MSU Extension Conflict Resolution

Two or more opposing viewpoints may initially appear as a zero-sum scenario, the concern being that any resolution leaves at least one party upset. But through intentional dialogue, we can look deeper into interests behind strongly held positions, with the potential to discover that those who hold these viewpoints may actually have some common ground.

One scenario, commonly arising in the municipal setting, comes from the viewpoints people hold on property rights. Private rights versus public rights frequently surface in discussions about local government action in planning, zoning and land use decisions.

In this example, a public meeting is held to discuss zoning in a rural community that has not had zoning before.

Resident A, who is concerned about too much government regulation, stands up and says, “I oppose zoning regulations because I am worried that the government will be telling me what I can and cannot do with my property. I will be restricted from far too much. Zoning will devalue my land!” 

Resident B, who moved there recently and was drawn to the community for its pristine natural features also shares, “I would love to see innovative zoning brought to our community. We have land use challenges, and we have resources worth protecting. Our entire community need not be open to all kinds of development; let’s plan and zone for continued success of this place. I want homes to remain valuable here.”

The positions or desired outcomes of Resident A and B are seemingly at odds with each other.
Resident A does NOT want zoning; Resident B does want zoning. 

However, when looking more closely at what Resident A and B said, some of their interests or underlying concerns are similar. For instance, Resident A values individual freedom and maintaining property values. Resident B wants to preserve the neighborhood and quality of life, as well as maintaining property values. Resident A and Resident B share similar interests because they both want to maintain property values and their personal quality of life. 

Sometimes finding this common interest requires us to listen more closely and dig deeper into why people may be advocating for their position. Through patient conversations, it is possible that we can learn the why behind someone’s position. And sometimes that why has a resolution that satisfies both concerns.

Once similar interests have been recognized, both/and thinking is introduced. By identifying a “both/and” question, the residents may be able to move toward a zoning decision that will satisfy both of their interests, despite holding different positions. 

The both/and question could be: “What can the Planning Commission do to maintain property values AND personal quality of life?” or “Are there styles of zoning that would allow residents to maintain flexibility in land use and preserve open lands?”

This is when the residents attending the meeting, perhaps with the help of the planning commission or a facilitator, would brainstorm possible solutions. After recording the ideas, the facilitator or planning commissioner leading the discussion would help the residents clarify and prioritize the brainstormed solutions. 

As this simple example illustrates, the process of identifying interests behind a person’s positions, determining a “both/and” question and brainstorming possible solutions can lead to finding common ground between people that hold different positions. If people are willing to stay in the spirit of deliberation, opposing parties may even discover there is something they can work on together.

Michigan State University Extension's leadership and community engagement team offer programs like Tools for Effective Facilitation (formerly Facilitative Leadership) which helps leaders, managers and citizens build important skills and teach tools that promote effective communication.