The rule of three applies across a wide range of contexts. In fact, the rule of three is a different rule in each context. Today, though, I’m thinking in terms of conflict.
Duncan Autrey has published his views on three rules of conflict here and here. His three rules may seem counter-intuitive:
The conflict is never about what the conflict is about.
Everyone involved in a conflict must be involved in the solution.
The process of resolving a conflict and the outcome are one and the same.
The simple statement for rule #1 is probably hard to understand but it makes more sense once Autrey explains it:
Conflicts tend to be about an issue, defined by the different positions of the conflicting parties. This is an objective understanding of conflict, and it is tempting to try to resolve things at this level through logic, negotiation and legal precedence. This is the level of conflict at which the legal system operates. Actually, this it the level that most people try to operate. The catch is that this approach rarely leads to a satisfactory solution. Usually it leads to someone having an "irrational" response, another feeling resentful about the outcome or a total collapse of the process and dissolution of the relationships. This is, because the conflict is never about what the conflict is about.
He includes in the Three Rules of Conflict an “iceberg” model that helps us see that responses to conflict around an issue may be rooted in much deeper feelings and experiences.
I am a bit stuck on this point because most conflict resolution attempts I see are focused at the logical, objective level, not taking into account other, deeper-seated drivers. At the business level, the conflict resolution process often seems to be: the problem is assumed to be the human but to protect the organization we treat the person as if he/she is an unfeeling machine. If the person gets upset and leaves, the problem is solved. If the person gives up, the problem is solved. If the person doesn’t give up or give in, then disciplinary action moves the organization toward the preferred solution: removal of the person from the organization.
In today’s world where inclusion and equity are important drivers for many organizations — and certainly for many people who contribute to the success or failure of organizations — the top level of the iceberg (“issues”) is not what is driving behaviors. If we focus only on the cold, impersonal aspect of behaviors, we don’t solve problems, we simply push them away. Ultimately, organizations will suffer as their workforce becomes aware that managers would rather have unemotional automatons as employees. It is very difficult for an organization to succeed when its workers don’t care.
One may ask: is it the organization’s job to solve people’s problems? At the most surficial level, the answer must be no. But for a more sustainable, resilient future, an organization that does not take into account the emotional health of its employees — especially when conflict emerges — seems doomed.