I am working on a book about conflict resolution in the home building industry. It is still in draft stage right now, so if anyone out there has any good stories about conflict in that industry, I'd love to hear them.

1. Tell the Truth
In most meetings there is what we say, and then there's what we're thinking in our heads. Usually the latter has much more volume and wisdom than the former. We need to say that we disagree. We need to say that the idea won't work. We need to say that we don't know the answer yet. Try it.

2. Ask questions.
I know you have answers. But ask more questions anyway. When someone makes a suggestion and you respond with your alternative answer, it feels like you are in a competitive game (they no need to come up with a BETTER answer). We all come up with better answers if first we ask more questions. Oh, and if you ask the question, PLEASE listen to the answer instead of coming up with more answers in your head.

3. Give your ego a break
Maybe it will help to sit in front of the mirror and so some affirmations before the meeting ("%u2026and gosh darn it, people LIKE me!"), but during the meeting don't let your ego hijack the conversation. Egos cause us to NOT say some things (fear of looking bad), and they cause us to say things that we regret later (making sure they look bad, or at least that you're better). Learn how to be aware of when your ego takes over, and then put it to the side. Remember, your ACTUAL self worth is not likely to change because of what you say at this one meeting.

4. Name the elephant
We all know of the "dead elephant" in the room-that issue that everyone knows is huge and important (and often smelly) but no one is talking about. Just name it. "I think there's a dead elephant in the room that we're not talking about and it's X." You may be wrong or it may not be the right time to talk about it. But put it out there anyway, because trying to go back later and talk about it will be MUCH more difficult.

5. Finish it
Don't open up the conflict, let everyone get uncomfortable, and then say you're out of time and we'll deal with this later. You have to take the conversation through to some kind of closure-even if it is temporary, and it has to be okay with all the parties in the conflict. This means your meeting may not always follow its agenda. It's easier to deal with an unfinished agenda than the long-term effects of unfinished conflict.

Bonus: Make the rules explicit
Tell everyone ahead of time that these are the rules about conflict (or whatever rules you come up with) and that it's everyone's responsibility to support each other in working this way. It's an easy way to start to introduce real accountability into meetings.

Jim Camp has a book that mentions, among other things, the distinction between "good" questions and "bad" ones. The bad ones start with verbs (Isn't this what you really want? Is there any reason you wouldn't buy this sofa? Can you say yes to may offer?), but the good ones start with the trusty interrogatives (who, what, when, where, why%u2026).

I think this distinction would be particularly helpful in an exercise I often use when doing conflict resolution training. It is a simple one, and you can do it back at the office easily. I have people pair up, where one person has a problem, and the other is the "coach" who will help solve the problem. I encourage people to use actual problems-things they really aren't sure how to solve or what to do next.

The coach has one important restriction: she or he can ONLY ask questions (interrogative-led questions are recommended). You can't ask questions that are really suggestions (Have you tried talking directly with the boss?). They must be open ended (What have you tried?).

You may be surprised at how incredibly difficult it is to ONLY ask questions. We want to solve problems, and we want to provide answers. To help means to tell others what they should do. Suggesting to others what they should do is not evil-but it does not get us the same results we get when we merely ask questions and THEY figure out what to do on their own.

And that's what the people who have the problem often report: they are shocked to discover that they were able to solve the problem themselves-with the help of some very simple, but open-ended questions.

Why is everyone afraid of conflict? An association executive recently asked advice from colleagues on a listserver about what to do about a committee co-chair who had "done a lot of work%u2026but stepped on lots of toes and caused extra work for staff." The incoming president was suggesting not reappointing this person as co-chair.

Instead of dealing with the conflict, the first response is to end the relationship. Unfortunately, this response is typical. At all levels of associations, people bury conflict. They pretend it isn't conflict. If it gets really bad, they raise the stakes and take actions that simply remove the possibility of the conflict emerging again (e.g., ending the relationship). People will do anything but confronting it head on (like, for example, having a candid conversation with a volunteer about how his behavior is upsetting other volunteers or staff).

Of course, there is a valid explanation for chronic conflict avoidance. Everyone has had experiences of being in conflict where the situation got uncomfortable. That's why we run the other way. But remember-just because conflict has been unpleasant, doesn't mean it always will be. Conflict is a natural part of every single human system, so instead of trying to avoid it (which is impossible), how about learning how to deal with it more effectively?

It takes a little bit of knowledge and perhaps some skill development, but mostly it takes the courage to simply try a new approach. Start small on the less "important" conflicts, and as you make progress you can tackle the bigger issues. But above all, start. The cost of ignoring conflict can be overwhelming.

When conflict is avoided, the real issues never get out on the table. A pattern will then emerge in your association where the "norm" is to hide what you really think. So at meetings, people talk around the difficult issues, retiring to their offices without a clear sense of what was agreed to or what they should do next. In fact, in cultures where conflict is routinely avoided, being "accountable" becomes quite difficult, and results suffer.

So it may feel like it would be less painful to avoid that conflict, but don't be fooled. In the long run you will suffer more by avoiding it. Start paying attention to the conflict in your association. Notice where it happens and notice when you and others avoid it. Then start the work of changing the pattern and dealing with your conflict differently. The long-term payoff can be significant.