The Nature of Conflict

The Nature of Conflict

Reading Time: 5 minutes

“Breath on a mirror. If it fogs over, you have conflict.”

This phrase signifies an undeniable fact of life: that conflict is inevitable.

As with any challenge, it is useful to consider the nature of conflict in order to deal with it effectively. All conflict exists in our stories of the past about what happened, what we made it mean and the emotional attachment we have to those stories. Conflict exists today only because we bring our stories of right and wrong, and of fault and blame, with us into the present moment.

When caught in the middle of a conflict, we can often become entrenched in the view that we are right and they are wrong, and that this would be evident to anyone if they’d only listen to our story.

These beliefs are closely tied to our identity and our values. When we feel that those are threatened, we enroll allies to validate our position and weaken our opponents. We become invested in our stories as the best and often the only way to get our interests and needs met. When the allure of being right outweighs the willingness to reach a resolution, a stalemate occurs and we become stuck in story.

I call this the “Trap of Conflict”. It’s everywhere. We become so invested in our perspective that we don’t consider it to be ‘a story’, but the absolute truth, so much so that we would fully expect to pass a lie detector test if questioned. This is what it means to be “caught in story”, where we lose the ability to distinguish between what happened – the facts — and what we made them mean – our story.

Communications breakdown and become accusatory. Long standing relationships become toxic. Hopelessness looms and “war” feels inevitable. Even those who can afford the war, in whatever form it takes, are ultimately hindered by this process. While victory may seem certain, the timing of it may not—a lawyer recently told me that a one-week trial in the Court of Queens Bench is now booking well into 2020.

Escape from this trap is simple, but even simple tasks can be difficult to complete.

The 12th century Sufi mystic, Jalal al-din Muhammad Rumi, provided some wisdom in how to break free by changing our perspective and how we approach conflict altogether. He wrote: “Out beyond ideas of right doing and wrong doing there is a field. I’ll meet you there.”

This might seem like a heady concept, but it’s as simple as Wayne Dyer said: “When we change how we see things, the things we see change.” When we step back from our story and separate what happened from what we made it mean, we open up a whole different dialogue. A new range of possible options for resolution that meets the interests and needs of all the parties becomes our focus.

But why Mediate?

Simply stated, mediation is the structure and process that creates Rumi’s field.

I often get asked by lawyers and their clients, “Why should we mediate when negotiations have stalled and we already know what the other side is going to say”.

This trap of conflict, sees each party shift their focus from a mutual resolution to a cut and dry victory for one side, even if it takes all the tools in a litigator’s tool box and outrageous sums of money to do so.

It’s a runaway train with few ways off short of the court house steps.

Mediation then, is a much-needed pit stop. It is the siding along the tracks and gives all those involved a chance to pause and re-focus on options for solution.

Mediation shifts the conversation from a debate about who is right or wrong and the burden of proof to a dialogue about sharing our stories for what is really the most important and what we can do about it together in the future.

It can accommodate creative solutions that are outside the litigation box and often not available to Judges, it allows the clients themselves to retain the final say over their outcome, and when it’s properly designed, engages the parties in their own unique collaboration.

Let me give you an example. I was recently asked to mediate a dispute between a sour gas processing plant and a contiguous multi-generational farming operation. It involved contaminants from the plant flowing into the farm water wells that seriously impacted the farm’s operations. When this occurred, the family had been focused on the transfer of their very successful farm to the third generation. Prior negotiations had dealt extensively with ‘fault’ and ‘blame’ focused on financial compensation and the potential purchase of the farm including the grandparent’s grave sites. It had left very frustrated parties stuck in their stories of the past and at a complete impasse about how to remedy the situation.

The initial mediation design conversations established a process and a commitment by the parties and their counsel to explore creative solutions and test those solutions against negotiated criteria. Conversations shifted to real options for the future that would address both sides’ interests and concerns. This is where things got interesting.

During private caucus meetings the dialogue disclosed divergent interests by the younger family members that challenged the assumptions about the farm’s future. This in turn led to an exploration of options that otherwise would never have appeared as possibilities. I worked with both sides to facilitate a conversation that produced a new level of understanding. This resulted in a completely unexpected and unique solution for the family. It was made possible because the parties and their advisors took ownership of their own process and stayed committed to a creative dialogue.

In post mediation debriefs, the consensus of all parties involved was that the process had empowered them to co-create a solution that significantly exceeded their expectations.

It has been my experience over the last 30 years that most lawyers want quick and effective results for their clients, so they often support the notion of mediation. There are however some valid questions, albeit addressable, that get in the way of this support.

Hesitations toward mediation often see parties ask: “But is it the right time for mediation?”, “Don’t we need a judge present?” and “What kind of information will I have to reveal?”. It is also quite common to hear the sentiment “We already know what the other side is going to say,” in some form or another.

I approach every mediation request as an opportunity to engage the parties and their lawyers in the custom design of their unique mediation process. All these questions should be addressed collaboratively in a pre-mediation design process, as one size does not fit all.

In a very real sense, the mediator and the lawyers are each other’s best allies in reaching Rumi’s field.

In my next newsletter I will discuss how the parties and their advisors can design together their own unique mediation process.

For more information about these steps or for other assistance with conflict management please contact us at:

[email protected]

403-801-0234

Why Mediation?

Why Mediation?

Reading Time: 2 minutes

I get asked this all the time when negotiations go south. “What’s the point of mediating when we already know everything they have to say?”

My answer is simple: Mediation involves a much bigger box than litigation. Here are three reasons why:

Firstly, it can shift the conversation from a debate about the past and fault and blame to a dialogue about what’s really most important and what we can do about it together in the future.

Secondly, it can accommodate creative solutions that are outside the litigation box and generally not available to judges.

Thirdly, because when it is properly designed it actively engages the parties in their own unique collaboration.

Let me give you an example.
I was asked to mediate a dispute between a sour gas processing plant and a contiguous multi-generational dairy farming operation. It involved contaminants from the plant flowing into the farm water wells that seriously impacted the farm’s operations. Prior negotiations had dealt extensively with ‘fault’ and ‘blame’ and had left very frustrated parties at an impasse about how to remedy the situation.

The initial mediation design conversations created a process and a commitment by the parties and their counsel to explore creative solutions and test those solutions against agreed criteria both scientific and fact based.

During private caucus meetings the family dialogue disclosed divergent interests by some family members. This in turn led to an exploration of options that otherwise would never have occurred as possibilities. I worked with both sides to facilitate a conversation that led to a new level of understanding. This resulted in a completely unexpected and uniquely appropriate solution for this family farm. It was made possible because the parties and their advisors took ownership of their own process and stayed committed to a creative dialogue.

In post mediation debriefs, the consensus of all parties involved was that the process had empowered them to co-create a solution that significantly exceeded their expectations.

When conflict impacts our personal or business lives, anger, fear and frustration are often companions on the journey. I approach every mediation as an opportunity to engage the parties, their lawyers, and advisors in the design of a unique resolution process that encompasses all their needs–a bigger box.

For more information about these Steps or assistance with difficult negotiations contact:
[email protected]

403-801-0234

Difficult Conversations

Difficult Conversations

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Have you ever wondered what it is about certain conversations that make them so difficult to have? Even when a skilled negotiator is present there are some situations that just seem unworkable.

What if I told you that part of the answer is actually tattooed on Brad Pitt’s bicep. It’s an excerpt taken from the poetry of 12th century Sufi mystic, Jalal al-din Muhammad Rumi. Roughly translated from it’s original Persian it means, “Out beyond ideas of wrong doing and right doing there is a field. I will meet you there.”

The quote urges those caught in confrontation to see that their idea of ‘right and wrong’ stems from a single perspective, from a lone story in a sea of countless others being told. The greatest challenge in polarized conversations may just be the ability to recognize one’s own attachment to stories of the past.

Positions that are viewed as the best and often only acceptable outcome for the future are rooted in these stories, as well as the stories about who the person at the other end of the table is. If the conversation is solely about who is ‘right’, then the distance between each side will only grow.

For those at odds with each other stepping into Rumi’s field is not an easy feat and once there, resolution is not a sure-fire thing. It is a journey through that must be revisited time and again, rather than a fixed destination.

In Rumi’s field the choice is to instead share stories for understanding rather than to establish who is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.

Through dialogue, not debate, exploration of each party’s interests makes a resolution possible.

This results not from compromise, not from “meeting in the middle”, but instead by co-creating a future in which both sides occupy a position that sees their needs met.

For more information about this topic please contact us at:
[email protected]

403-801-0234

Designing the Right Mediation

Designing the Right Mediation

Reading Time: 2 minutes

The Sufi Poet Rumi once said:

“Out beyond ideas of wrong doing and right doing there is a field. I’ll meet you there.”

Conflicts can be said to begin in our stories of the past and our attachment to our positions as the best and sometimes only acceptable outcome for our future.

This helps to explain a party’s willingness to endure the protracted nature and often prohibitive cost of litigation. Lawyers, in turn, face the considerable challenge of balancing litigation tactics and strategies with ongoing opportunities for effective settlement negotiations.

The skilled mediator is always initially facilitating a sharing of stories, not for the purpose of determining who is right or wrong, but with the objective of understanding the interests and needs that underlie each parties’ positions.

This in turn sets the stage for the evaluative reality testing appropriate for each unique case.

Depending on the degree of attachment to their story and its associated fear, anger, and frustration this facilitation can happen quite quickly or it can take considerable time and effort. Determining this balance between facilitative and evaluative mediation is a key question for the front-end design of most mediation processes.

Inset for Blog Post: Designing the Right Mediation

In my nearly 30 years as a mediator, it has been my experience that for many simple and complex cases mediators and lawyers can be effective collaborators in designing together a mediation process that works.

This “Design with Not For” approach seeks to establish, to the degree possible and right from the start, clear expectations about the mediation process, and the roles of the mediator, the lawyers and their clients.

The benefits for lawyers in this proactive design approach is threefold:

  • The mediator becomes a very effective ally for the lawyer in managing the lawyer’s client(s).
  • The time and effort required to properly prepare for mediation is much more effective.
  • The client’s experience as a real and effective participant in the process is enhanced.


David Gould (LLB, QC, C Med) has helped hundreds of lawyers and their clients – business and government organizations, and individuals – in conflict situations to co-create solutions for the future. For more information, contact:

For more information about these Steps or assistance with difficult negotiations contact:
[email protected]

403-801-0234