Tag Archives: conflict

When Apologies Don’t Come: Understanding and Managing Refusal to Apologise in Mediation

Posted on by
1

By Dr Samantha Hardy and Dr Judith Rafferty
This article has been republished (with minor amendments) with permission. The original publication can be found at The Conflict Management Academy.

Apologies can be transformative. A genuine “I’m sorry” has the potential to mend trust, restore dignity, and signal a willingness to move forward. Yet in practice, many mediators have sat through sessions where one party waits, sometimes desperately, for an apology that never arrives. The other party’s refusal to apologise can stall dialogue, harden positions, and frustrate attempts at resolution.

This post explores the dynamics at play when apologies are withheld. We will look at why people seek apologies, why others resist offering them, what options exist when an apology never comes, and how mediators can manage this fraught terrain.

1. Why someone might want to receive an apology

An apology might meet different needs for the receiver:

  • It might provide recognition of the impact of the other’s actions on the receiver. It might validate the receiver’s pain and suffering.
  • It might confirm that what happened was “wrong”, providing a sense of justice to the receiver.
  • It might restore a sense of power or control to the receiver. An apology can restore autonomy by giving them the power to accept, reject, or withhold forgiveness.
  • It might reaffirm shared values and expectations around behaviour. An apology communicates renewed consensus around those values, reinforcing the idea that both parties agree on what is acceptable behaviour in the future.
  • High-quality apologies can also reduce anger, increase empathy, and foster willingness to reconcile. This is particularly important in ongoing relationships such as workplaces, families, or communities.

2. Why someone might not want to apologise

If apologies are so powerful, why would someone refuse to offer one? The psychology is complex. Research has identified several barriers and motivations:

They don’t feel like they’ve done anything wrong

Many equate an apology with an admission of guilt. For those convinced they acted correctly, an apology can quickly feel exaggerated or unjustified.

Fear of consequences

Some worry that an apology will be interpreted as an admission of guilt, exposing them to criticism, sanctions, or even legal liability.

Protecting self-esteem

Apologising can feel like a loss of face, signalling that your standing is diminished in front of the other person. For those with fragile self-esteem, the psychological discomfort may be too great. Karina Schumann’s work highlights “perceived threat to self-image” as one of the strongest barriers to apologising.

Concerns about power and control

Okimoto, Wenzel, and Hedrick (2013) found that refusing to apologise can actually increase a person’s self-esteem by enhancing feelings of power and value integrity. By withholding an apology, people may feel they retain dominance and control.

Low concern for the relationship

Some simply do not value the relationship enough to invest in the discomfort of apologising. Low empathy, extreme self-interest, or avoidance of closeness can all reduce the likelihood of apology.

Perceived ineffectiveness of apology

Even when someone recognises that they caused harm, they may doubt whether apologising will help. They might expect rejection or believe the other person will not forgive them anyway.

Defensive fragility mistaken for strength

As psychologist Guy Winch notes, people who cannot apologise often appear tough, but their refusal usually reflects deep vulnerability and fragile self-worth.

They have already apologised

Sometimes people refuse to apologise in a mediation because they have already apologised (one or more times) and it hasn’t made any difference.

They don’t want it to be a trigger

Occasionally an apology can act as a trigger, reminding people of the circumstances and hurt of the past. Some people wish to avoid that and just “move on”, leaving the past behind.

3. What to do when someone refuses to apologise

In many mediations, a party may openly state that they want an apology. When it does not come, the process risks collapsing into impasse.

For mediators, it is important to see refusal not simply as obstinacy but as a defensive strategy rooted in self-protection, power, or relational disengagement.

Here are some strategies for mediators to help parties navigate this reality.

Manage expectations early

At the start of the mediation, clarify that apologies may or may not occur. This helps prevent disappointment later if one party was anticipating an apology as the main outcome. Mediators can also normalise the difficulty of apologising. Mediators can gently explain that apologising is psychologically hard for many people. This can reduce personalisation of the refusal.

Attend to power dynamics

Because apologies carry symbolic weight around power and control , mediators should be alert to how apology refusal may entrench dominance. They may need to balance this by giving the other party more voice or decision-making space.

Explore the interests underlying both the request for an apology and the refusal to give one

Ask the person who wants the apology to give an example of the kind of apology they would ideally like to receive, and explain the impact it would have on them.  Often, the need is for recognition, respect, or validation rather than the exact words “I’m sorry.” Mediators can help the party articulate what they hope to gain and explore other ways of meeting those needs.

Non-judgementally, ask the person who refuses to apologise to describe their reasoning. Listen for some of the reasons outlined above, and direct your interventions to exploring and responding to those needs.

These questions are probably best asked in private sessions so that parties have a safe space to be vulnerable.  From their answers, you may be able to identify what needs the apology (and not apologising) would meet and then work to brainstorm different ways to meet those needs.

Refocus the discussion to intent and impact

Supporting parties in mediation to clarify intent and impact can help address misunderstandings which may make the desire for apologies and the apology itself obsolete. Of course, clarifying intent and impact can also help people who weren’t aware of any wrongdoing gain awareness that their actions, even if meant/ intended otherwise, caused harm for the other and may thus increase the other’s desire and the actor’s awareness for a need for an apology. Apologising for something that had a different impact to what was intended could also be “easier” in the sense that it may be less threatening to self-image – after all, the actor had not had any intentions, but misunderstandings (external factors) may have led to the misperception of harm.

Support vulnerability and self-esteem

Support the person who does not want to apologise to explore ways of being vulnerable while still maintaining safety and self-esteem.

Mediators can help parties to identify substitute behaviours.

Sometimes, non-apologisers express contrition indirectly: by being extra kind, cooperative, or attentive after the fact. Mediators can help parties notice these gestures as alternative forms of repair.

Sometimes parties resist the word “apology” but are willing to express regret or acknowledge impact. Mediators can explore softer or alternative language that validates the other person without requiring full admission of fault.

Explore ways of meeting the requesting party’s needs by framing things in different ways that may or may not look exactly like an apology.

Importantly, mediators need not overemphasise hearing the words “I’m sorry.” Expressions of genuine remorse, awareness of impact, or acknowledgement of harm can often meet the deeper needs more effectively than the word itself.

Elicit reflection on meaning of apology

In private session, mediators can ask the person refusing to apologise: “What would it mean for the other party to hear you apologise?” This question does not pressure them to apologise, but it can prompt reflection on the potential value of an apology for the other person. At times, this reflection has opened space for an apology to emerge.

Use reframing techniques

If a party expresses their refusal bluntly (“I’m not going to apologise”), mediators can reframe this as an attempt to hold onto integrity or avoid insincerity. This can de-escalate defensiveness and allow conversation to continue.

Reality test

Ask the person who does not want to apologise what they potentially stand to lose and gain from apologising.

Ask the person who wants the apology what their choices are if they don’t receive it.

Invite reflection on choice

Mediators may also be able to encourage acceptance without agreement. Radical acceptance helps individuals acknowledge painful realities without condoning them. For example, someone may not receive an apology but can still choose to accept the situation and move forward with their values intact.

When a party faces the absence of apology, mediators can help them consider whether to persist in the relationship, renegotiate boundaries, or disengage altogether. As one writer put it: “Life becomes easier when you learn to accept an apology you never got”.

Invite mutual apologies

I also feel we should talk about situations where both parties are requesting an apology from each other and how that can create additional impasse or help the situation, since it balances the “power” a little.

Facilitate mutual checking for understanding

Invite each party to check that they have understood the other, including naming what was most difficult or hurtful in the conflict. Then ask the original speaker to confirm – “Did she/he get that right?” This creates a moment of empathy and can soften defensiveness. It also lays the groundwork for acknowledgement by ensuring that each person feels genuinely heard.

Shift the focus to future arrangements

If apology is not forthcoming, help parties reorient toward practical agreements. What changes in behaviour, communication, or boundaries could rebuild trust without requiring an explicit apology?

Support emotional closure without apology

Through reflective listening, summarising impacts, and validating emotions, mediators can help parties feel heard even in the absence of an apology. This may provide enough recognition to allow agreements to move forward. Research suggests there can be significant psychological benefits in choosing to let go of anger and resentment without an apology – including in situations where extreme harm has been suffered – showing how this approach can strengthen resilience. Recognising this possibility may open space for parties to consider new pathways to closure.

Conclusion

Refusal to apologise is one of the thorniest issues mediators can encounter. For the person harmed, it can feel like justice denied. For the person refusing, it can feel like self-preservation. And for the mediator, it can feel like an immovable barrier.

Yet by understanding the psychological underpinnings, mediators can reframe the impasse. People seek apologies for validation, dignity, and reaffirmation of values. People withhold apologies to protect self-image, preserve power, or because they doubt its effectiveness. When apologies do not come, parties can still find closure through acceptance, alternative forms of recognition, and practical agreements.

For mediators, the task is not to extract apologies but to help parties understand and meet underlying needs. With skill, patience, and creativity, even the absence of “I’m sorry” can become the starting point for resolution.

Boundaries in conflict

Posted on by
Reply

Samantha Hardy
This article has been republished with permission. The original publication can be found at The Conflict Management Academy.

In my work with clients in conflict, I constantly find that they have missed many opportunities to manage conflict more effectively. In particular, they often fail to set appropriate boundaries (or ANY boundaries) to allow themselves to be at their best in conflict situations.

Boundaries are a fundamental part of preventing unnecessary conflict, and managing conflict effectively when it does arise. Once you identify which kinds of boundaries work best for you, they are easy to set and maintain. You will start to become more courageous in conflict, bet better outcomes, and keep your integrity intact.

Caution

In any conflict situation, there are risks as well as opportunities. The information provided in this article includes general suggestions that are useful in many conflict situations. However, there are certain types of conflict, particularly when someone is using coercive or controlling behaviour over another person, in which boundaries are unlikely to work. Please think carefully before implementing any of the suggestions in this article, and ensure that you do not put yourself or others in danger. If in doubt, seek professional support, from a counsellor, a therapist or even the police if the risk of harm is imminent.

What are boundaries?

Boundaries are basically our own personal rules about what is, and what is not, okay. Effective boundaries support us to behave at our best in difficult situations. Brené Brown explains that boundaries help us to find ways to be generous to others, while still behaving in a way that is consistent with our personal values.

In conflict, boundaries allow us to engage in constructive conflict management, instead of simply avoiding the conflict or lashing out in order to protect ourselves. They provide a structure for communicating effectively in difficult situations.

If you don’t set good boundaries in conflict situations, you will end up feeling resentment, anger and frustration. You will act in ways that you later regret. You will damage relationships and your own reputation. You will not get what you need, you will not say what you need to say, and you will say things that you later wish you hadn’t said.

With good boundaries

  • You will prevent unnecessary conflict.
  • You will be able to stand up for yourself in conflict, while maintaining your integrity.
  • You will be able to communicate better in conflict situations.
  • You will be more understanding towards those with whom you are in conflict.
  • You will manage your emotions better in conflict interactions.

Types of boundaries

There are different kinds of boundaries that are useful for different situations. In conflict, there are three main types of boundaries: process boundaries, substantive boundaries and physical boundaries. These can all be used to prevent unnecessary conflict or to support you to manage conflict that does arrive courageously and with integrity.

A process boundary is a personal rule about “how” things should be done. For example, you may say to your employees that if they have a problem with something that you do at work, they should come and speak to you about it in person, rather than complaining behind your back or sending an email. Other process boundaries might relate to time – when you are and are not available to talk about a conflict, and for how long. Process boundaries may also relate to where conflict conversations take place (e.g. not in a public place, or not in front of children).

A substantive boundary relates to “what” the conflict is about. You may, for example, set a boundary that you are willing to talk to your ex-partner about what is best for the kids, but you are not willing to talk about your new relationship. A substantive boundary might be asking someone to be very clear about what they want to talk with you about before a meeting, so that you can be prepared to discuss those particular issues without being taken by surprise.

Physical boundaries are very useful in conflict situations. They may include things like keeping your office door closed when you are not available to have a conversation; ensuring that conflict discussions take place in a location where nobody can overhear what people are saying; or you physically removing yourself from a conversation in which someone is breaching your other boundaries (e.g. by walking out of the room, or hanging up the phone).

How to set boundaries

In order to set good boundaries, we need to know what is important to us. Our boundaries should support us to act in accordance with our values. We also need to know what kinds of behaviours from others make it difficult for us to maintain our integrity in conflict situations, and what kind of actions support us to communicate effectively. We need to distinguish between things that make us feel safe, but prevent us from managing conflict effectively (e.g. avoiding the other person) and things that enable us to interact in a constructive way.

Try to think about preventative boundaries, as well as boundaries that you might be able to use in the moment during a conflict conversation.

Things to think about when setting boundaries in conflict situations:

  • Which of our values are most important to us in conflict situations?
  • What kind of behaviour would be consistent with our values?
  • What would we like others to do in conflict situations to enable us to manage the conflict constructively?
  • What would help us to communicate effectively in conflict situations, so that we can listen respectfully but also say what we need to say?
  1. What makes you uncomfortable or stressed in conflict situations?
  2. What helps you communicate effectively in conflict situations?
  3. What process boundaries would support you in conflict situations?
  4. What substantive boundaries would support you in conflict situations?
  5. What physical boundaries would support you in conflict situations?

It can be difficult to get started and learn how to set effective boundaries in conflict situations, but fortunately The Conflict Management Academy provides an online module so you can develop the skills to interact with courage!

TIPS FOR NEW PRACTITIONERS: Getting your documents in order

Posted on by
1

Samantha Hardy
This article has been republished and adapted with permission. The original publication can be located within The Conflict Management Academy.

When setting up your practice, it’s important to have all your documents in order. Many people don’t prepare in advance and then are in a last-minute panic when the first client turns up and they need paperwork! 

It’s also important to remember that each client may need different types of paperwork, so you adapt and tailor your documents to each client and context.

What documents do you need?

During your training as a coach or mediator, you probably discussed things like agreements to mediate, or coaching contracts, but these are not all you need. You will also need things like:

  • Enquiry-related documents (e.g. information sheets and brochures for parties, lawyers, support people or employers)
  • Business-related documents (e.g. proposals, scope of work, invoices or client databases)
  • Service-related documents (e.g. questionnaires and intake forms agreements to participate, privacy and confidentiality agreements, record of mediation outcomes, spreadsheet for recording property items, value or distribution documents)
  • Correspondence templates
  • Feedback sheets, surveys, and evaluation documents

You may need a few versions of each kind of document for different clients and situations. For example, when an employer is involved as sponsor or when there are multiple parties involved in the conflict (whether a workplace or family conflict) or documents related for different services (e.g. mediation and coaching).

How do you make these documents available?

As well as the content of these documents, you should consider carefully when and how they are made available to prospective or current clients. For example:

  • Are the documents (in a generic version) made available publicly (e.g. on your website)?
  • Are the documents sent to prospective or current clients (as templates or with their details added)?
  • How important is it that the clients read and/or understand the documents? How do you ensure this is likely to happen? What happens if the client does not read the documents you provided?
  • Do you recommend and/or suggest clients obtain (legal or other) advice about the contents of any documents provided?
  • How accessible are your documents (e.g. for people who have visual or other impairments)?
  • What opportunities are there for clients to discuss the contents of the documents with you?
  • Do clients need to sign any documents? Do these need to be witnessed (by anyone, a lawyer or JP)? Can they be signed electronically?

You may have been provided with pro-forma examples of documents, like agreements to mediate or confidentiality agreements, from your trainers or your accreditation bodies, and these are a useful foundation to work from. However, using them “out of the box” is not ideal, as your brand, your clients, and your context are unique, and you need documents that are designed for your particular practice.

I highly recommend you go through any template very carefully and identify any contents or language that needs adjusting.  You should do this when creating your own branded template, but you should also do a quick check for each client, to ensure that each document is tailored appropriately for the specific client and their situation.

Check the content is applicable

Check that the content of the document suits your client and their situation. For example:

  • Is there is an employer or sponsor involved?
  • Is this a two-party or a multi-party situation?
  • Will you be working in person or online?
  • Is the process going to be confidential, or are there reporting requirements (e.g. to an employer)?
  • Does the template refer to laws (e.g. in relation to a mediator’s obligation to disclose information to authorities in certain circumstances) that might vary across jurisdictions?
  • Does the document use terminology that is not relevant to your client’s context. For example, does the document refer to litigation or going to court when this isn’t something your client is likely to be considering, or include statements like “settlement is legally binding” which may not apply to your client’s situation.

Check that the language is suitable

Formal or informal? The language used will differ greatly depending on your client-base. If you are working as a mediator in a legal context, many of your lawyer-clients may be repeat clients so will not need a great deal of information. However, referring lawyers may be providing information to their clients (e.g. a panel of three mediators for the client to choose between) and so you may also want to provide information suitable for lawyers to give to their clients to help inform the client’s choice.

How the people involved are referred to? If you are working with two employees involved in a personality clash at work, they may not find it comfortable to be referred to as “disputants” or “parties”. Try to accommodate language that is suitable for the dispute. For example, if it is a family dispute involving children, referring to the parties as “parents”.

How is the situation or conflict described? If your clients are currently involved in litigation, it might be perfectly acceptable to refer to the situation using language like “the dispute”. However, if you are mediating between family members in a personal conflict or employees who have a personality difference, this terminology might not sit well with them. You might be better using language like “your concerns” or “your working relationship”. Try to be sensitive to what would be comfortable for your clients.

Is it consistent with your brand? If your brand is down-to-earth, plain English, and informal, then providing clients with documents full of legal-ease or formal terminology and language may create a disconnect for your clients. This doesn’t mean you don’t include necessary information, but rather try to use language that is clear and also consistent with your brand ‘voice’.

Is it ambiguous, overstating, or misleading?  Be very careful not to use sweeping statements that may be misinterpreted. Terms to be careful about include “voluntary” and “confidential”. Depending on the client’s circumstances, these terms may not apply in a straightforward manner and can create confusion and distrust (and even sometimes lead to complaints).  For example, an employee who is required to attend mediation as a condition of their employment may not feel that their participation is voluntary. Similarly, if following a workplace mediation, one participant breaches an agreement to keep the discussions confidential by talking with a colleague about what happened, there is often very little anyone can do about this.  This can lead to the other person complaining that “the mediator said it was confidential and yet they couldn’t stop them from talking about what happened”.

Conclusion

Getting your documents in order and knowing how to adapt them when needed is important to build credibility and professionalism in your work.

In our Beyond the Table course accessible on the Conflict Management Academy, we have created an entire module on Your Documents which can help you review a broad variety of examples of different kinds of documents and be tailored to fit your practice and your brand.

We consider different categories of documents, including:

  • Enquiry-related documents (e.g. information sheets and brochures for parties, lawyers, support people or employers)
  • Business-related documents (e.g. proposals, scope of work, invoices or client databases)
  • Service-related documents (e.g. questionnaires and intake forms agreements to participate, privacy and confidentiality agreements, record of mediation outcomes, spreadsheet for recording property items, value or distribution documents)
  • Correspondence templates
  • Feedback sheets, surveys, and evaluation documents

Author Biography

Dr Samantha (Sam) Hardy is the Director and Lead Trainer of the Conflict Management Academy. Sam is an experienced mediator, conflict coach, and the founder of the REAL Conflict Coaching System™. She provides conflict support to managers and leaders across the world as well as professional development training, supervision and mentorship to mediators and coaches who work with clients in conflict. Sam is an accredited mediator under the Australian National Mediation Accreditation System (NMAS), a certified transformative mediator by the United States Institute of Conflict Transformation, and a certified narrative coach. She has been awarded Conflict Coach of the Year at the Australian Dispute Resolution Awards in 2022 as well as the Australian Resolution Institute Award for Service to Dispute Resolution in 2021 for her leadership and innovation in the field. Sam also publishes widely in dispute and conflict resolution, including Dispute Resolution in Australia, Mediation for Lawyers and Conflict Coaching Fundamentals: Working with Conflict Stories.

Written Off: Three Steps to Move Forward When You Feel Rejected

Posted on by
Reply

Dan Berstein

Whatever the reason for it and whoever it comes from, rejection hurts. 

In 2022 I wrote a book called Mental Health and Conflicts: A Handbook for Empowerment with hopes to teach people skills for managing challenging behaviors without writing off people with mental illnesses. At the time, this book represented a culmination of my life’s work and it meant a lot for to me that it found a home at the American Bar Association (ABA). 

Three years later, my ABA affiliation was unfortunately terminated following a difficult saga, for me and many others, as I was wrestling with interpersonal struggles and bipolar symptoms.   The news of my termination was very difficult. I have been hospitalized five times due to my bipolar disorder–always during times when I became overwhelmed by similar interpersonal challenges. During each episode, I would break down, my mind would get stuck on a problem, and I would decompensate into mania or even psychosis. My condition has a high risk for instability and suicide, with research showing that each subsequent episode means a decreased odds of returning to normal functioning.1

Being terminated from the ABA overwhelmed me. It was a sudden emotional crisis that put me at risk. I required emergency medication, emergency therapy sessions, and emergency support from friends and family. We summoned all of the lessons from decades of managing my condition in order to make it through.

Even though it was an immensely challenging period in my life, this time something was different. In 2023, and as part of my professional work as a conflict resolver, I had developed a system for responding to avoidance, rejection, and social exclusion. I presented a three-step model to get through these especially challenging situations, which I call the 3 R’s, at the Association for Conflict Resolution conference and the Academy of American Law Schools ADR Works-In-Progress conferences.

Without the skills of the 3 R’s, I do not know how I would have coped with being terminated. That system consists of:

  • Respect.
  • Reply.
  • Reorient. 

The 3 R’s approach readily lends itself to any situation and can be easily used by anyone when they face rejection from friends, family, colleagues. Here’s how it works:

1. Respect the person’s decision even if you find it stigmatizing or you disagree with it.

While it is tempting to try to convince them of your worth, dispel lies or inaccuracies, and seek ways to still have the relationship, it can also be dangerous. 

Sadly, I’ve learned in my life that, given I’m open with my bipolar disorder, it is easy for people to stigmatize my persistence to fight being rejected. Studies have shown that it is common that people with bipolar disorders are sensationalized in the media (such as TV shows or movies, and other portrayals).2 There is also research that shows people are more likely to worry someone that has a mental health problem is some kind of stalker.3 Amidst that kind of climate, it can be risky to continue contacting someone who may be seeing any follow-up through a stigmatizing lens. Arguing with their portrayal may only feed into the narrative.

Stigma aside, in any conflict it is helpful to separate the person’s decision to cut contact with you from the explanation you are given or the style with which it is delivered. It may feel offensive, demeaning, disrespectful to be ghosted or to hear a story that does not ring true or clearly is contrived. But no matter how poorly implemented or inaccurate the rejection may seem to be, it still provides notice of a decision: however painful the circumstances, this person wants to diminish or end their relationship to you.

Years of dispute resolution have taught me to prioritize self-determination,4 and made it easier for me to come to a place of accepting that a person made a rejection decision. 

While it does not feel good to be rejected, it has been a relief to readily accept it instead of debating. If there are other problems related to what is happening, such as bullying or discrimination, it still can be best not to fight and instead look for other kinds of support.5

2. Reply one last time to confirm the boundary.

You may not always get a formal letter or confirmation (such as a letter of termination–like I received) when it comes to rejection and social exclusion with friends, family, or others.

We live in a world filled with “ghosting” patterns–where people just pull away without contact–and things are left rather ambiguous and unclear.6 Sometimes it can be extremely ambiguous, such as in one of the latest dating trends where people engage in “breadcrumbing” to keep romantic partners on the hook or on hold.7

This is why, whenever anyone seems to be avoiding contact with me, I send one final reply to let them know that I am acknowledging what I perceive to be their boundary to be and that I plan to follow it. Depending on your personal boundaries, you might also let them know you are available in the future if they change their mind on reconnecting. In the course of my mental illness discrimination advocacy work, I typically take that approach, with hopes that one day the people or organizations who are avoiding me will evolve and want to engage. In that case, I want them to know the door is still open for that.

Sending this reply is important because it is possible–given any ambiguity–that there was a misperception. Sometimes people will immediately let you know that they didn’t mean to make you feel rejected and they might undo the boundary. On the other hand, if they are intent on the rejection, your reply documents that you are honoring their boundary and that record can be helpful, particularly to guard against the stigmas mentioned earlier.

3. Reorient to next steps rather than stay stuck in pain.

This is my favorite “R” because this approach has truly changed my life. Before the 3 R’s, I would stay fixated obsessing on hating myself, endorsing self-stigmas, wallowing, and reliving the loss over and over whilst descending into a dark place in my mind.

But there is another way. If we commit to focusing on reorienting ourselves to discover new opportunities, we can enrich our lives. Since I started using the 3 R’s model in my life, I have connected with new friends and colleagues, developed new projects and partnerships, and become active in new communities–all because I decided to immediately accept the person’s decision to cut contact with me and start looking for new people and places to be involved instead. Since 2023, when I first created this system, my life has grown at a meteoric rate with many new opportunities which I have found and nurtured every time I reorient.

My initial connection to Australia came by my efforts to reach out to someone in early 2024 and during a time when I received a different rejection letter related to my anti-discrimination advocacy work. This new relationship was a welcoming one where we collaborated on programs, and eventually led to a conference invitation from someone else and then to my writing on this Blog. None of this would have happened if I had not decided to reorient and move forward. And that example is just a fraction of the rich relationships I have developed when I took chances on reorienting toward new things instead of fighting to cling onto what I had already lost.

I am sad that my bipolar disorder and interpersonal struggles led to difficult circumstances with the ABA and led to my termination. At the same time, I am grateful that the 3 R’s helped me get through it and land on my feet. This method has helped me in a time of need where I have felt unwelcomed in any community or with any person. Remembering to do it when I am feeling hurt has allowed me to make healthier, more empowering decisions.

Even when I was so dysregulated by my serious mental illness and wrestling with an influx of distressed energy, I was still able to tap into those 3 R’s to ensure I made the best possible decisions to:

  1. Respect peoples’ choices instead of fighting to prove my worth,
  2. Reply to work things out instead of begging to return, and,
  3. Reorient to fill my life with opportunities that were a better fit for me and my sometimes-challenging mental health problems.

I will still love the American Bar Association, albeit from afar and via nostalgic memories, I still have a page posted summarizing much of my anti-discrimination work there and other projects from my four years as Co-Chair of the ABA’s Dispute Resolution Section Diversity Committee. During this time, I made many friends and did a lot of important work. Though I will certainly miss being connected with so many great opportunities and new ideas, I will keep reorienting amidst the loss. Meanwhile, I will always recommend that anyone who does have access avail themselves of the myriad of resources disseminated by the ABA and often developed from their community of over 200,000 members.

The 3 R’s have helped me prevent complete breakdowns and manage challenging times in my life. These skills have helped me find and new opportunities during times I might have otherwise fallen apart. Anyone can use this simple yet powerful system when they face rejection in their lives.

Author Biography

Dan Berstein is a mediator living with bipolar disorder who uses conflict resolution best practices to promote empowering mental health communication and prevent mental illness discrimination.  His company, MH Mediate, has helped thousands of professionals and organizations be empowering, accessible, and non-discriminatory toward people with disclosed or suspected mental health problems. Dan holds degrees from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and the Wharton School. He is the author of the 2022 book, Mental Health and Conflicts: A Handbook for Empowerment.

  1. Gergel, T., Adiukwu, F., & McInnis, M. (2024). Suicide and bipolar disorder: opportunities to change the agenda. The Lancet Psychiatry; Peters, A. T., West, A. E., Eisner, L., Baek, J., & Deckersbach, T. (2016). The burden of repeated mood episodes in bipolar I disorder: results from the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. The Journal of nervous and mental disease, 204(2), 87-94. ↩︎
  2. Klin, A., & Lemish, D. (2008). Mental disorders stigma in the media: Review of studies on production, content, and influences. Journal of health communication, 13(5), 434-449. ↩︎
  3. Wheatley, R., & Underwood, A. (2023). Stalking and the impact of labelling “There’sa difference between my offence and a stalker”. Journal of criminal psychology, 13(2), 91-104. ↩︎
  4. Baruch Bush, R. A., & Berstein, D. (2023). Orienting Toward Party Choice: A Simple Self-Determination Tool for Mediators. J. Disp. Resol., 1. ↩︎
  5. Tuckey, M. R., Li, Y., Neall, A. M., Chen, P. Y., Dollard, M. F., McLinton, S. S., … & Mattiske, J. (2022). Workplace bullying as an organizational problem: Spotlight on people management practices. Journal of occupational health psychology, 27(6), 544. ↩︎
  6. Freedman, G., Powell, D. N., Le, B., & Williams, K. D. (2019). Ghosting and destiny: Implicit theories of relationships predict beliefs about ghosting. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(3), 905-924. ↩︎
  7. Navarro, R., Larrañaga, E., Yubero, S., & Víllora, B. (2020). Psychological correlates of ghosting and breadcrumbing experiences: A preliminary study among adults. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(3), 1116. ↩︎

Mediation as Melodrama, One and a half decades on …

Posted on by
Reply


This blog post is motivated by my discussion with a friend about mediation. The friend was recounting her experiences of a divorce mediation, and her description reminded me of an article that I read many years ago by an academic and practitioner who I greatly admire – Dr Samantha Hardy, who these days is the Director of the Conflict Management Academy. The article is entitled “Mediation and Genre” and you can access it here – in the author’s own words, the objective of the article is to explain:


“why a conflict narrative based on the genre of melodrama tends to work against the resolution of the conflict and proposes tragedy as a more constructive genre for a conflict narrative. The paper also discusses how the mediation situation itself can constrain the possible genres that can be constructed in the process and explores the implications of those constraints for people in conflict and for the mediators facilitating a resolution.”

Sam first published this article in 2008 – now some 15 years ago. On re-reading it this week, I was struck by what an enduring piece it is. It also struck a chord with the friend who had recently been through the process as a participant.

Exploring the relationship between mediation and narrative, she explains how the genre of melodrama shapes conflict stories and in turn the mediation process itself. This is more than a purely academic exercise, as understanding melodramatic tendencies can significantly benefit both mediation practitioners and researchers. Most – or I would imagine, virtually all – practitioners would recognise what Cobb refers to as the rigidity and self-perpetuating nature of conflict stories – stories that each person uses to explain the relationship between the disputants, their actions, and the outcomes [link].

The Grip of Melodrama: How We Tell Our Conflict Stories

Western culture is particularly fond of the genre of melodrama, influencing how individuals perceive and articulate their conflicts – and in turn this has consequences for how we might mediate disputes. Sam uses the term “melodrama” not in the colloquial sense of over-the-top theatrics but rather as a specific literary genre characterised by:

  • Moral Polarisation: The division of characters into ‘good’ and ‘evil’, with the storyteller typically casting themselves as the innocent victim and the other party as the villain;
  • Heightened Emotions: Conflicts are often recounted with exaggerated displays of feelings, emphasising the victim’s suffering and aiming to provoke anger and judgment towards the villain; and

Sensationalism:  Disputants’ stories often  jump between events without a linear sequence of cause-and-effect, focusing instead on dramatic turning points and neglecting nuanced explanations.

She argues that individuals in conflict often become “told” by the melodramatic narrative, unconsciously adopting its framework to make sense of their situation. This leads to an oversimplification of complex issues, a focus on individual blame rather than systemic factors, and a rigid adherence to “dream justice” where the victim is vindicated and the villain punished.

Melodrama and the Mediation Process

The influence of melodrama extends beyond the conflict story itself, shaping the dynamics within the mediation process. These include through the duelling of competing narratives – with each party trying to position themselves in the role of victim and the other in the role of perpetrator. Unsurprisingly this hinders the exploration of shared responsibility and understanding. At the same time, melodramatic narrative often positions the mediator as an authoritative figure expected to discern the truth, dispense justice, and protect the victim.

Breaking Free from the Melodramatic Trap: Move Towards the Tragedy

Sam puts forward tragedy as an alternative literary genre that can offer a more constructive lens for understanding conflict. Unlike melodrama, tragedy acknowledges the complexities of human experience, allowing for:

  • Complex Characters: Tragic characters are not purely good or evil but possess internal conflicts and inconsistencies, making their actions understandable even when flawed;
  • Choice and Responsibility: Tragedy emphasizes the protagonist’s agency and the impact of their choices, even within constrained circumstances; and
  • Acceptance and Growth: Tragic narratives recognize that conflict can lead to suffering but also hold the potential for self-awareness and growth, even without a “happy ending”.

Mediators can help facilitate a shift from melodramatic to tragic understanding by:

  • Deconstructing Polarized Identities: Using irony and carefully crafted questions, mediators can help parties recognize the nuances and contradictions within themselves and each other;
  • Highlighting Choice and Agency: By emphasizing the choices available to parties, even within difficult situations, mediators can empower parties to actively participate in shaping the outcome of their dispute;  and

Shifting Focus from the Past to the Future: Encouraging parties to acknowledge their suffering and learn from their experiences allows them to move beyond blame and consider possibilities for growth and change.

The Enduring Relevance of this research

This piece encourages us to move beyond simplistic “fairy tale” understandings of conflict and encourage us to reflect on the complexities inherent in human interaction – and in mediation in particular. By recognising and addressing the tendency towards melodrama, mediators can better assist parties to move beyond entrenched positions and engage in more nuanced, productive dialogue.

Sam develops the concept much further in her book Conflict Coaching Fundamentals: Working with Conflict Stories, and she developed the REAL Conflict Coaching System as a way to support people to re-write their conflict story into one that gives them more choice and agency.

From the Author ….

I took this blog post as an opportunity to contact Sam, and I asked her how her own thinking on mediation narrative has evolved since she wrote this piece. Here’s what she said ….

“When Solon Simmons (Professor at the George Mason University Carter School for Peace and Conflict Studies and Director of the Narrative Lab) mentioned in passing on LinkedIn that I featured in his new book Narrating Peace: How to Tell a Conflict Story, I assumed that I showed up in a footnote somewhere.  Imagine my surprise and absolute delight when I started reading it and discovered that not only has he named a turning point in narrative and conflict scholarship as the “Cobb-Hardy Pivot” (after one of my mentors Sara Cobb and I), he also described my article about mediation and genre as “one of the most important articles on narrative social science in the past century”!  Honestly, to say he made my day is an enormous understatement!  

It’s also so rewarding to know that the work I did in my PhD actually forms the basis of a lot of what I do today in my work with clients in conflict, and supports others to do the same. That long slog to the PhD finish line was worth it in the end!”

Enhancing Conflict Management Theory and Practice through Insights from Psychology and Neuroscience

Posted on by
Reply

This post has been written by Judith Rafferty, adapted from her Open Educational Resource (OER) Neuroscience, psychology and conflict management (2024), licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 Licence by James Cook University.

Conflict Management: A Multidisciplinary Field

While there are designated conflict management scholars and practitioners, many ideas that inform both theory and practice come from outside the field. Individuals involved in conflict management often come from a broad spectrum of disciplines, particularly in the social sciences, such as psychology, sociology, history, geography, communication studies, political science, international relations, organizational behavior, and anthropology.

Contributions to conflict management are also made from the formal sciences like mathematics, physics, biology, and neuroscience. By exploring some of these disciplines in more detail, we can gain valuable perspectives that deepen our understanding of conflict formation, escalation, management, and resolution. Psychology and neuroscience offer some especially useful perspectives and are the focus of this post.

The Role of Psychology in Conflict Management

Psychology and some of its branches are highly relevant for both theory and practice in conflict management. For instance, the American Psychological Association has a division specifically dedicated to applying psychology knowledge to conflict situations, called “The Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology”. In fact, peace psychology is a distinct field of study with an International Centre for Peace Psychology, and the journal Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology.

Similarly, the Australian Psychological Society (APS) highlights the contributions psychologists make to understanding and managing conflict. According to the APS, psychology provides key insights into the psychological factors that underpin social conflict and aims to identify effective ways to foster positive relationships and productive outcomes. These approaches include strategies for resolving conflicts and governance models that prioritise cooperation over coercion (APS, 2023).

Understanding Psychology: A Foundation for Conflict Management

Psychology focuses on the study of mental processes and behaviour (and their relationship) (Zimbardo, Johnson, & McCann, 2009). The field of psychology comprises multiple sub-groups, or branches of psychology (Mullin, n.d.). Some of these branches are especially relevant to conflict management, including personality psychology, cognitive psychology, and social psychology. So, what do these branches focus on and how are they relevant to conflict management?

Cognitive psychology

Most generally, cognitive psychology is concerned with the study of mental processes such as thinking, learning, remembering, perception, information processing, language, problem-solving, decision-making, and reasoning. Cognitive psychology also considers people’s emotions and the impact of emotions on cognition. All cognitive processes mentioned earlier, as well as the effect of emotions on them, are highly relevant to the experience and management of conflict. For example, multiple mental processes and emotions are involved when people try to resolve conflicts, e.g. they must retrieve information about past conflict events and make decisions as to how to move forward. At the same time, mental processes and emotions are likely to have contributed to and have been affected by the conflict in the first place. For example, many conflicts arise because people have perceived events differently. More information about how cognitive psychology may relate to conflict management can be found here.

Figure 2.2.1. Six or Nine? Image generated with Adobe Firefly; Rafferty, J. (2024). Neuroscience, psychology, and conflict management. James Cook University. https://doi.org/10.25120/k4vd-86×5

Personality Psychology

Personality psychology is the scientific study of the whole person (McAdams, 2009). It focuses on human individuality and may address questions like:

  • Why does Paul act more violently than Peter in the same situation?
  • Why do Tracey and Sam have such different ways of communicating and managing conflict?

Personality psychology is distinct from other branches of psychology by focusing more on the person than on the situation. This is not to say though, that personality psychology neglects the situation. But rather than exploring how most people would act under certain circumstances, personality psychology tries to explain or predict how a specific type of person would most react in each situation. Conflict management practitioners and theorists have noted the effects that individual differences in personality may have on the formation and escalation of conflict, as well as on conflict resolution processes and their outcomes (Sandy et al., 2014). More information on how personality psychology may inform conflict management can be found here.

Social psychology

Social psychology seeks to answer questions like:

  • Why do people act differently when they are in a group compared to when they are on their own?
  • Why do people behave differently among their co-workers compared to when they are with their friends and family?
  • Why do people hold prejudice and stereotypes against certain groups and how may these affect their behaviours?
  • How can social cohesion best be strengthened to prevent social division and conflict?

Social psychology may be defined as “the scientific study of how individuals think, feel, and behave in a social context” (Kassin et al., 2020, p. 4). All three areas, thinking, feeling, and behaving are involved and affected during the emergence, escalation, management, and resolution of conflicts. Several notable books in the field have focused on the applications of social psychology for conflict theory and practice, such as:

A more detailed discussion of the application of social psychology for conflict management can be accessed here.

Neuroscience and Conflict: Bridging the Gap

Beyond psychology, the field of conflict management is increasingly looking to neuroscience for insights into why conflicts occur and how they can be effectively managed or resolved. Many conflict management scholars and practitioners recognise that people’s brains and bodies are significantly involved in facilitating societal conflict.

For instance, Mary Fitzduff (2021) notes in her book Our brains at war that recent advancements in genetics, brain science, and hormonal research suggest that many personality characteristics are rooted in the brain’s biology. By offering “new and more sophisticated and nuanced insights into the way that people actually think”, neuroscience makes a critical contribution to the field of conflict management (Burgess, 2022). As another example, Bruneau (2015), in her book chapter Putting neuroscience to work for peace, emphasises the value of directly examining neural activity to transform psychology-based conflict theories into mechanistic understandings (p. 143).

Knowledge from neuroscience can also help inform and evaluate the purpose, potential, design and principles of justice and conflict resolution processes, as well as the role and skills of conflict practitioners. For instance, findings from neuroscience can increase our understanding of aggression in people, which again may have implications for processes like restorative justice, as discussed in a Ted Talk by Dan Reisel. Other examples of how neuroscience can inform conflict management theory and practice, as well as links to related readings, can be found here.

Neuroscience Meets Psychology: A Synergy for Conflict Management

Neuroscience is the scientific study of the nervous system and an interdisciplinary field that integrates biology, chemistry, psychology, and more. Of particular interest for conflict management theory and practice are the intersections between neuroscience and psychology. It may help to think of neuroscience as dealing with the ‘physical’ (brain) and psychology dealing with the ‘abstract’ (mind).

The functioning of our brain, hormones and neurotransmitters significantly affects our behaviours, cognitions, and social experiences. That is why the links between neuroscience and different areas of psychology are increasingly being recognised, studied, and taught. The growing recognition of these links has led to the emergence of new interdisciplinary fields, such as social neuroscience and cognitive neuroscience (Ito & Kubota, 2022). Both are highly relevant to conflict management theory and practice.

Knowledge from social neuroscience, for instance, can increase our understanding of intergroup and social conflict, including the sources and factors that create, perpetuate, contribute to, and escalate intergroup conflict. This knowledge may again inform the planning and design of conflict intervention initiatives to help manage intergroup and social conflict. You can find further readings about social neuroscience and intergroup conflict in the previously mentioned Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology as well as other Peace Psychology publications, including the newsletter The Peace Psychologist and the blog Dialogues with Peace and Conflict.

Conclusion

The integration of psychology and its branches, as well as of neuroscience offers critical insights into the questions why conflict occurs, how it develops and how it may be managed. By exploring the connections between the human mind, brain, and behavior, conflict management can be more effective and nuanced. Many of these connections are discussed in more detail in Judith’s (2024) eBook Neuroscience, psychology and conflict management, from which this post has been adapted. A course on Neuroscience, Psychology and Conflict Management will also be developed next year to be offered through the Conflict Management Academy.

A full reference list of the readings referred to in this post can be found here.

Author Biography

Judith Rafferty is an Adjunct Senior Research Fellow at the Cairns Institute, JCU, and a Senior Trainer at the Conflict Management Academy. She integrates over 12 years of experience as a conflict management practitioner, researcher, and educator/trainer. She holds a PhD in Conflict Resolution, a Master of Conflict and Dispute Resolution, a Graduate Business Administration Diploma, and a Graduate Certificate in Psychology. As a Senior Lecturer and former Director of the postgraduate Conflict Management and Resolution program at James Cook University, Judith played a key role in developing curriculum and training resources that assist professionals in navigating complex conflict situations.
Judith can be contacted on:
Email: judith@conflictmanagementacademy.com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/judith-rafferty-770a329b

Are frameworks useful to help understand complex conflict contexts?

Posted on by
1

This post is republished with permission from the Conflict Management Academy.

Claire Holland and Judith Rafferty, conflict management specialists, academics, researchers and trainers with the Conflict Management Academy (CMA), say YES! According to Judith and Claire, frameworks are a useful way to break down and look at complicated conflict situations in a way that can bring greater awareness, understanding, and clarity to the situation. It’s not suggested that frameworks simplify the conflict, but that they are useful to make the conflict appear more manageable.

Practically, a framework can help to better understand a complex conflict by allowing the user to view the conflict through different lenses. Frameworks can also suggest multiple ways of thinking about the issues at hand, help the user to develop a more detailed and holistic picture of the conflict, and then consider multiple opportunities to work with the conflict. Claire and Judith suggest that using frameworks in conflict management contexts have multiple benefits, including:

  1. Assisting conflict management specialists, like mediators, conflict management coaches, and HR professionals, to work with clients to gather necessary information about the conflict and its context, and decide on next steps.
  2. Supporting clients to take a step back or ‘go to the balcony’ and perhaps not react out of habit and prior learned behaviour, but to suspend judgement on the situation until a more holistic analysis of the situation has been conducted.
  3. Thinking about future options that might be quite different from a conflict parties’ initial reaction to the situation once the conflict has been considered through different lenses.
  4. Focusing on long term strategies to manage the conflict by considering how the conflict may play out overtime. Looking at a conflict through an analytical lens and framework helps the user to determine if the issues in the conflict are suited to resolution or require alternative approaches to manage the conflict.

Conflict Analysis Framework

Drawing on years of teaching, research, and conflict management practice, Judith and Claire, have developed a framework to support conflict management specialists and conflict parties better understand ‘what is going on’ in a conflict situation. Drawing on multidisciplinary scholarship, including conflict studies, psychology, management, history, political science, etc. the Conflict Analysis Framework guides users through a step-by-step process to compartmentalise a complex conflict into more manageable segments for analysis.

Spencer, Barry, and Ojelabi in their text Dispute Resolution in Australia provide only a short commentary on conflict analysis. While they note that it’s not easy to analyse complex conflicts, they suggest that conflict specialists would ideally have knowledge of multiple analytical tools and models to help them collect information about the conflict, understand the conflict dynamics and to support the conflict parties to constructively manage or resolve the conflict. Condliffe, in his text Conflict Management: A practical guide, leads the reader through a process of ‘understanding conflict’ and presents several considerations in ‘responding to conflict’. Condliffe outlines several models of conflict but does not provide a clear overarching framework for analysis.

Several scholars and practitioners have introduced frameworks or tools to support conflict analysis. For example, Furlong, in his book The Conflict Resolution Toolbox, introduces 8 different models that help analyse and intervene in conflict, all considering different aspects of the conflict. This resource is particularly useful for interpersonal, less complex conflict situations. Bright’s Conflict Mapping Chart, lists specific elements for consideration in a conflict analysis process, aimed at analysing complex conflicts. Referring to Wehr’s Conflict Mapping Guide and Sandole’s Three Pillar Approach, Bright’s mapping chart describes five key steps to consider for analysis, informing a sixth step of conflict intervention. Judith and Claire have previously used this Chart in their teaching, as well as to develop engaging resources to be used for teaching conflict analysis.

Drawing on the work of colleagues and contemporary scholars, Claire and Judith have developed an 8-step framework for conflict analysis that will be introduced in their webinar Beyond Resolution: A planned approach to conflict engagement, available to view on demand on the CMA website.

Planned Approach to Conflict Engagement

Many conflicts have resolvable elements, but may also have ongoing aspects. For example, a divorcing couple may be able to negotiate and decide on selling the family home. However, decisions about their children’s future education, extracurricular activities, health, nutrition, etc., can’t really be negotiated as a one off, but will need to be managed for as long as both parents are involved in their children’s upbringing. So in the conflict analysis process that we described above, it is important to recognise the different aspects of a conflict, e.g. as resolvable or ongoing elements, and address them appropriately. Judith and Claire have developed a framework to support parties consider their options for “conflict engagement” as an alternative approach to dealing with conflict when elements of the conflict may be ongoing, and where resolution is not possible, or may be ill-advised.

The Planned Approach to Conflict Engagement, or PACE for short, draws on multidisciplinary scholarship, such as Bernard Mayer’s book Staying with Conflict: A strategic approach to ongoing conflict, Sam Hardy’s book Conflict Coaching Fundamentals: Working with conflict stories, as well as contemporary literature on neuroscience, psychology and emotions, including Judith’s recently published open access educational resources. PACE has also been informed by Judith’s and Claire’s own research and practice as conflict management specialists, including in Australia and in culturally diverse settings like the Central African Republic, Rwanda, the Philippines and refugee camps on the Thailand-Myanmar border. They have published a blog post and a journal article about their work as mediation specialists in some of these settings, discussing the adaptation of mediation models to different cultural settings.

Claire and Judith suggest that the development of a constructive and sustainable conflict engagement plan is ideally based on an exploration of several key areas, which they describe in detail in PACE. With the assistance of a suite of prompt questions and models for categorization for each of these key areas, the PACE framework assists conflict parties in deepening and expanding their understanding of the conflict itself as well as their options to engage constructively in the conflict over time. Some key recommendations for a sustainable approach to engagement in ongoing conflict include that parties:

  1. Have understood the ongoing nature of at least some aspects of their conflict, and
  2. Develop a plan to manage their emotions, energy, and access to resources and support long-term. This point is important so that parties don’t burn out and can continue to stay productive and engaged in the conflict over time.

In the webinar Beyond Resolution: A planned approach to conflict engagement, available to view on demand on the CMA website, Judith and Claire are introducing their PACE framework in addition to the Conflict Analysis Framework. They will also offer training on the Planned Approach to Conflict Engagement (PACE) Framework on the CMA platform.

Teaching behavioural insights in dispute resolution

Posted on by
Reply

As part of an ongoing research project,  I’ve been looking at the impact of behavioural insights on mediation (and dispute resolution more broadly).   By ‘behavioural insights’, I’m referring to fields such as cognitive neuroscience, behavioural economics, social psychology,  all of which have been recently made accessible to non-experts through popular books such as  Nudge, Thinking, Fast and Slow and Blink.   

This project is directed at a critical analysis of the impact of these fields on core concepts such as self-determination in mediation.   However, that’s a post for another day  (and in fact a forthcoming book chapter), where I explore the challenges of these fields for foundational concepts in mediation, such as self-determination and party autonomy.   

However, in the process of undertaking this research I have come across some very good teaching resources from the University of Texas’ Ethics Unwrapped site.   I plan to use these in my teaching this semester, as they offer some insights into cognitive biases that, as mediators know only too well,  are common to participants in disputes.      Some of the topics that I have found particularly useful include  –  loss aversion,  framing, and fundamental attribution error.