I’ve shared observations of what behaviors have gotten people into conflict. I’ve discussed transcribing oral understandings, sharing “bad news” early and misrepresentations and misperceptions.

In this posting I’ll suggest one that might seem a bit strange at first: how conflict can result in relationships when one party has complete legal right to their position.  Being “legally right” doesn’t protect you from conflict.

Several decades ago a farmer, who is since retired, had granted an easement and right-of-way to a natural gas pipeline company. The original easement granted the company full right to replace the pipeline when it deemed it necessary to do so. No notification nor additional compensation to the landowner was required in that original agreement. After a number of years the company determined it was necessary to replace and upgrade the pipeline. They held public sessions to explain the need for the work and to decide the best time of year to do it so they could avoid inconveniencing the farmers as little as possible. Additionally, the company published notices in local newspapers explaining the need for the replacement and detailing the work to be done.

Over the years the farmer became upset whenever he saw company employees on his land monitoring the pipeline. When it came time to replace the pipeline, he saw a survey team on his property and confronted them. The surveyors identified themselves and explained what they were doing. The farmer perceived the surveyors to be rude and belligerent.

Later, after the pipeline had been replaced, the farmer filed a complaint against the pipeline company. He contended the company did not return the top soil to its original condition. He contended he would suffer crop loss unless the top soil was reworked to its original state.

In mediation the representatives of the pipeline company shared copies of the original easement and right-of-way, records of public sessions and copies of notices published in the newspapers. They also shared photographs of the property before and after the work. They contended that not only were they “legally” in the right, the company had in fact gone far beyond what was legally required to work with all the landowners in the area, including this one.

Could the company have avoided this conflict? From the discussion in the mediation, it became clear that if it had treated this farmer more as an individual and accorded him more personal attention, he probably would not have been so distraught.  I’ll leave it to the reader to consider if it was worth the time and money for the company to put in that extra effort. Even when one party has full legal rights, the other party may create and sustain a long lasting and expensive conflict.

Previously, I’ve discussed transcribing oral understandings, sharing “bad news” early and misrepresentations. The hint I will share today deal with misperceptions.

Without being too technical, perception is understood as occurring in several steps beginning with sensation. It’s easy to recognize that we vary greatly even in our sight and hearing ranges. Some of us don’t have the hearing ability we once had, for example. The next step is selection or only attending to some stimuli. In a busy airport we might notice an announcement about our flight number while others around us wouldn’t pay attention to it.

Next is organization of how we attribute meaning to perceptions by how we group them with other perceptions. For example, if shown pictures of a cow, a chicken and grass, which two would you group together? Some would group the cow and chicken together as animals; others would group the cow and grass together because cows eat grass. So some perceive the cow first of all as an animal; others as a member of the group of “grass eaters.”

But it is the final step in the perception process that leads us to conflict. That step is interpretation or attaching meaning to the perception. For example, is a horse an animal to be raised for work, sport, recreation and valued as such or is a horse an animal raised to be eaten by humans. Those who value horses as work and sport animals have some pretty strong feelings about those who eat horse meat.

I once mediated a “neighbor vs. neighbor” dispute in an upscale mountain community. One of the neighbors on her daily jogs frequently passed by her neighbor’s house when he had his garage door open. On display and easily seen from the street was a Nazi flag. One day she confronted her neighbor demanding he take down and destroy the flag. He refused and they got into a heated conflict. Police were called who referred the parties to mediation.

In mediation the woman told her story. Her grandparents had been Nazi camp prisoners and, to her, the flag represented the horrors of the extermination camps. The very display of the flag, to her, was not only disrespectful but criminal.

I asked her neighbor if he wished to respond. He first apologized if the flag made his neighbor uncomfortable. He went on to explain that that flag had been brought back from World War II by his grandfather who had fought and been wounded on Normandy. To him, the flag brought feelings of pride for what his grandfather had accomplished in bringing down Nazi Germany. 

They both had very different interpretations or meaning of the flag. Their rather intense fight had been over those interpretations and had led to heated words, threats and police intervention. In mediation they were able to share those interpretations and learn that they shared important values. In short order they were able to put the dispute behind them and work out a mutually agreeable solution.

As a mediator I often find myself encouraging people to consider how others might have different perceptions to their own and, just possibly like in this example, those alternative perceptions are understandable and valid.