25 KiB
| title | collection | path | parentDocument | outlineId | createdBy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Session 7: Conflict Resolution and Collective Care | Cooperative Foundations | Cooperative Foundations/Hub Adaptations/Session Content/Session 7: Conflict Resolution and Collective Care | Session Content | a6c20a77-d4b3-4bd7-9d2d-12c9498e2f8a | Jennie R.F. |
:::info Peer Supports: See Session 7: Conflict Resolution and Collective Care for your role during session and this week's studio support meeting.
:::
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, 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.
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.
And care is not only practiced when something is wrong, but also when things are going okay. Some care is just noticing. Some is just being present consistently.
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.
This idea has deep roots in Indigenous justice traditions, abolition movements, and community accountability practices. These have long understood that resolving a conflict isn't the same as transforming the conditions that produced it. The tools we're working with today come out of those traditions, even when they aren't always credited.
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 can transform 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? This helps determine urgency
- Is the concern evidence-based or speculative?
-
Evidence-based: "The last three meetings ran over by 20 minutes."
Speculative: "I think they don't respect anyone's time."
Both might be true! But leading with what you can point to gives the conversation somewhere concrete to start. This isn't about ranking whose reality is more valid. It's about choosing your entry point.
-
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
- Just talking about conflict can create conflict.
- Working through conflict takes time. Sometimes lots of time.
- 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 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 peace-ing 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/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?
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 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.
Discussion
Do any of these feel familiar? Are they structural, interpersonal, or both?
==What does care look like in your studio when nothing is wrong?==
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"
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 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
Behaviourally-specific feedback
Sometimes feedback comes in very ugly wrapping – that doesn't mean there's not a gift inside.
In this framework, you are the person who experienced the impact and is giving the feedback.
When two people interact, there are three realities:
- Intent (other person's reality): Their needs, motives, emotions, intentions
- Behaviour (common reality): Tone, words, gestures, facial expressions – what actually happened
- Impact (your 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.
- The other person knows their intent and the behaviour they chose.
Neither of you can know the other's inner experience.
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 (see diagram above). 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 and observable. "You dominated the discussion" is a judgment. "You spoke for 10 of the 15 minutes" is something anyone in the room could have noticed.
:::tip The goal is to ground your feedback in something the other person can recognize and respond to.
:::
Why this works
-
It is indisputable
-
It creates space for mutual understanding without centring intent over impact
-
Focusing on behaviour means we're not ascribing feedback to someone's character with the implication that who they are is unchangeable. "You were disrespectful" assigns an inherent value to the person. Naming the specific behaviour gives them something they can actually address.
-
All behaviourally specific feedback is positive because behaviour is something we can change
-
All behaviourally-specific feedback is data, and more data is better than less.
- Feedback given with the intention of being helpful is always positive
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.
Before you raise an issue
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?
Do your best
People who have experienced being gaslit for their own reality may have an extra difficult time bringing up issues due to shame and trauma. Even just the very act of explaining what is going on can be a source of shame. It's important to remain aware of what histories people might be coming in with and do the best we can with the tools we have.
For deeper reading on shame, accountability, and conflict: Building Accountable Communities – Dean Spade, Mariame Kaba, and BCRW.
We'll also be sharing even more resources on this particular topic post-session.
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 – 10 min
==Breakouts in groups of about 3.==
Here are some example scenarios:
- So-and-so keeps talking over me in meetings
- One person keeps having to do admin work and is left out of game dev chats
- I didn't realize we were doing X. How can we make sure we're all on the same page in the future?
Choose a small conflict. (Although even small conflicts have 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)
- Apply the Loving Justice questions (Brave? Kind? Honest? Humble?)
- What would make this issue easier to raise?
- Notice what zone of transformation 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
De-Escalation of bandwidth
Some teams may find a "de-escalation of bandwidth" (moving from video/audio to direct messages) more accessible or appropriate depending on the situation. This best applies in cases where the conflict is overloading or overwhelming someone and making them more activated/triggered.
Stepping back can be a powerful tool for resolving conflict, but text messages can also be misinterpreted more easily than in-person or video/audio communication, so make the best choice for you at the moment.
Bring in a third party
This should be 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 all trust. But be careful, bringing friends in can also add more complications.
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.
Trust comes from repair, not avoidance
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
"I believe that the most important skill for interpersonal conflict is being able to balance apparently contradictory concepts and perspectives in one's mind and body: Compassion for the other, compassion for ourselves; staying open to change and taking accountability; holding strong boundaries and protecting ourselves." - Kai Cheng Thom
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.
Exercises
- 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?
- 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?