wiki_ghostguild/content/curriculum/Sessions/Session 7 – Conflict Resolution and Collective Care.md

Session 7: Conflict Resolution and Collective Care

Pre-session

Peer Supports: See PS Guide: Session 7 for pre-session tasks.

---

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.

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.

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

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

Conflict as care

• Disagreement is DATA, not failure
• 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.

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.

Conflict transformation

One way to think about addressing conflict is as an opportunity for transformation, not just resolution.

Traditional corporations just want conflict to go away so they can get workers back to their desks at maximum productivity. Conflict is a bottleneck to profits.

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 cantransform them and create deeper trust through the process.

-- Zev Friedman, Cooperate Western NC

Structural vs. interpersonal

Structural conflict: Recurs no matter who's involved (keeps happening with different people); caused by governance gaps, power imbalances, unclear roles, resource scarcity.

Interpersonal conflict: Communication can resolve it; misunderstandings, style differences, unmet expectations

Many conflicts are both. The structural issue creates the conditions for interpersonal friction

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
• Is the concern evidence-based or speculative?
  • 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.

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.
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.

"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 someoneengages 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.

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?

Solidarity Economy Principles

---

Part 2: Common Conflicts in Game Studios - 15 min

1. Workload and contribution

• resentment over inequitable workloads
• "they're not pulling their weight" (but have you actually talked about capacity?)
• different definitions of "done" or "good enough"

2. Creative direction

• disagreement over game vision or scope
• one person's idea keeps "winning"
• feeling unheard in creative decisions

3. Money and compensation

• discomfort with pay transparency (or lack of it)
• disagreement over how to split revenue or profit
• different financial needs creating different risk tolerances

4. Roles and power

• original founder holds informal power
• unclear decision-making authority
• someone taking on a "manager" role without agreement

5. Communication and presence

• different expectations for availability/response time
• remote work misunderstandings
• someone going quiet instead of raising concerns

Noticing informal power (without it being "conflict")

Think back on the Informal Hierarchy Check-In from Session 4… those same questions apply here:

• whose idea did we go with by default?
• 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 isnoticing 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.

Discussion

do any of these feel familiar? are they structural, interpersonal, or both?

---

Part 3: Tools for Conflict - 25 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"

Loving Justice framework

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.

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.

[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
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.

What we think about others’ intentions is only a hunch. And in any case, the problem is usually with a person’s behaviour, not their intentions.

Stay on your side of the net. Moving beyond the 2 realities you understand makes the interaction accusatory.

"you did x because you don't respect me" crosses the net. "when x happened,i felt disrespected" stays on your side.

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?

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.

Why this works

1. It is indisputable
2. It leads to the other party explaining their intentions
3. Focusing on behaviour avoids the problem of too much non-specific feedback being useless or destructive
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.
   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

What's the part of you that's saying "no"? That's pushing back? Can you speak from that place?

"A part of me doesn't want to be here because..." "I'm afraid to have this conversation because..."

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

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.

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 abouttheir 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

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?

---

Part 4: Window of Transformation - 10 min

Timing matters:

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.

The zones

Destructive (High Activation)

• Fight/flight responses, overwhelmed, panicked, enraged
• Attacking the other person or attacking the relationship
• "It's me or them, and I choose me"

Window of Transformation (Optimal)

• Hearing and integrating feedback with curiosity and compassion
• Stretched, challenged, expanding the edge of emotional capacity
• Able to hold boundaries while staying connected
• "I can honour your truth and honour mine"

Performative (Low Activation)

• Prioritizing maintaining relationship over integrity
• Overwhelmed, insecure, deceiving self or other to "appease"
• "Giving in to get along"

Fragile/Collapse (Very Low Activation)

• Collapsing into shame and blame, feeling victimized
• Stuck or immobilized, "freeze"
• Unable to engage at all

Using this framework

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 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.

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

Offer studios an example scenario:

• 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).

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)
• 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 is NOT failure! it's recognizing that some conflicts need more support than a 1:1 can provide.

Levels of escalation

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.

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

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.

Formal process

Use your documented conflict resolution policy. This is for when informal approaches haven't worked, when the conflict affects the whole studio, or when someone needs formal protections.

Often formal conflicts trace back to unintegrated objections: concerns that were raised but never properly addressed. Preventing this requires actually working through tensions when they come up.

The goal isn't to always end up at the formal process. You just want to have it so everyone knows it exists. This can make informal resolution easier.

We'll share Baby Ghosts' conflict resolution policies and procedures as a template you can adapt. It includes: who initiates the process, what documentation happens, timelines, and what happens if resolution isn't reached.

• Resource: Baby Ghosts Conflict Resolution Procedures

---

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 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

Hot tips

• Have a policy and procedures in place before your next crisis
• You can use Baby Ghosts' template as a starting point, but collectively review and modify it to your specific values, needs, and context
• Every member should be intimately familiar with these documents
• Know who is responsible for supporting members in conflict
• operationalize your values around conflict resolution by including it in your budget, reserving time in retreats and meetings, and signing up for relevant training.
• Practice on the small stuff. Don’t wait for a crisis. Every small repair is a rehearsal for the harder conversations. If you can’t talk about someone consistently showing up late to meetings, you definitely can’t talk about power dynamics or compensation disputes. Start where it’s low-stakes.

Soul Fire Farm, an agricultural coop in New York, uses a peer-to-peer "Real Talk" process to give direct feedback. We'll share the link: Soul Fire Farm Real Talk. This is a great framework if you want to build in regular feedback on a regular basis.

---

Closing - 5 min

"Deescalate all conflict that isn't with the enemy." -- Margaret Killjoy

You've now built tools for governance, decision-making, financial transparency, and conflict. That's a lot. And next session is our last! CRY

Some of these conversations may have been uncomfortable. You might be still thinking about things that came up this week.

we'll step back and assess what you've created together. what's working/fragile/what comes next after this program ends?

between now and then: If hard conversations came up this week, don't let them drift away. Use your Peer Support session to keep working through them.

---

Homework (with Peer Supports)

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?

2. Review the conflict resolution template together – Read Baby Ghosts' conflict resolution policy. As a studio, discuss: what would you adapt for your context, and what's missing for you?

---