When Conflict Isn't Ripe for Resolution
/Sometimes, despite our best efforts as mediators, people simply aren't ready to resolve their conflict.
We've listened, asked thoughtful questions, explored interests, and helped the parties consider possible solutions. We've done everything we know to support forward movement. Yet something keeps them stuck.
It's tempting to wonder what we're missing. Perhaps a better question is whether the conflict is ready for resolution in the first place.
The Timing of Conflict Resolution
Conflict resolution scholar I. William Zartman developed Ripeness Theory to explain why some conflicts become negotiable while others remain stubbornly resistant to resolution.
Central to his theory is the concept of a Mutually Hurting Stalemate. Both parties must recognize that they're stuck, neither can achieve what they want by continuing the conflict, and the costs of fighting are becoming increasingly difficult to bear.
But recognizing the pain isn't enough. They must also see a possible way out.[1][2]
Here's the interesting part. The conflict may look ripe to us as mediators, but that doesn't mean the parties see it that way.
One person may still believe they can win. Another may feel that compromise means surrender. Someone else may be so invested in being right that the costs of continuing seem insignificant.
Until those perceptions change, even the most promising solutions may go nowhere.
Must Things Get Worse Before They Get Better?
Zartman's theory grew largely from international conflicts, where prolonged fighting and mounting losses sometimes create the conditions for peace negotiations.
But does everyone have to suffer before they're ready to resolve a dispute?
Researcher Marieke Kleiboer questioned whether ripeness adequately explains when parties become willing to negotiate, suggesting that willingness itself deserves greater attention.[3]
Zartman also explored the possibility of a Mutually Enticing Opportunity. Rather than being pushed toward resolution by pain, parties might be drawn toward it by the possibility of something better.[1]
For mediators, that's an important distinction.
What Can Mediators Do?
When parties seem stuck, our instinct is often to work harder. Ask another question. Reframe another statement. Explore another option.
Sometimes that works.
Other times, the most useful thing we can do is help people recognize where they are. What is this conflict costing them? What do they believe will happen if they continue? What might become possible if they choose a different direction?
We can help people explore these questions, but we cannot make them ready to change.
Sometimes the obstacle isn't the absence of a good solution. It's the absence of readiness to consider one.
Recognizing that distinction may be one of the most important skills we bring to mediation.
References
[1] Zartman, I. W. (2000). Ripeness: The Hurting Stalemate and Beyond. In International Conflict Resolution After the Cold War. National Academies Press. Read article.
[2] Zartman, I. W. (2001). The Timing of Peace Initiatives: Hurting Stalemates and Ripe Moments. Global Review of Ethnopolitics, 1(1), 8–18. Read article.
[3] Kleiboer, M. (1994). Ripeness of Conflict: A Fruitful Notion? Journal of Peace Research, 31(1), 109–116. View article.
When we join a company, partnership or team, our expectation is that everyone involved will exhibit professional behavior toward us and each other. Instead, it’s highly possible that we may become one of the more than 60 million adults in the United States who are affected in some way by bullying behavior at work.
What kind of behaviors are we talking about? Our definition is any interpersonal behavior that causes emotional distress in others sufficient enough to impede their productivity or disrupt organizational functioning. It isn’t just a personality conflict — it’s a chronic pattern of disrespectful behavior.