Conflict Transformation Resources
These resources and guidelines may help prevent, process, resolve or transform conflict, and can support harmonious interactions.
Tools to help process emotions and increase clarity
Self-reflection questions
1. Opening your heart to yourself - finding the relief of self-connection.
If you’re feeling tense or upset in relation to another person, what happened?
Do you have a sense that you are in a conflict with this person?
What are your feelings and body sensations when you think about this person and what happened?
What are your judgements about this person and what happened?
What are the needs behind your feelings, body sensations, thoughts and judgements?
2. Opening your heart to the other person - finding the relief of compassion.
Does the other person know that you are in conflict with them?
What are you guessing they might be thinking about you and the situation? What have they actually said?
How might they be feeling?
What needs do you imagine this person might have been trying to meet by taking the actions they took in relation to this situation?
3. Choosing next steps - requests towards yourself, for the other person, or for support.
Would you like to have a conversation with this other person in order to release the tension and engage with the conflict?
Do you need more self-connection before you reach out to the other person?
Is self-empathy enough or do you need external support?
If you need external support to experience self-connection, please think what kind of support would be the best for you in this situation:
Empathy session
Conflict coaching or
Other practices that you know.
Do you think you would need support in dialogue with the other person?
If you are clear what kind of support is most suitable for you please reach out to your Steward for support.
*Drawn from Nonviolent Global Liberation Conflict System resources
Decoding Emotions
A useful flowchart for processing a tension.
Transforming Enemy Images (LASER tool - Preparing to deal with conflict)
L - What is the LOAD? (the judgement that you carry)
A - What is the ACTION this person has done or said that leads you to have this Load / judgement?
This is a non-controversial observation over whay has happened
It will enable you to enter into conversation with the person with lower risk of reactivity or defensiveness from them.
S - SELF-EMPATHY
How do I feel when I remember what this person has said or done?
What am I needing or longing for in relation to this action?
E - Empathy
How might the person taking the action be feeling?
What needs is this person trying to meet, even if they are totally not meeting them, or meeting them ‘tragically’?
R - REFLECT on how you feel now and are there any requests for action that needs to happen
*From Ceri Buckmaster
Ladder of Inference
The "Ladder of Inference" (sometimes known as the "Process of Abstraction") helps you understand the thinking steps that can lead you to jump to wrong conclusions, and so helps you get back to hard reality and facts. This article outlines the step-by-step stages of using it as a tool to check your assumptions.
Communication Methods to Promote Shared Understanding
Use “I Messages”
Explain how you are affected by someone’s undesirable behaviour (including feelings), from your own perspective and experience. Cite specific examples, and explain the consequences or reaction that resulted.
I felt frustrated when you missed the meeting without letting me know. We have a tight deadline and we’re unlikely to make it unless we make a decision immediately. What can we do to change this dynamic in the future?
Non-defensive Assertions
It would be helpful for me if you would …
Continue doing the following things
Do the following things more
Do the following things less
Stop doing the following things
Start doing the following things
Non-violent Communication Request
This is a helpful format for asking others to change their behavior in an assertive but not aggressive way:
what I observed
how I felt
why it matters to me
what is my request/wish
Reflecting back/listen Looping
One very important aspect to resolving conflict is making sure everyone feels heard. This is a process for helping that happen.
Give ample time and space for one person to explain their perspective, and express what they feel they need to
The other party listens without interrupting
When the speaker is finished, ask if they are finished or if they need to say anything else. Only move on when the speaker says they are done
The listener reflects back/summarises what they heard the speaker say
The listener asks the speaker if what they heard is correct and complete, and if the listener feels heard. Resolve any points of confusion or omissions
Only move on when the listener confirms they feel heard
Switch roles and give each person involved the same opportunity for listening and speaking.
Methods that perpetuate conflict
Here is a really useful list of common patterns that contribute to conflict going around and around without resolving by Bob Wentworth, summarised below:
Responding without confirming understanding
Focusing on proving yourself right vs. developing an integrated understanding
Failure to integrate information, concerns, and corrections
Dialoging without openness to being touched and changed
Believing your diagnosis of others
Not allowing others’ concerns to matter
Continuing using modes of communication that aren’t working
Focusing on intention without addressing impact
“Hit-and-run” engagement
If we are all able to make progress on eliminating these patterns, this is likely to set the stage for more progress in addressing conflict. As Bob notes, instead of judging ourselves or others when we see these (or other worrisome) patterns as possibly being active, we can use the noticing of them to invite us towards compassion and care, thereby supporting the safety needed for growth.
Other guidelines and methods
Feedback without blame or criticism
Here are some guidelines for giving and receiving feedback without blame and criticism.
Simple structure for a direct conversation
You can use this simple structure to help you say what you need to say during the conversation:
What have you observed occurring in the relationship?
Are there any relevant facts or evidence to support what you are saying?
What impact is the situation having on you and how has it made you feel?
What was/is your perception of the other person’s intentions?
What are your underlying needs, goals, hopes, fears and aspirations?
What is the other person’s perspective on the situation?
What requests (not demands) would you like to make to the other person to help move the situation forward?
Seek areas for agreement and note these down as a shared action plan
Agree when you will meet again to review progress.
The Resolution Institute method
Get all the information and stories out on the table
Form an agenda of neutral points of conversation
Talk through each point giving them enough time they need
Take space and consider individually what your best and worst possible outcomes would be, and start dreaming about middle options which would be possible
Come together for a brainstorm of ways forward
Identify a set of top actions
Agree on a plan for how to work together in the future.
The key values of this process are:
Build empathy for each other by hearing each other out, the full, full story, right from the beginning without interruptions, each taking turns.
Focus on building shared context around neutral topics like “communication” and “technology” and “timing” not, framing conversation around sticking points like “power in my role”, “that time when you blew up at me”
Taking space to focus on what’s important to you, what is your worst case scenario and why? What do you think the other person’s worst case scenario is and why? How do you think they’re feeling?
Sharing an ideation space as equals.
A strong facilitator for the first half, and much less intense facilitation in the second half.
Report the Facts
One helpful practice to understand a situation is to ask the parties involved to start by reporting only facts, without any emotional interpretation, or assumptions. If people disagree about the facts, then simply capture the differing factual accounts.
Examples:
No: You didn’t turn up to the meeting we had scheduled because you didn’t care about the project.
Yes: You did not turn up to the meeting at the time we agreed.
No: I do the lion’s share of this type of menial task because the team doesn’t value my time or understand my skills.
Yes: I often do this type of task, which I consider menial. Other members of the team do not do this task as often.
After the facts have been reported, then discussions about how people felt and interpreted what happened can commence.
If you have a suggestion to improve this page, click here.
Last updated
