict competency should lead directly to an increase in our conflict
confidence, and once we start seeing possibilities and creative new
solutions, our world can change.
And here we should consider seeing every conflict and every step that
we can take towards our own education and improvement as a
contribution to peace, to conflict resolution. It is helpful, on so many
levels, to start seeing everything that we do as being some building
block in becoming more conflict competent. As the mathematical
psychologist Anatol Rapoport says:
“If one recognizes the paramount importance of self-knowledge
on the level of society or of humanity as a whole as an
indispensable precondition of peace, then anything that
contributes to self-knowledge can be conceived as a
contribution to a substantive science of peace.”

Our conflicts

We are generally social creatures, depending on a balanced process of

communication, dialogue and also the limitations of those dynamics (a
process called dialogism by legal sociologist Joel Handler). This
balancing act of looking after our own interests, making concessions
where necessary, and integrating our lives with those of others
inevitably leads to the professional and personal conflicts that we
experience.
Our conflicts, often lost in the detail of economic and social realities,
can weigh us down, can seem inevitable, simply the way the world is.

458
This imperceptibly leads to conflict cycles and patterned responses
from our side, often with detrimental and permanent results for us and
those that we share our lives with. Without the necessary levels of
conflict skill, our efforts at trying to extricate ourselves from those
conflicts only make us sink deeper into them.

Artist Makoto Fujimura describes the practical fence lines of his work
as follows:
“In art, we do not “obliterate the darkness”; art is an attempt to
define the boundaries of the darkness.”

I believe that we can apply this practical reminder to conflict in our

lives. We do not need to (even if we could) end all conflict, but we can
draw lines that end or limit those conflicts. We can apply wise
boundaries, we can become conflict competent, and we can refuse to
add to the darkness of harmful conflict.

I promised you real world solutions at the beginning of this book. These
solutions are real, measurable and manageable and they work. We need
to see them as available, as within our reach, and then we need to
understand that this is not a list of options, this is not a menu from
which we can pick our preferred option: this is our grim reality, these
are the problems, these are the solutions, and they are all extremely
urgent. We live in a country, a world that at times consist of apparently
unsolvable paradoxes. Do we need to balance our interests and hence
our conflicts, or do we need to integrate those interests? What do we
need to give before we can get, in what way do we need to increase or
expand our conflicts to lead to better and more lasting peace? Part of
being better at our conflicts, at becoming conflict competent, lies
exactly in being more comfortable around those paradoxes which
should, paradoxically, help us to resolve them better.
We considered the possibility at the start of our journey here that we
may have to look at a few uncomfortable questions in our quest for
improvement, to become more conflict competent. As we have seen,
we need to assess our own role in some of our conflicts. We should ask

459
ourselves what it is that we want from these conflicts, in what ways we
contribute to them. What type of people are we, what do our conflicts
do to us? How would we want to deal with them? What would our lives,
our relationships look like if we were even marginally better at our
conflicts?
On a personal level our search for conflict competency can transform
us, can turn us into inspirational examples of what can be achieved, at
our workplaces, in our homes and in our communities. As we have seen,
these are real, achievable results. You are already more conflict
competent just by having read this book. What are your personal or
professional goals with the conflicts in your life?
On a more community or national level, our conflicts are similarly not
forces outside our control. We have agency, we have influence, and we
have responsibilities. We can, and should make a difference to these
conflicts.
If you wish to become even better at your conflicts, we take a look at
some practical options open to you in the pages that follow.

Our conflicts can read as grim accusations on the tombstone of this

country, or it can be the energies that lead us to reach our much talked
about, nearly forgotten potential. There is no rainbow, but there is
some light in this dark place. What are we going to do with that light?

Yet, perhaps you will surprise yourself someday by changing

suddenly and without a single warning. I know this is so, and thus I
don’t lose sight of my interest in convincing you.

Teachings of Don Juan to Carlos Casteneda

460
 SOME REAL SUPPORT IN YOUR CONFLICTS

Conflict resources and options available to you

Hopefully this book has given you a glimpse of the real world value that
conflict competency can bring to your professional and/or personal life.
We have seen, in so many examples and across so many fields of
application, how utterly destructive conflict can be, and yet how it can
be the catalyst for personal and professional growth if we can learn how
to grab this tiger by the tail.

I hope that this book has inspired some of its readers to improve their
conflict competency, whether for professional or personal reasons. The
suggested reading and reference material at the end of each chapter
will give you a very good idea of where to start on your own if you want
to simply read about specific areas of conflict and in this way grow your
conflict competence. My blog at conflict-conversations.co.za contains
a rich collection of free material that can accompany you on that
journey, and this is updated regularly.

At my conflict management and workplace conflict consultancies we

design and run tailor-made conflict coaching programs for individuals
and selected management teams, all run on the basis of efficiency and
measurable management. These consultancies design workplace
conflict systems (DSD) for small, medium and large business concerns,
again on the strength of measurable management benefits. In the
process, and in an effort to assist with our goals of educating the South
African workplace and individuals to become more conflict competent
and conflict confident, we have designed a variety of retainer fee
structures in order to assist with the successful design and
implementation of such conflict competencies.

We run a very popular six month distance learning advanced conflict

negotiation course, where the student advances through the modules
and practical work at her own pace and comfort levels, and from where

461
successful applicants end up doing discretionary and voluntary practical
field work with us in order to gain such competencies as may be
necessary in their own chosen fields.

We have been involved in national consultancy and mandate work since

2017, and this includes mediation, client representation, negotiations,
coaching and seminars, conflict systems design and many other related
work. Our work in the field of gender based violence has been run on a
pro bono basis since 2013. Our national clients include factories,
professional consultancies, regulatory bodies, various industries at
various levels, political groups and individuals.

While these consultancies are national ones, one of the main operating
principles remains that of accessibility, and I am all too aware of the
pain and anxiety that conflict in its many manifestations can bring
about in those affected by it. It is very important to me that you should
not walk your conflict journey alone, and where we can be a helping
hand (or shoulder) we will do so.

I see much of my work as being of an educational kind, with an increase

in the general level of conflict competency of South Africans being the
main overriding goal (I hesitate to call it a mission, but I do get accused
of that). Conflict can be, as you may have noticed, a complex and
intriguing topic for endless discussion and academic debate, but it can
also be a wonderfully practical tool for improvement, for growth and
new solutions.

Take a new look at conflict, conflict in general or your particular

conflicts. Accept that you need never fear conflict again.

Thank you for taking this look at conflict with me, and if you need any
help with your specific conflicts, or even if you just want to talk about
the conflicts that we face as a nation, contact me on
andre@conflictresolutioncentre.co.za and I promise you that I will
reply.

462
 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READING
(Chapter 18)

1. The Global Conflict Tracker (at Global Conflict Tracker l Council

on Foreign Relations (cfr.org) ) is an interesting online resource to
follow the development of global conflicts.
2. New paths and policies towards conflict prevention, edited by
Courtney J. Fung et al, Routledge (2021)
3. Trapped in our conflicts – my article at TRAPPED IN OUR
CONFLICTS - The Conflict Conversations (conflict-
conversations.co.za)
4. Conflict coaching examined: my article at CONFLICT COACHING -
The Conflict Conversations (conflict-conversations.co.za)

463
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Working in the field of conflict management and peacebuilding is not
always the easiest or most comfortable work, even though I cannot
think of any other work that I would rather do. In addition to other
sources of inspiration and energy that I am fortunate to have in my life,
a particular word of gratitude and appreciation to the following people:

To my wife Carol and my son Matthew, thank you for your love and
inspiration.

To my family, in the wide and wonderful sense of that word, for all the
bits and pieces of that fractured reality that nevertheless end up as
something whole, you still have all my love.

To my clients and students, for teaching me so much through your own

conflict journeys.

To Kenneth Cloke, Roger Mac Ginty, Mark Szabo and Peter Coleman for
helping me believe early on, through their work, that the dream can,
and should be, real.

To John Dear, Daniel Berrigan, Dorothy Day, Fr. Jerry Browne and
various others who have, and continue to show me, that faith can walk
the streets, and that those mountains can actually be moved.

For the readers of this book, thank you. May you find that beautiful
thing: conflict confidence that comes from conflict competence.

And to you, my dear past opponent – thank you for helping me wanting
to fully understand conflict.

I have striven not to laugh at human actions,

not to weep at them, not to hate them,
but to understand them.

Baruch Spinoza

464
 ABOUT THE AUTHOR, ANDRE VLOK

Andre Vlok is a conflict resolution and workplace dispute specialist,

mediator and negotiator, with more than thirty years’ experience.
He is the founder of the Conflict Resolution Centre, a national conflict
management consultancy.

465