Initiating Collaboration in the Midst of a Standoff: What to Do at that Critical Moment

Even when “warring parties” know that at some point in the future they will have to talk to one another before there can be “peace,” it is extremely difficult to get them to fast‐forward to that moment. Sometimes they think “time is on their side” and that continuing the battle will give them an advantage when talks finally begin (i.e., they will have gained more ground, allowing them to inflate their demands during settlement negotiations). Other times, leaders worry they will lose credibility in the eyes of their followers or constituents if they appear weak. A third rationalization for not initiating talks is that the other side will assume you are ready to give up, causing them to escalate their demands or harden their positions, rather than engage in talks. These are the typical reasons for continuing a conflict, even when both sides know that eventually they will have to talk with each other. I am interested in ways to help parties escape intractable conflicts by using what is called “breakthrough collaboration.”

Peacemakers must rebut the arguments for allowing the conflict to continue. They often point out in violent conflict that lives and money can be saved if talks begin sooner rather than later. They note that in the aftermath of a successful resolution, leaders who argue for a move toward peace can gain stature (and conceivably power) within their own ranks, as well as in the eyes of the world‐at‐large. Finally, when a leader is willing to risk a cessation of conflict, those who initiate peace talks can sometimes ask for more from the other parties, almost as a kind of compensation for their willingness to cooperate. Versions of these arguments apply whether the parties are literally at war, or embroiled in a commercial, public, or organizational dispute of some other kind. In an organizational context, parties may want to hold on so they can continue to push their view of what should be happening. This might involve deflecting internal opposition, not through violence, but by building coalitions with the authority to say who the new leader will be, or what new direction the organization will take. The same three excuses I already have mentioned above for not fast‐forwarding to the moment when breakthrough collaboration can begin—as well as the same three rebuttals—apply equally well in organizational as well as international settings. The question is, are there ways to take advantage of or create turning points, stopping points, or other transitions in an evolving conflict that will facilitate launching breakthrough collaboration? Can we specify which kinds of critical moments permit breakthrough collaboration?

My colleagues at the Consensus Building Institute (CBI) have been thinking and writing about breakthrough collaboration for some time (Fairman and Smith 2019a). CBI is a not‐for‐profit provider of collaboration assistance and neutral services that has been actively involved in a wide range of resource management and other disputes around the world for almost thirty years. CBI is focused on what is possible when “hurting stalemates” (i.e., the status quo is unacceptable to all sides) are no longer bearable, or a pause in a conflict, for whatever reason, creates the possibility of neutral intervention. I am interested in whether we can identify and anticipate the specific kinds of critical moments in a conflict that make it possible to initiate breakthrough collaboration. This might include new roles for neutral interveners who have historically been restricted from entering a conflict only when invited to do so by both sides. Perhaps, the ways we initiate breakthrough collaboration can actually constitute a critical moment in and of itself.

My CBI colleagues say that in times of high polarization, dealing with the challenges facing the sides or parties requires long‐term cooperation. This is hard to sustain if trust is very low, there is no shared vision regarding a solution or a process for inventing one; and there is no safe space in which to begin a direct conversation. So, the question is, what shifts in momentum or other turning points in a conflict can suddenly create opportunities for breakthrough collaboration that were not previously possible? Or, how can preliminary moves, especially by self‐starting mediators, actually create a critical moment or a turning point in which some form of breakthrough collaboration is possible? In this special issue, critical moments are defined as both orchestrated moments and improvised responses to unexpected events. I am interested in both kinds of critical moments as responses to or products of breakthrough collaboration.

Breakthrough collaboration, according to CBI, is an initiative that allows conflicting parties to (1) begin building trust in each other and in the prospect of making progress; (2) use creative strategies to imagine and explore new possibilities regarding future relationships; (3) negotiate effectively to meet core interests on all sides and manage power imbalances; (4) take joint action to test the viability of working together; and (5) integrate learning from an initial collaboration of some kind into a longer term effort. (Fairman and Smith 2019a) Breakthrough collaboration can begin with very small steps involving just one of the key parties. It can evolve slowly. It can also take the form of a more momentous event involving all the parties.

In this brief article, I consider ways that breakthrough collaboration might be launched during an ongoing conflict by taking advantage of what we know about critical moments, particularly those that occur when new leadership emerges on at least one side, additional parties join the fray, or conflict is pushed in a new direction in response to external pressures. Cessation of the battle is not necessary for breakthrough collaboration to begin.

In several instances, I have been able to bring the rank‐and‐file of a union together with the middle management of the company in which they work to participate in negotiation training. Everyone spent two days learning how to improve their personal negotiation skills. When I then suggested, during the training, that they might want to apply what they were learning to redesign their upcoming contract bargaining process, it was relatively easy to get both sides to select a handful of participants to do just that. I think this was possible because their previous contract talks had gone very badly, ending in a strike. Neither the leadership on the management side or the union side had an idea about how to stop the same thing from happening again. Instead, they were building up their energy to do a better job of “winning” the next time around. However, a one‐day joint‐training session in techniques of “mutual gain” or “interest‐based” negotiation, scheduled before the upcoming round of bargaining began, provided the breakthrough they needed. The training created a critical moment in which the parties had a chance to interact with each other in an entirely different way. Neither side was asked to make any concessions. The cost of the joint training was funded by the U.S. Department of Labor. The training allowed the parties to kick‐start a fundamental redesign of their contract bargaining process. So the training took advantage of a lull in the contract bargaining timetable, and perhaps their past failure. Our independent efforts created a critical moment by enabling the parties to re‐imagine the contract bargaining process together (Susskind and Landry 1991).

The work that my Program on Negotiation (PON) colleagues did on critical moments fifteen years ago (Susskind 2004) suggested that moments become critical in a negotiation when they create opportunities for parties to move in new directions, perhaps opening up their thinking to new possibilities, or at least causing them to question their understanding of the game in which they are involved. What interests me is whether such moments—and the possibilities they offer —are generative on their own, or lead to transformations because they remove obstacles of various kinds.

The more we can understand the causes or precursors of critical moments, the more effectively we can use them to move negotiations in a constructive direction. What might allow long‐time adversaries in a hurting stalemate to move in a new direction? If or when a critical moment occurs, how can it be used to alter the trajectory of an ongoing confrontation? Such a change in trajectory need not involve a shift to “solving” the presenting dispute, but might “kick‐off” a new round of trust‐building with the aim of refashioning relationships so that joint problem‐solving ultimately becomes possible. And, what kinds of interventions at various critical moments could help parties sponsor change that might later be judged to have been transformative?

There are strategic, tactical, and philosophical reasons that one or more parties involved in a longstanding confrontation or hurting stalemate might be unwilling or unable to move in a more productive problem‐solving direction. First, one or more parties may be benefitting in some way from the conflict in its current form, even if all sides, in general, are hurting. Second, the parties may be restricted by legal, political, economic, or organizational forces from moving in a different direction. Third, given their history and culture, they may be unable to imagine interacting with their long‐time adversaries in a more productive fashion. I find it helpful to cluster these obstacles under three colloquial rubrics: (1) I don't want to change direction; (2) I'm not allowed to change direction, and, (3) I don't know how to interact in any other way.

When parties are locked into an escalating spiral, something must be added to the situation to open up a new direction in which they might move. Sometimes the addition of new parties (creating new coalitional opportunities or linkages) can generate a critical moment and allow breakthrough collaboration. At times the addition of a new item to the agenda of concerns with which the parties are wrestling can cause them to recalculate the gains and losses associated with the status quo. This can increase their openness to a suggestion along the lines of breakthrough collaboration.

In the final analysis, an effort to initiate breakthrough collaboration can become a critical moment when it offers the parties a chance to overcome the barriers or excuses that have kept them entrenched. Here are some examples of ways to launch breakthrough collaboration that may create a critical moment:

1. A convener may emerge.  There is almost always an observer or actor on the periphery of a dispute who is not really a party, but whose interests would be served by enabling the parties to improve their relationship. Such an individual or organization (e.g., a community foundation in a city hoping that police and residents can change the way they interact) can become the sponsor of some form of breakthrough collaboration. However, the head of the foundation might be hesitant to take action; worried that if they fail they could undermine the foundation's reputation. They might be reluctant to take on a convening role for fear that such an intervention could be viewed as a form of political engagement (even if they are not taking sides) that they are restricted from pursuing under the terms of their charter. They might be hesitant to act because they don't know how to convene the parties in an ongoing dispute.

   Thus, while it is possible for someone who is not a party to sponsor or initiate some form of breakthrough collaboration, such actors might be reluctant to assume a convener role. An organization or individual who has never played a convening role might intervene only if they are assisted by a trained mediator.

2. A mediator or a mediation team may become involved.  The convener might be the one to recruit an appropriate mediator or mediation team who can begin talking separately and confidentially with each of the parties involved in the dispute. The mediator could explore possible activities that might help to build or rebuild trust. In such situations, the mediator would probably need to meet in separate caucuses with all the parties and would not attempt to draft a settlement. Instead, such mediators would probably help the parties enumerate possible “low‐key” activities that might rekindle trust (for instance, attending a cultural celebration that has shared meaning to all parties). This would allow the parties to “find themselves” in the same place at the same time without having agreed to meet. With assistance from the mediator, a discussion of further interactions could proceed.

   There are independent mediators and mediating organizations almost everywhere. Under normal circumstances, they wait to be asked by the key parties in a dispute to provide “neutral services.” Professional mediators, historically, have only entered a conflict when invited to do so by all sides. But, what if self‐starting mediators given a “green light” by a relevant convener (see #1 above) took the initiative to meet separately with the parties before either of them considered mediation? What if the mediators were only contacting the parties to try to probe their views of the conflict and their sense of the kinds of activities (and whose involvement) might shift the circumstances sufficiently to make some form of collaboration (which need not involve face‐to‐face problem‐solving) attractive? The range of possible interactions between self‐starting mediators and one or all sides is unlimited. Mediators might try to produce a shared analysis of a conflict (without citing anyone on either side with whom they had spoken). If the sides independently acknowledge the accuracy of such an assessment, the mediator might suggest a follow‐on activity (previously discussed with each of the parties). Perhaps the mediator could arrange a meeting of carefully selected individuals (proxies) designated (confidentially) by each side. All such actions by self‐starting mediators can exploit or create critical moments by removing obstacles to collaborative problem‐solving.

3. Use relatively low‐key joint activities as a means of beginning to build trust.  Breakthrough collaboration can involve activities ranging from something as simple as sharing a meal, to carefully organized joint training sessions using role‐play simulations designed specifically for the situation (Rumore, Schenk, and Susskind 2016). An invitation to review an informal assessment of the status quo by a neutral party or a meeting called by a convenor involving proxies for the parties in dispute can offer face‐saving ways for leaders on all sides to explore possible new directions without making commitments of any kind. Once a list of possible activities has been constructed, a mediator can work with the convener to implement whatever events or interactions each of the parties is willing to endorse (either separately or together). These can involve small moves or large moves. As I have said, the convener and the mediator must take responsibility for identifying funds from philanthropic or other non‐partisan sources to support whatever efforts the two (or more) groups decide to take. It is unlikely that the parties themselves would agree simultaneously to fund breakthrough collaboration. And, if only one side wants to fund the effort, that would undermine the neutrality of the mediator.

4. Start the long‐term process of building relationships.  At some point during any low‐key collaborative activity, the parties can consider additional events they might sponsor or organize, separately or in parallel. These could focus on exploring reasons why allowing the long‐term conflict in which they have been engaged to continue might no longer be in their best interests. One important goal of such activities would be to purge unfounded demonization of “the other.” That is, the objective would be to acquaint the people on each side with those on the other as individuals rather than as organizational symbols or spokespeople (Susskind and Field 1999).

   My CBI colleagues have noted a range of situations in which very modest successes have provided the momentum required to continue moving in a constructive direction (Fairman and Smith 2019b). Again, from my standpoint, this suggests that breakthrough collaboration can constitute a critical moment (by removing obstacles to cooperation) or take advantage of a turning point, like a break in the action, and thus exploit a critical moment when it occurs.

5. Address at least one cause of the conflict, so the parties can see the merit of working together.  When and if the parties feel ready, they can shift to more of a problem‐solving focus. That is, they can shift from separate small steps in relationship‐building to joint efforts to understand the larger bind in which they find themselves and possible ways out of it. They might work with the mediator to brainstorm small institutional or organizational changes they would like the other side to consider. As my CBI colleagues point out:

All of this will only work if the moment is right (i.e., a turning point has been reached, there is an unrelated pause in the action, gains, and losses on one or both sides have reached a tipping point, etc.). That's when a convener and a mediator can initiate action. I doubt, though, there is any formal analysis that will reveal whether the most significant barriers to collaboration have been removed. Rather, I think the parties who contemplate taking action must figure out why the parties are stuck, identify a useful moment for an initial intervention, and then think about a sequence of events that might create a more powerful critical moment than the one that already has occurred.

Dispute resolution, especially when a mediator is involved, aims to resolve a conflict by facilitating problem‐solving conversations among the parties. Their search is usually for a solution (or a resolution). In many situations, though, the parties may not be ready to stop fighting; they may find it too difficult to imagine working with their adversaries in a mutually productive way. What is needed in such circumstances is a shift in the kaleidoscope of everyone's expectations, allowing them to contemplate a creative activity that will move them toward a new relationship with the same people with whom they have been at odds.

Traditionally, mediators are called in when disputes have “ripened” (Kreisberg 1998). By that time, presumably, the parties and the issues are clear. Breakthrough collaboration doesn't need to wait. The relationships among the parties need not have ripened, but rather some shift in the larger situation must have altered their sense of the gains and losses associated with the status quo. Also, breakthrough collaboration doesn't require the views of all the parties to change at the time of the collaboration. So, dispute resolution involves working with all the parties simultaneously, while breakthrough collaboration does not. This may feel inappropriate to some mediators who have been trained not to give “advice to one side,” but in a pre‐mediation context, breakthrough collaboration is an acceptable form of neutral intervention.

The outcome of dispute resolution is usually a short‐term agreement that takes the form of a written understanding to which the parties agree to be bound. Breakthrough collaboration, on the other hand, may involve nothing more than an indirect exchange of ideas or messages (made through a mediator or a convener) sufficient to re‐track attitudes and shift expectations, either on one or all sides.

I am particularly excited about the possibility of experimenting with new forms of structured interaction that don't involve simultaneous face‐to‐face meetings with all the parties. The parties can meet separately and confidentially with a mediator who then can carry messages between them. The mediator can probe the underlying interests of one side as well as their deeply held attitudes (not just their public positions) and help them imagine a list of trust‐building activities that both sides might accept. The mediator can also work with the parties, separately, to generate a list of joint activities that might begin to nourish new relationships. After a variety of small steps, the parties may decide to address the underlying causes of their conflict in a simultaneous face‐to‐face conversation, without any pressure to formulate an agreement of any kind.

While others have made the case for “dialogue” (rather than settlement) as a peacemaking move, I am arguing for something different—something that falls short of a direct exchange among the parties. I am imagining a step‐by‐step process, instigated by a convener, through which the parties interact separately with a mediator or mediation team, to see whether they can imagine possible activities (either separate or joint) that might serve a trust‐building purpose. Dialogue aims at increasing understanding through face‐to‐face interaction. Breakthough collaboration need not bring the parties together, at least not for a while. One or both sides can work separately with a mediator to identify activities they might be willing to try. I think this is a better way to take advantage of a critical moment in a long‐standing conflict. The work can begin before the parties agree to engage in face‐to‐face dialogue. The product of a breakthrough collaboration can well be a significant turning point or critical moment in the larger conflict.

When an initial convener no longer wants to stay with the task, or a mediator has lost credibility with one or all of the parties, the following are ways that breakthrough collaboration could still continue:

1. A new convener can step forward.

2. A new mediator can volunteer to help.

3. A different mediator can try different interventions.

4. A new mediator can switch to a different strategy once it appears the parties are open to another form of intervention.

5. A convener or mediator can justify passing the baton to others because it is taking much longer than expected to initiate breakthrough collaboration.

6. One form of breakthrough collaboration might morph into another.

7. The convener or mediator can wait for a next critical moment if initial breakthrough collaboration efforts have flagged.

I think we should add breakthrough collaboration to the possible peace‐making or consensus‐building strategies available in a wide range of conflicts, entrenched or otherwise. Such efforts will probably require unconventional (inventive and creative) trust‐building activities at critical moments. I think breakthrough collaboration will involve new roles for mediators who do not wait to be asked to help by both (all) sides; and do not feel a need to work with all the contending parties simultaneously. We should imagine an expanded role for possible convener organizations that do not usually see convening as part of their mandate.

Some forms of breakthrough collaboration, involving multiple small steps (i.e., building blocks) that can overcome obstacles to conflict transformation, can take advantage of critical moments that already have occurred in an ongoing dispute. In other circumstances, breakthrough collaboration can, itself, create a critical moment by shifting the attitudes of the parties just enough to open them up to joint problem‐solving. I don't think we can say in general which kinds of critical moments are vital to the success of breakthrough collaboration, but I do believe that many kinds of shifting circumstances can create opportunities for conveners and mediators to promote breakthrough collaboration, even if the parties themselves have not yet altered their thinking. And breakthrough collaboration, even if it doesn't end a conflict, can constitute a valuable turning point that moves entrenched parties in a more constructive direction.