Psychologists use the term “homophily” to refer to people preferring other people with whom they share a characteristic. That recognition of sharing contributes to improved communication though psychologists typically use the term to refer to shared age, gender, class and other similar identifiers.

When we are in conflict, we tend to see all the ways that the other people are different from us and forget that much is, in fact, shared. In conflict situations, something as simple as a shared laugh helps parties recognize that they do and can share something. And from that, communication can be improved.

When the advertising slogan “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas” was popular, some mediators began to say, “What happens in mediation, stays in mediation.” I’ve seen otherwise tense and hostile parties smile and laugh from upon hearing that one little bit of humor, which turns an otherwise tense situation into one in which the parties are better able to communicate.

During one session, an experienced mediator broke the point of her pencil and spontaneously said, “That can happen when you get too wrapped up in things.” Breaking her pencil point and that sentence aren’t necesarily amusing, but everyone in the room shared the moment, resulting in laughter by all present.

A well-educated mediator used to find ways to use “sayings” from his fictious “country lawyer uncle” in his summaries of what was said. He might say, “As my country lawyer uncle would say, you saw that offer as about as useless as a screen door on a submarine.” The people smiled, laughed, and in their shared laughter, saw themselves as having something in common.

President Kennedy was known for his creative use of humor. He sometimes gave gifts of silver mugs with this engraving:

There are three things which are real:

God, human folly, and laughter.

The first two are beyond our comprehension:

So we must do what we can with the third.

We could do worse then to find ways to bring appropriate shared laughter in conflict situations.

Several decades ago I published a book titled “Win-Win Negotiating,” (which still continues in some forms today), and am often asked of the origin of the phrase “win-win.”

Win-win is another way of referring to the collaborative style of conflict management and credit for the concept should go to Mary Parker Follett. However, for many years authors have used her ideas and examples without acknowledgement.

Mary Parker Follett was born in 1868 and eventually studied at the University of Cambridge. After her time in Cambridge she attended the Society for the Collegiate Instruction of Women, which later became known as Radcliffe College, where she graduated summa cum laude in 1898. She then applied to Harvard but was rejected on the basis of her gender. She entered the career of social work in Boston and was one of the first women to speak at the London School of Economics. She was also a consultant to President Theodore Roosevelt on managing not-for-profit and voluntary organizations.

Her writings had a limited audience but influenced many legendary management theorists. In fact, Warren Bennis has said, "Just about everything written today about leadership and organizations comes from Mary Parker Follett's writings and lectures."

Two of her ideas have had significant impact on the studies of conflict:

1.) “power with” and
2.) “win-win.”

She advocated what she termed “integration” or sharing power in organizations and a proponent of “power with” rather than “power over.” From that, she coined the term “win-win.” Her position was that simple compromise didn’t maximize benefits for all involved, but rather creative integrated collaborative solutions, which strengthened the relationship between parties.

Her notions developed during the 1920s may seem obvious today and speak to her influence.

Consider the following example:

“In the Harvard Library one day, in one of the smaller rooms, someone wanted the window open. I wanted it shut. We opened the window in the next room, where no one was sitting. This was not a compromise because there was no curtailing of desire; we both got what we really wanted. For I did not want a closed room, I simply did not want the north wind to blow directly on me; likewise the other occupant did not want that particular window open, he merely wanted more air in the room” (Follett, 1926/1940, p. 32).

The success of win-win depends on competing parties working together to share objectives and cooperatively find ways where neither lose.