Update curriculum source files to current versions
This commit is contained in:
parent
136ee2442b
commit
8549cb0252
20 changed files with 467 additions and 466 deletions
|
|
@ -1,44 +1,40 @@
|
|||
# Session 7: Conflict Resolution and Collective Care
|
||||
|
||||
## Pre-session
|
||||
|
||||
Peer Supports: See **PS Guide: Session 7** for pre-session tasks.
|
||||
*Peer Supports: See **PS Guide: Session 7** for pre-session tasks.*
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Intro - 5 min
|
||||
## Intro – 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
Last session we tackled the hardest topic: money. Financial conversations are often where conflict first shows up in a studio. If your compensation discussion went smoothly, great. If it got tense, that's not failure. That's information.
|
||||
Last session we tackled the hardest topic: money. Financial conversations are often where conflict first shows up in a studio. If your compensation discussion went smoothly, great. If it got tense, you now have more information about your teammates!
|
||||
|
||||
We've been taught that conflict means something is wrong. But in healthy cooperatives, disagreement is *valuable data* - it tells us there's an opportunity to create something better for everyone.
|
||||
We've been taught that conflict means something is wrong. But in healthy cooperatives, disagreement is *valuable data* – it tells us there's an opportunity to create something better for everyone.
|
||||
|
||||
Something to hold as we go through today: many of us show up to cooperative spaces already scanning for signs we don't belong. We arrive hopeful, and then feel let down when something isn't perfect. This is a pattern shaped by a lifetime of not feeling belonging. Knowing this, we can design our studios and our conversations with more care.
|
||||
Something to hold as we go through today: Many of us show up to cooperative spaces already scanning for signs we don't belong. We arrive hopeful, and then feel let down when something isn't perfect. This is a pattern shaped by a lifetime of not feeling belonging. Knowing this, we can design our studios and our conversations with more care.
|
||||
|
||||
Cooperatives don't eliminate conflict: they harness it. Conflict signals where values misalign or needs aren't being met.
|
||||
|
||||
*-- Samantha Slade, Going Horizontal*
|
||||
> Cooperatives don't eliminate conflict: they harness it. Conflict signals where values misalign or needs aren't being met. – Samantha Slade, *Going Horizontal*
|
||||
|
||||
**Addressing conflict head-on is an act of care.** Avoidance lets harm fester.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Check-in - 5 min
|
||||
## Check-in – 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
What came up in your compensation models discussion from last session? Where did you notice friction? Or surprised by alignment?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Part 1: Reframing conflict - 15 min
|
||||
## Part 1: Reframing conflict – 15 min
|
||||
|
||||
### Conflict as care
|
||||
|
||||
- Disagreement is DATA, not failure
|
||||
- Addressing issues directly is caring - avoidance lets harm fester
|
||||
- Addressing issues directly is caring – avoidance lets harm fester
|
||||
- Healthy teams have conflict; unhealthy teams suppress it
|
||||
|
||||
People who avoid conflict aren't being cooperative. They are invisibilizing their pain. And people who escalate every disagreement into combat are treating conflict as threat rather than neutral signal.
|
||||
|
||||
In community listening projects across Western North Carolina, Cooperate WNC found that the biggest impediment to the success of collective projects was conflict - even more than money. *Even more than money.*
|
||||
In community listening projects across Western North Carolina, Cooperate WNC found that the biggest impediment to the success of collective projects was conflict – even more than money. *Even more than money.*
|
||||
|
||||
Unresolved conflict drives people out entirely. Most people who leave cooperative or movement work do so because they are in pain because of conflict that was never addressed. They joined work they cared about, something went wrong, and the resulting loss of trust is what actually burns them out.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -50,9 +46,7 @@ Traditional corporations just want conflict to go away so they can get workers b
|
|||
|
||||
But if we actually looked at the underlying sources of conflict, we'd have to acknowledge the systems that created it.
|
||||
|
||||
A given **conflict is just a fruit on the tree of the underlying whole system** it came out of. Those root causes usually have to do with trauma, power structures, and the ways capitalism shapes our relationships. We don't want to just resolve conflicts and brush them under the rug. We want to see each one as a doorway into the underlying causes, so we can**transform them and create deeper trust** through the process.
|
||||
|
||||
-- *Zev Friedman, Cooperate Western NC*
|
||||
> "A given **conflict is just a fruit on the tree of the underlying whole system** it came out of. Those root causes usually have to do with trauma, power structures, and the ways capitalism shapes our relationships. We don't want to just resolve conflicts and brush them under the rug. We want to see each one as a doorway into the underlying causes, so we can**transform them and create deeper trust** through the process." – Zev Friedman, Cooperate Western NC
|
||||
|
||||
### Structural vs. interpersonal
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -62,50 +56,48 @@ A given **conflict is just a fruit on the tree of the underlying whole system**
|
|||
|
||||
Many conflicts are both. The structural issue creates the conditions for interpersonal friction
|
||||
|
||||
Fix the structure first - otherwise you're just managing symptoms.
|
||||
Fix the structure first – otherwise you're just managing symptoms.
|
||||
|
||||
It's also useful to ask…
|
||||
|
||||
- Is there a collective impact, or is it personal preference?
|
||||
- Helps determine urgency
|
||||
– Helps determine urgency
|
||||
- Is the concern evidence-based or speculative?
|
||||
- Shapes how you will respond
|
||||
– Shapes how you will respond
|
||||
|
||||
Communication tools don't fix governance problems. If the structure is broken, no amount of "I statements" will help!
|
||||
|
||||
#### Watch for the emotional-political conflation trap
|
||||
|
||||
Before diagnosing a conflict as structural or interpersonal, check whether political language is standing in for emotional experience. We might be very good at naming the political or identity-based dimensions of a disagreement but much less practiced at naming the emotional dynamics underneath. When we're afraid or defensive, reaching for political framing can feel like solid ground - but it can also make repair harder.
|
||||
Before diagnosing a conflict as structural or interpersonal, check whether political language is standing in for emotional experience. We might be very good at naming the political or identity-based dimensions of a disagreement but much less practiced at naming the emotional dynamics underneath. When we're afraid or defensive, reaching for political framing can feel like solid ground – but it can also make repair harder.
|
||||
|
||||
In your studio, someone might feel unheard in a creative decision and frame it as a power or equity issue. *Both might be true!* But if you skip the emotional reality and go straight to political framing, you make resolution harder. Try to name both.
|
||||
|
||||
### Some truths of conflict
|
||||
|
||||
1. Just talking about conflict can create conflict.
|
||||
2. Conflict takes time.
|
||||
2. Working through conflict takes time. Sometimes *lots* of time.
|
||||
3. Conflict *will* happen. We promise. Even if you're best friends.
|
||||
|
||||
### Multi-directional accountability
|
||||
|
||||
In cooperatives, accountability runs in multiple directions. Members are accountable to each other and to the collective - but the collective is also accountable to each member. This is different from traditional workplaces where accountability only flows upward to bosses.
|
||||
In cooperatives, accountability runs in multiple directions. Members are accountable to each other and to the collective – but the collective is also accountable to each member. This is different from traditional workplaces where accountability only flows upward to bosses.
|
||||
|
||||
"Holding someone accountable" sounds like something that happens *to* a person who messed up. We all come together and make them answer for what they did. But you can't actually hold someone accountable. Accountability is a process someone*engages in by choice*.
|
||||
"Holding someone accountable" sounds like something that happens *to* a person who messed up. We all come together and make them answer for what they did. But you can't actually hold someone accountable. Accountability is a process someone *engages in by choice*.
|
||||
|
||||
What you *can* do is create the conditions where accountability is possible. Can someone in your studio admit they messed up without it being a catastrophe? Is there enough trust that people will be honest about impact without it turning into a dehumanizing pile-on? Do people feel seen enough as real, full humans that they can hear hard feedback without shutting down or peacing out?
|
||||
|
||||
One thing we've learned from community work is that accountability requires specificity. You can't take responsibility for unspecified offences - it's impossible to address "you caused harm" when no one will tell you what you did. Vague accusations invite shame, defensiveness, capitulation - and none of those are repair. If your studio's process asks someone to account for their behaviour, it needs to name - clearly and specifically - the behaviour being addressed.
|
||||
One thing we've learned from community work is that accountability requires specificity. You can't take responsibility for unspecified offences – it's impossible to address "you caused harm" when no one will tell you what you did. Vague accusations invite shame, defensiveness, capitulation – and none of those are repair. If your studio's process asks someone to account for their behaviour, it needs to name – clearly and specifically – the behaviour being addressed.
|
||||
|
||||
The other thing is that your processes only work if people actually use them. Organizations can have beautiful conflict resolution policies on paper and then bypass them entirely when things get real. When that happens, the processes weren't truly aligned with the group's actual values. If you build accountability structures, commit to using them even (especially) when it's uncomfortable or inconvenient. An organization that abandons its own processes in a crisis is telling its members that those processes were never real.
|
||||
|
||||
When we approach conflict as a structural condition, we can ask: What is our structure doing that's making this harder? What would need to change so people could actually be honest about the harm they've caused?
|
||||
|
||||
When we approach conflict as a **movement condition** rather than an individual failing, we can ask: What is our structure doing that's making this harder? Rather than, Who is the problem?
|
||||
When we approach conflict as a structural/movement condition rather than an individual failing, the question shifts from _who is the problem?_ to _what is our structure doing that's making this harder?_ What would need to change so people could actually be honest about the harm they've caused?
|
||||
|
||||
[*Solidarity Economy Principles*](https://solidarityeconomyprinciples.org/theme-collective-care-relationships-and-accountability/)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Part 2: Common Conflicts in Game Studios - 15 min
|
||||
## Part 2: Common Conflicts in Game Studios – 15 min
|
||||
|
||||
**1. Workload and contribution**
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -145,9 +137,9 @@ Think back on the Informal Hierarchy Check-In from Session 4… those same ques
|
|||
- who gets deferred to?
|
||||
- whose schedule shapes our meeting times?
|
||||
|
||||
*Noticing is not accusing.* Pointing out "hey, we've defaulted to jennie's preferences three times now" isn't conflict. The goal is*noticing before patterns calcify*.
|
||||
*Noticing is not accusing.* Pointing out "hey, we've defaulted to jennie's preferences three times now" isn't conflict. The goal is *noticing before patterns calcify*.
|
||||
|
||||
You can name power accumulation without it being a fight. If you can't - your coop might not have enough capacity for handling conflict.
|
||||
You can name power accumulation without it being a fight. If you can't – your coop might not have enough capacity for handling conflict.
|
||||
|
||||
### Discussion
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -155,11 +147,9 @@ You can name power accumulation without it being a fight. If you can't - your co
|
|||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Part 3: Tools for Conflict - 25 min
|
||||
## Part 3: Tools for Conflict – 15 min
|
||||
|
||||
"We live in a society based on **disposability**. When we feel bad, we often automatically decide that either we are bad or another person is bad. Both of these moves cause damage and distort the truth, which is that we are all navigating difficult conditions the best we can, and we all have a lot to learn and unlearn. If we want to build a different way of being together in groups,**we have to look closely at the feelings and behaviours that generate the desire to throw people away**. Humility, compassion for ourselves, and compassion for others are antidotes to disposability culture. Examining where we project on others and where we react strongly to others can give us more options when we are in conflict. Every one of us is more complex and beautiful than our worst actions and harshest judgements. Building compassion and accountability requires us to take stock of our own actions and reactions in conflict, and seek ways to treat each other with care even in the midst of strong feelings."
|
||||
|
||||
-- *Dean Spade, ["Practicing New Social Relations, Even in Conflict"](https://francesslee.medium.com/practicing-new-social-relations-even-in-conflict-dean-spade-54d4a60fcfed)*
|
||||
"We live in a society based on **disposability**. When we feel bad, we often automatically decide that either we are bad or another person is bad. Both of these moves cause damage and distort the truth, which is that we are all navigating difficult conditions the best we can, and we all have a lot to learn and unlearn. If we want to build a different way of being together in groups,**we have to look closely at the feelings and behaviours that generate the desire to throw people away**. Humility, compassion for ourselves, and compassion for others are antidotes to disposability culture. Examining where we project on others and where we react strongly to others can give us more options when we are in conflict. Every one of us is more complex and beautiful than our worst actions and harshest judgements. Building compassion and accountability requires us to take stock of our own actions and reactions in conflict, and seek ways to treat each other with care even in the midst of strong feelings." – Dean Spade, ["Practicing New Social Relations, Even in Conflict"](https://francesslee.medium.com/practicing-new-social-relations-even-in-conflict-dean-spade-54d4a60fcfed)
|
||||
|
||||
### Loving Justice framework
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -167,22 +157,20 @@ Before speaking, ask: Is it Brave? Kind? Honest? Humble?
|
|||
|
||||
### Feedback is a gift
|
||||
|
||||
This sounds like a platitude, but it's a real shift. When someone gives you feedback, they're telling you *how to take better care of them* and how to make your system more functional. They're giving you information you didn't have.
|
||||
This sounds like a platitude, but it's a real perspective shift. When someone gives you feedback, they're telling you *how to take better care of them* and how to make your system more functional. They're giving you information you didn't have.
|
||||
|
||||
The shift is from perceiving feedback as threat to perceiving feedback as power. It's hard - especially if your pattern is defensiveness. But people who stay in cooperative work long enough often describe a moment when this actually flipped for them.
|
||||
|
||||
-- *Zev Friedman, Cooperate Western NC*
|
||||
> "The shift is from perceiving feedback as threat to perceiving feedback as power. It's hard – especially if your pattern is defensiveness. But people who stay in cooperative work long enough often describe a moment when this actually flipped for them." – Zev Friedman, Cooperate Western NC
|
||||
|
||||
### Behaviourally-specific feedback
|
||||
|
||||
Sometimes feedback comes in very ugly wrapping - that doesn't mean there's not a gift inside.
|
||||
Sometimes feedback comes in very ugly wrapping – that doesn't mean there's not a gift inside.
|
||||
|
||||
[TODO-IMAGE-03: Intent/Behaviour/Impact illustration from Connect (Bradford & Robin) – recreate or source]
|
||||
|
||||
When two people interact, there are three realities:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Intent (Person 1's reality): Their needs, motives, emotions, intentions
|
||||
2. Behaviour (Common reality): Tone, words, gestures, facial expressions - what actually happened
|
||||
2. Behaviour (Common reality): Tone, words, gestures, facial expressions – what actually happened
|
||||
3. Impact (Person 2's reality): Your reactions and emotions
|
||||
|
||||
Each person can only know 2 of these realities. You know the behaviour you observed and the impact on you.
|
||||
|
|
@ -195,7 +183,7 @@ Stay on your side of the net. Moving beyond the 2 realities you understand makes
|
|||
|
||||
#### What counts as behaviour?
|
||||
|
||||
Behaviour is something you can point to - words, gestures, even silence. A useful test: *If people were shown a video of the interaction, would they agree they saw the same behaviours?*
|
||||
Behaviour is something you can point to – words, gestures, even silence. A useful test: *If people were shown a video of the interaction, would they agree they saw the same behaviours?*
|
||||
|
||||
Be specific. "You dominated the discussion" is a judgment based on a series of behaviours. "You spoke for 10 of the 15 minutes" is observable. The more specific you are, the harder it is for the other person to deny.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -207,13 +195,9 @@ Be specific. "You dominated the discussion" is a judgment based on a series of b
|
|||
4. All behaviourally specific feedback is **positive**
|
||||
1. behaviour is something we can change
|
||||
2. affirmative = “positive” and developmental = “negative”
|
||||
5. All feedback is **data**, and more data is better than less.
|
||||
5. All behaviourally-specific feedback is **data**, and more data is better than less.
|
||||
1. Feedback given with the intention of being helpful is always positive
|
||||
|
||||
**All behaviourally specific feedback is positive.**
|
||||
|
||||
Not because it feels good, but because it's data. And more data is better than less. Feedback given with the intention of being helpful is always a gift, even when the wrapping is ugly.
|
||||
|
||||
*Adapted from Connect: Building Exceptional Relationships with Family, Friends, and Colleagues by David Bradford Ph.D. and Carole Robin Ph.D.*
|
||||
|
||||
### Stay with your truth
|
||||
|
|
@ -224,30 +208,15 @@ What's the part of you that's saying "no"? That's pushing back? Can you speak fr
|
|||
|
||||
Conflict is telling us if there is a problem or a need not being met. Hold onto that while holding onto someone else's truth.
|
||||
|
||||
### Shame gets in the way
|
||||
### Before you raise an issue
|
||||
|
||||
When someone is told they've caused harm, a common response is shame. It's a physiological response: you go inward, you lose the relational connection needed to actually hear the other person, and shut down. A performance of accountability - "I'm so sorry, I'm the worst, I'll do whatever you want" - is still centred on the person who caused harm, rather than attending to the impact on the other person.
|
||||
Two things to watch for: shame responses (collapsing into "I'm a terrible person" instead of attending to the other person's experience – name it when you see it), and clarity about what you actually observed vs. interpreted. Before starting a conversation, get clear on: what specific behaviour did I observe? What "no"s are coming up for me? What's my part in this? What do I actually need?
|
||||
|
||||
When your body is in a shut-down shame state, you can't really take accountability. This is because it requires you to be grounded enough to *move toward* the person you've hurt: To listen, sit with discomfort, and take agency in changing your behaviour.
|
||||
|
||||
Centring someone else changes how you give and receive feedback. If your response to "hey, that thing you did in the meeting hurt me" is to collapse into "I'm a terrible person," you've just made the other person take care of *your* feelings about*their* pain.
|
||||
|
||||
A practical tip: Name the shame when you see it (in yourself or others). "I think I'm shame-spiralling right now" is an okay thing to say. It doesn't get you off the hook, but it allows your teammates to give you a beat so that you can actually ground yourself and focus on the conversation.
|
||||
|
||||
> Adapted from *Building Accountable Communities*, a video series by Dean Spade, Mariame Kaba, and the Barnard Center for Research on Women (BCRW). [Building Accountable Communities](https://bcrw.barnard.edu/building-accountable-communities/)
|
||||
|
||||
### Reflection before conversation
|
||||
|
||||
Before you raise an issue, get clear on:
|
||||
|
||||
1. what specific behaviour did i observe? (not feelings or interpretations)
|
||||
2. what "no"s are coming up for me?
|
||||
3. what's my part in this?
|
||||
4. what do i actually need?
|
||||
*For deeper reading on shame, accountability, and conflict: [Building Accountable Communities](https://bcrw.barnard.edu/building-accountable-communities/) – Dean Spade, Mariame Kaba, and BCRW.*
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Part 4: Window of Transformation - 10 min
|
||||
## Part 4: Window of Transformation – 10 min
|
||||
|
||||
Timing matters:
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -255,6 +224,8 @@ Is this person able to hear feedback right now? Are *you* able to give it?
|
|||
|
||||
The "Window of Transformation" is an embodied conflict response model developed by Kai Cheng Thom, inspired by Dan Siegel and Pat Ogden's "Window of Tolerance." It maps different emotional states and responses to conflict based on nervous system activation.
|
||||
|
||||
[TODO-03: Insert Window of Transformation graphic here after import]
|
||||
|
||||
### The zones
|
||||
|
||||
**Destructive (High Activation)**
|
||||
|
|
@ -286,41 +257,39 @@ The "Window of Transformation" is an embodied conflict response model developed
|
|||
|
||||
You're not going to be able to stay in the Window of Transformation permanently! Your goal is to *notice* when you've left it and make choices accordingly.
|
||||
|
||||
if you're in the Destructive zone: this is not the time to have the conversation - step away. Take a break.
|
||||
if you're in the Destructive zone: this is not the time to have the conversation – step away. Take a break.
|
||||
|
||||
if you're in the performative zone: you might agree to things you don't actually consent to
|
||||
|
||||
if you're in fragile/collapse: you need support, not a conflict conversation.
|
||||
|
||||
Practice noticing where others are. If someone is clearly activated or shut down - leave some space.
|
||||
Practice noticing where others are. If someone is clearly activated or shut down – leave some space.
|
||||
|
||||
One thing that is surprising and challenging about the emotional dynamics of conflict is that we do the most harm to others when we are feeling aggrieved, victimized, left out, and/or resentful. It’s counterintuitive because those are the moments when we are focused on what others did wrong and how we are hurting. But those are the times we are most likely to do something harmful, like go and write the really messed up email to somebody, treat somebody with a cold shoulder, gossip negatively about people in our group or about another group in town, post a bunch of stuff on Instagram that’s really inflammatory, or violate someone’s privacy.
|
||||
|
||||
-- Dean Spade, "Navigating Conflict in Movement Spaces" (Nonprofit Quarterly)
|
||||
> "One thing that is surprising and challenging about the emotional dynamics of conflict is that we do the most harm to others when we are feeling aggrieved, victimized, left out, and/or resentful. It’s counterintuitive because those are the moments when we are focused on what others did wrong and how we are hurting. But those are the times we are most likely to do something harmful, like go and write the really messed up email to somebody, treat somebody with a cold shoulder, gossip negatively about people in our group or about another group in town, post a bunch of stuff on Instagram that’s really inflammatory, or violate someone’s privacy." – Dean Spade, "Navigating Conflict in Movement Spaces" (Nonprofit Quarterly)
|
||||
|
||||
The moments you ***feel most justified*** are the moments you're most likely to cause harm. If you're feeling like the wronged party, that's exactly when to pause and ask a trusted person whether your planned response is the right scale.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Activity - 15 min
|
||||
## Activity – 10 min
|
||||
|
||||
Offer studios an example scenario:
|
||||
Here are some example scenarios:
|
||||
|
||||
- So-and-so keeps talking over me in meetings
|
||||
- One person keeps having to answer emails and is left out of game dev chats
|
||||
- Another *small* conflict. (Although conflict has a way of bubbling up).
|
||||
- Another *small* conflict. (Although conflict has a way of bubbling up and becoming giant).
|
||||
|
||||
### Discussion
|
||||
|
||||
- is this structural, interpersonal, or both?
|
||||
- using behaviourally-specific feedback: what would you actually say? (stay on your side of the net - what you observed, what impact it had)
|
||||
- using behaviourally-specific feedback: what would you actually say? (stay on your side of the net – what you observed, what impact it had)
|
||||
- apply the Loving Justice questions (Brave? Kind? Honest? Humble?)
|
||||
- what would make this issue easier to raise?
|
||||
- notice what zone you're in
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Escalation as Care - 10 min
|
||||
## Escalation as Care – 10 min
|
||||
|
||||
Escalation is NOT failure! it's recognizing that some conflicts *need more support* than a 1:1 can provide.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -328,15 +297,15 @@ Escalation is NOT failure! it's recognizing that some conflicts *need more suppo
|
|||
|
||||
#### Direct conversation
|
||||
|
||||
Talk to the person yourself. Use the tools we just practiced - behaviourally specific feedback, staying on your side of the net, checking what zone you're in before you start.
|
||||
Talk to the person yourself. Use the tools we just practiced – behaviourally specific feedback, staying on your side of the net, checking what zone you're in before you start.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Escalate bandwidth
|
||||
|
||||
Escalate the bandwidth of the channel - if you’re on Slack asynchronous text, move to Slack synchronous text at a planned time. From synchronous chat to an audio Huddle, audio to video. *Credit: [Joshua Vial](https://joshuavial.com/loomio-conflict/)*
|
||||
Escalate the bandwidth of the channel – if you’re on Slack asynchronous text, move to Slack synchronous text at a planned time. From synchronous chat to an audio Huddle, audio to video. *Credit: [Joshua Vial](https://joshuavial.com/loomio-conflict/)*
|
||||
|
||||
#### Bring in a third party
|
||||
|
||||
a trusted person who can facilitate - not to judge or decide, but to help both people hear each other. This could be another studio member, a Peer Support, or someone outside the studio you both trust.
|
||||
a trusted person who can facilitate – not to judge or decide, but to help both people hear each other. This could be another studio member, a Peer Support, or someone outside the studio you both trust.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Formal process
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -354,15 +323,11 @@ We'll share Baby Ghosts' conflict resolution policies and procedures as a templa
|
|||
|
||||
### Trust comes from repair, not avoidance
|
||||
|
||||
[TODO-02: Clean up sourcing/attribution for this passage]
|
||||
The Gottman Institute found that couples don't build trust by avoiding conflict. They build trust by having conflict and then repairing. The repair is what demonstrates: You matter to me enough that you're worth repairing with. I'm going to do the work.
|
||||
|
||||
The Gottman Institute found that couples don't build trust by avoiding conflict. They build trust by having conflict and then repairing. The repair is what demonstrates: you matter to me enough that you're worth repairing with. I'm going to do the work.
|
||||
The same is true in cooperative work. Being willing to risk rupture, and then showing up for repair – that's what creates the trust. "Oh, you really did have my back when it mattered. You really were willing to receive feedback."
|
||||
|
||||
The same is true in cooperative work. Being willing to risk rupture, and then showing up for repair - that's what creates the trust. "Oh, you really did have my back when it mattered. You really were willing to receive feedback."
|
||||
|
||||
People who stay put in conflict rather than run away are signalling they're ready for deeper work.
|
||||
|
||||
-- *Zev Friedman, Cooperate Western NC on John M. Gottman Ph.D., The Science of Trust*
|
||||
>"People who stay put in conflict rather than run away are signalling they're ready for deeper work." – *Zev Friedman, Cooperate Western NC on John M. Gottman Ph.D., The Science of Trust*
|
||||
|
||||
### Hot tips
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -377,7 +342,7 @@ Soul Fire Farm, an agricultural coop in New York, uses a peer-to-peer "Real Talk
|
|||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Closing - 5 min
|
||||
## Closing – 5 min
|
||||
|
||||
*"Deescalate all conflict that isn't with the enemy." -- Margaret Killjoy*
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -391,7 +356,7 @@ we'll step back and assess what you've created together. what's working/fragile/
|
|||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Homework (with Peer Supports)
|
||||
## Homework
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Name one avoided tension** – What conflict or tension has your studio been avoiding? It doesn't have to be big – small avoidances are good to examine too. What makes it tough to bring up? Can you practice raising it?
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue