Reality is the bottom line when it comes to resolving conflicts and disputes in business.
Whether we like it or not, conflict between people is inevitable, but fair and acceptable resolution is not. In business as in life, people interact and their differences lead to conflict and often disputes. As Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton wrote in their influential book Getting To Yes, “Whether in business, government, or family, people make most decisions through negotiation.” Processes dating back to ancient times and cultures have been labeled alternative dispute resolution (ADR) strategies and are increasingly preferred to resolve business and personal disagreements.
As so often seen in many of the conflicts we were asked to help resolve, the following three teams of business owners had to make vital decisions when negotiations failed, resulting in disputes that took on a life of their own. (Names and some details have been changed to protect confidentiality.)
home business vs. strata council
Bill Jones didn’t worry when the disease hit him; Hopefully, this 45-year-old entrepreneur decided to refocus his time and energy on a home-based business of his own. He would trade treasures he previously owned through an Internet auction site with the help of his wife and his teenage son. His townhouse was almost paid off, Jones thought he was safe in his home office and showroom-warehouse. Until one of his neighbors objected.
His layered council told him to cease and desist, and in that moment of heightened stress and anger, all Jones could see was a long battle ahead with little guarantee of success. Without giving much thought to the consequences, he failed to comply or respond to the directive, prompting a predictable reaction from Charles Stewart, the council chairman.
From there, the dispute became increasingly personal, pitting neighbor against neighbor. A court finally settled the dispute and everyone walked away tense and angry. Jones and his family had to move, and significant residual tensions remained between some neighbors. So who won? Everyone lost, and unnecessarily. Jones would have done well to heed Sun Tzu’s dictum of 2,500 years ago: “The most intelligent strategy in warfare is that which enables you to achieve your objectives without having to fight.”
In a similarly troubled case, home-based entrepreneur Beth Brown spent time with the strata council chair to first come to a mutual understanding of what was important to each side. Agreeing that they shared values about community spirit and neighborliness facilitated amicable resolution of differences about their home business. Brown assured the council that clients would no longer come to her house and wander around the property and, at the same time, she was satisfied that she would be able to carry on her business while remaining friends with her neighbors and co-owners. .
Explosion of partners by ‘widgets’
Jon and his father, William White, teamed up with Samuel and Patricia Green to realize their shared dream of owning and running a small manufacturing business. During the first five very busy years, everyone worked diligently as friends and colleagues. Father and son marketed the products and took care of the administration, while the couple was in charge of production and distribution.
Then one day a verbal outburst between two of the partners exposed an underground conflict. Seemingly due to administrative practices, the outburst quickly deteriorated in areas such as each other’s hard work, surprising both partners at the vehemence displayed by the other. Clearly, what had been seeping below the surface had now spilled over, bringing his company to the brink of disaster. When his bank manager, also a friend, heard a brief description from William White of what was going on, he recommended an industrial mediator. The divisive differences, by now, had invaded every part of the owners’ personal and professional lives, and everyone was quick to agree. The mediator helped the owners recognize their common dream, so the four of them challenged their “conflict monster,” his common threat, rather than each other. Curiosity replaced judgment as they collaboratively problem-solved and established active, open lines of communication and a conflict resolution process for future differences. Ten years later, their business has grown beyond what they had imagined. The experience of solving that first big blowout has certainly helped its success.
J&K Resource Center Dispute
Jane Black and Katherine White’s troubles began when the partners became embroiled in a personnel conflict between their two office managers, Betty Brown and Alice Gray. As the conflict spiraled out of control, each of the contenders targeted either Jane Black or Katherine White or both, triangulating for support. Now, with all personnel involved, communications came to an abrupt halt, as did all but day-to-day operations. White became so frustrated that she gave up her part of her company, preferring to take a financial loss and move on with her life. Today, her dream of a “happiness station” offering counseling, therapy, massage, books and coffee is history.
Interestingly, White told me recently that the whole mess could have been avoided if he had joined Black in resolving the dispute between his office administrators.
ALTERNATIVES TO A WAR OF WORDS
The list of potentially devastating business disputes is almost endless, but business contracts, malpractice, liability, outstanding debts, company dissolutions, and intellectual property issues are all in the current “parade of successes” of disputes that they end up before judges or referees. If you have any doubts that dispute resolution is a fast-growing industry, look in the “Lawyers” section of any city’s yellow pages directory.
Whatever the details, the bottom line of business disputes is that when differences have not been resolved to everyone’s relative satisfaction, people will do whatever it takes to get a “fair” remedy. According to the American Bar Association, 95 percent of all commercial disputes are settled before trial. So why do people continue to choose the judicial option to resolve disputes when appropriate alternatives such as dispute counselling, mediation and conciliation have proven to be so beneficial, convenient and cost-effective?
In the 25 years since Fisher and Ury first published their findings from the Harvard Negotiation Project in Getting To Yes, much has been learned about conflict, how it grows, and how to manage and resolve differences. As the sadistic captain of Road Prison Gang 36 told Paul Newman in the 1967 film Cool Hand Luke: “What we have here is a miscommunication.”
Since all conflicts will be resolved, sooner or later, successfully or not, the decision to avoid, collaborate or take the adversary’s path of war to get what we want or need must be made on a daily basis. The next time you face challenges involving differences that seem to be moving toward conflict, hit the pause button and choose an appropriate resolution process. Consider how much it will cost you to win or lose from the widest possible perspective.
