THE situation at Grangemouth reminds us how easy it is for a perceived grievance to escalate into a full-blown dispute and how easy it is for that to become an unresolved conflict.
A situation that might have been capable of resolution at an early stage when matters could be viewed relatively dispassionately has become deadlocked, especially as positions are affirmed in increasingly antagonistic public statements.
It is poss
ible that this is one of those disputes which was incapable of being sorted out. Occasionally one side or other simply wants a fight for the sake of it. However, that is rare. The problem is usually caused by the way the matter is handled, a lack of recognition of some underlying concern or by poor communication or misunderstanding. This triggers a sequence of events which escalate the difficulties. As the saying goes, it is often not about what it is about. Something else is going on.
Breaking an impasse such as Grangemouth is one of the challenges faced by skilled mediators. How do you get people unstuck when they have become so entrenched? It is very often about helping the individuals who have staked out a position and, indeed, their reputation.
Helping people to save face becomes critical. That may require acknowledgement by one or both sides of what has gone wrong or recognising the impact of what has been said. It may require a concession. Once that is done, a reciprocal response often follows.
Key to all this is to separate the people from the problem. The personalisation of a problem makes it much more difficult to resolve. Yes, there are difficult issues here. They need to be addressed. Whether we like it or not, people with different vantage points see things differently. There are (nearly always) two sides to a story. How I see things is my reality. My perceptions are shaped by the actions and reactions of others. What is the real concern here? What can be done to address it? What reference points or benchmarks are there to justify a particular approach and which will enhance each side's understanding of what the other is saying?
Paradoxically, for a solution to be found, each side has to help the other. What does the other need from me, which I can give, which will help move this on, to restore a working relationship, to enable us to find a creative way through?
None of this is easy, of course. And maybe one side will expect the other simply to capitulate. But how likely is that? And what would be the longer-term consequences? Reaching a negotiated agreement is hard work. Often it is beyond the players themselves.
Ultimately, breaking deadlock is about finding common interests. There nearly always is a common viewpoint, the convergence just has to be found.
Critical now, I suspect, is to address this situation away from the media, without press statements and accusations, to give key people the space – and place – to fashion a solution which they feel gives them a way out without recrimination.
• Ian Stewart's Readers' Ombudsman will return next week.
The full article contains 526 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
