Felicity Steadman and John Brand reflected in a conversation with Marion Shaer on the founding and evolution of Conflict Dynamics over 30 years, from its origins in the Independent Mediation Service of South Africa (IMSSA) labour dispute resolution training to becoming South Africa's leading commercial mediation training and panel provider.

Conflict Dynamics training is grounded in practice, and all its trainers are practicing mediators or conflict management consultants. In their experience both of designing materials and conducting training courses, these are some of the key learnings that they have shared.

The distinction between conflict management and dispute resolution

We both started our dispute resolution work in the high-conflict world of South African industrial relations. We do not subscribe to the view that the workplace is or could be a happy family. Rather, it is a coalition of different groups (management, employees, unions) with common and conflicting interests described as pluralism[i]. This ‘pluralist view makes a sharp and crucial distinction between the terms ‘conflict’ and ‘dispute '. To put it simply: conflict is the underlying condition; a dispute is a specific event.

• From this point of view, conflict is inherent, permanent, and normal. It isn't a sign of a ‘broken’ company or ‘bad’ employees; it is a structural reality. Conflict is a continuous, often latent state of opposing interests. Management naturally wants to maximise efficiency, control, and profitability. Employees naturally want to maximise wages, job security, and working conditions. Because these core goals are fundamentally at odds, a baseline of conflict is inevitable and always exists beneath the surface. Conflict isn't something one can completely eliminate, but rather something one accepts and manages.
• A dispute is what happens when that underlying conflict breaks through the surface and crystallises into a specific disagreement. A dispute is a tangible, bounded expression of conflict over a specific issue at a specific point in time (e.g., a disagreement over a 3% vs. 5% wage increase, a formal grievance over safety conditions, or a strike notice).

While conflict is a continuous relationship, a dispute is an incident.

It is a manifestation of conflict that has been formally articulated, brought to the table, and requires resolution. Regardless of the setting, while one can manage conflict between people and groups through (for example) training, effective feedback and carefully handled conversations, when conflict manifests as a dispute, somewhat more formal dispute resolution processes such as mediation, arbitration, and litigation should be available.

Approaches to conflict management and dispute resolution

Fundamental to our approach is the idea that we all have options when faced with conflict or a dispute: avoid the conflict, use power to confront, assert your rights or try to work it out by talking and trying to build consensus. [ii]

• The typical response of people and organisations is to avoid  ‘flight mode’. While this might be appropriate if chosen strategically, it generally simply delays managing the conflict and might aggravate the conflict. If avoidance doesn’t work, then power is used – it’s ‘fight-mode, go on strike, lockout, threaten’. If this doesn’t work or is not an option, people and organisations resort next to the rights-based options – ‘I’ll see you in court’ - or by invoking arbitration clauses in agreements. In all three approaches, the outcome is generally win-lose or lose-lose. Seldom are the consensus -building options – ‘let’s talk’ - considered first.
• Effective conflict management and effective dispute resolution systems turn this typical approach on its head, i.e. they start by creating as many opportunities as possible to talk, either directly or with a conciliator, mediator or facilitator. If talking is unsuccessful, then one may decide in the circumstances whether one’s next step is rights-based or power-based. There should be little to no room for avoidance.

Approaches to negotiation

Getting to Yes was, at the time of its publication, a challenging read for us in South Africa [iii]. We asked, ‘how could you get to yes with the apartheid government when they have all the power in their hands?’ Yet in time and particularly after meeting Roger Fisher through the Independent Mediation Service of South Africa (IMSSA), we came to realise that one of the key ways through conflict is to understand and be able to recognise and then work with both the positional approach to negotiation and the interest-based approach to negotiation.

The difference between positional and interest-based negotiation comes down to what the parties are actually fighting over: what they say they want (their position or demand) versus why they want it (their needs and interests).

Switching from one approach to the other completely changes the conversation, the dynamic of the room and the outcome. This led us to the concept of the ‘negotiator's dilemma’[iv]. At its core, the negotiator's dilemma is the strategic tension between creating value (cooperating to make the pie bigger) and claiming value (competing to get the biggest slice of that pie). It highlights a harsh reality: the very tactics required to expand the pool of benefits can leave you vulnerable to being exploited by a cutthroat opponent. Successful negotiators don't just pick one side of the dilemma; they manage the tension dynamically using a few key strategies:

• Conditional openness (‘trust, but verify’): Share information in measured, incremental steps. Give away a small piece of information regarding your interests, and see if the other side reciprocates. If they match your openness, share a little more.
• Separate the phases: Agree with the other party to have a brainstorming phase where no offers are binding, and options are generated without commitment. Once the pie is expanded, switch to a formal claiming phase.
• Focus on packages, not single issues: Avoid negotiating item-by-item (which forces positional bargaining). Instead, trade across multiple issues simultaneously (e.g., ‘I can yield on the timeline if you can increase the budget’). This allows both sides to claim value on what matters most to them.

​‘Seek first to understand and then to be understood’

Through active listening. Over the years, our treatment of active listening skills changed from calling it a ‘soft skill’ to regarding communication skills as ‘hard skills’, i.e. skills that you need to actually learn to be good at. [v]

Active listening is a structured way of listening and responding that focuses entirely on the speaker. It is the opposite of passive listening—which is just sitting back and letting sound waves hit your ears while you wait for your turn to speak. When you practice active listening, you aren't listening to reply; you are listening to understand. It involves fully concentrating on the message, decoding the emotional undertones, and then reflecting back what you heard to ensure perfect accuracy.

Active listening isn't just a state of mind; it is a visible, verbal skill set. It relies on a few core techniques, including adopting a listening stance (body language), minimal verbal prompts, reflecting back feelings, paraphrasing the speaker’s core message, summarising feelings and the core message, and asking good questions. In each case, the mediator has the opportunity to reframe negative positional messages to positive interest-based messages.

Active listening is the tool used to extract information, the ultimate currency in problem solving.

Active listening by mediators helps to quickly establish trust. Mediators use active listening to strip away insults, toxic language, and emotional clutter, translating them into workable problems. It helps uncover common ground. Often, both sides are stuck in a dispute because they assume their goals are completely incompatible. By actively listening to both narratives, a mediator can spot hidden alignments—such as the fact that both parties actually want the same future relationship—and use that common ground to anchor a resolution.

‘Go slow to go fast’ [vi]

This phrase explains how to handle a highly resistant, emotional, or adversarial opponent:

• Go to the balcony: When an opponent attacks or stonewalls, your instinct is to rush in, counterattack, or push back. Instead, mentally ‘go to the balcony’—detaching yourself emotionally to regain your composure.
• Build them a golden bridge: Instead of rushing to close a deal or pushing your counterpart into a corner (which makes them dig in their heels), you must slow down the tempo. By slowing down, you have the space to actively listen, help them save face, and guide them across a ‘golden bridge’ to an agreement over which they can feel ownership.

We have used the phrase ‘go slow to go fast’ to emphasise the value of process and, in particular, exploring to understand the positions and interests of negotiating parties before moving to option generation and solution searching. Most people negotiate from a position of substance/content / what they want. We emphasise how valuable it is to slow down and agree on process: i.e. open, explore, generate options, evaluate options, bargain, conclude.

By slowing down in this way, the potential for mutual gain outcomes is dramatically enhanced.

BATNA (best alternative to negotiated agreement) and WATNA (worst alternative to negotiated agreement) [vii]

These two concepts represent your outside options—what happens if you walk away from the table without a deal. Without knowing them, you are essentially flying blind.

Here is the distinct value that each brings to the negotiating table:

• Your BATNA is your best-case scenario if the current negotiation completely falls through. (e.g., if you are negotiating a salary, your BATNA is the concrete job offer you already have from another company).
• Your BATNA acts as a hard floor. It defines your ‘reservation point’ (your walk-away point). If the current deal on the table is worse than your BATNA, you politely say ‘no and walk away.
• The party who needs the deal less always has the most power. When you have a strong, viable BATNA, you don't negotiate out of desperation. You can make firm demands because you genuinely don't mind walking away.
• A good BATNA must be real and actionable. It forces you to invest time in cultivating real alternatives before you sit down to negotiate, rather than just hoping things work out.
• Your WATNA is the absolute nightmare scenario if the negotiation breaks down. (e.g., In a major industrial dispute, management's WATNA might be a prolonged strike that bankrupts the company; a union's WATNA might be members permanently losing their jobs).
• While a BATNA breeds confidence, a WATNA breeds caution. It forces you to ask: ‘If I walk away out of pride, what is the worst damage I could suffer?’ It prevents ego or emotion from driving you into a catastrophic deadlock.
• Negotiations often involve high-stakes gambling. Knowing your WATNA allows you to weigh the probability of a worst-case scenario. If your WATNA is devastating, it might actually make sense to accept a mediocre deal on the table just to buy insurance against disaster.
• Gently highlighting the other side's WATNA can be a powerful persuasion tool. By helping them realise how bad their world will look without a deal, you make your current offer look significantly more attractive.

Think of BATNA and WATNA as the upper and lower guardrails of your decision-making process.

By accurately mapping both your and the other party’s BATNA and WATNA before you enter the room, you know exactly how hard you can push (driven by your BATNA) and exactly when you need to compromise to protect yourself (driven by your WATNA).

Mandating Dynamic [viii]

In negotiation and dispute resolution—particularly within industrial relations, political coalitions, and corporate negotiations—the mandating dynamic refers to the complex, ongoing, and often highly stressful relationship between a negotiator at the table and their constituency (their ‘mandate givers’) back home.

In many high-stakes negotiations (such as a union leader representing workers, a CEO representing a board, or a politician representing a constituency), the negotiator does not have absolute power. They operate under a ‘mandate’—a set of instructions or boundaries given to them by the people they represent.

Nelson Mandela was the ultimate example of someone who mastered the mandating dynamic. When Mandela began secret talks with the apartheid government while still in prison, it caused immense suspicion among ANC followers. Mandela understood that he couldn't just negotiate a deal in a vacuum; he spent massive amounts of energy writing letters, holding briefings, and meticulously maintaining the trust of his constituency so that when a deal was finally reached, his people were ready to accept it.

The ‘dynamic’ describes the internal political and psychological push-and-pull that occurs as the negotiation unfolds and the reality at the table changes.

In short, the mandating dynamic means that a negotiator's toughest battle is often not with the person sitting across the table, but with the expectations of the people sitting behind them. For this reason, we emphasise that negotiators should consider those across the table from them as ‘their partners’ and equip them with information and offers to negotiate with their ‘back benchers’.

Training Methodology

Our training methodology has combined andragogy (the theory of adult learning) with the Socratic method (learning through disciplined inquiry and dialogue). It is a highly dynamic, learner-centred training approach. Instead of treating the trainer as a ‘sage on the stage’ who lectures a passive audience, this approach treats the trainer as a facilitator who guides adults to discover insights for themselves.

Here are the key features of a training approach built on these twin pillars:

• Co-creation and learner autonomy (andragogic) - Adults bring a vast reservoir of life and professional experience into the training room, and they have a deep psychological need to be self-directed in their learning. They resist being treated like children who are just told what to think. The training is collaborative rather than prescriptive. They are also motivated to learn things that help them solve real-life problems or perform tasks more effectively in their current roles. Facilitators involve participants in shaping the direction of the session, allowing them to self-evaluate their progress and take ownership of their learning journey.
• Guided inquiry through questioning (Socratic) - The backbone of the Socratic method is the use of systematic, open-ended questions to challenge assumptions and stimulate critical thinking. Rather than providing immediate answers, the trainer asks questions that force participants to defend their logic, uncover their own cognitive blind spots, and realise the depth of what they do or don't know. (e.g., ‘What assumptions are we making about the other party's motives in this scenario?’). The training environment is structured to be ‘psychologically safe but intellectually challenging.’ Facilitators encourage participants to question established habits, reflect deeply on why they hold certain beliefs, and influence their thinking based on new insights.

Our approach to training emphasises discovery over lecturing, using case studies, discussions, exercises and role plays based on real practitioner experience. Our training methodology is congruent with our mediation practice: treating participants equally, facilitating rather than instructing, moving people from unconscious incompetence to mutual understanding. Our training materials evolve dynamically based on our real practitioner experience.