Agreeing to Disagree: The Value of Having an Interaction Plan as a Dispute Is Addressed

“Progressions can’t be made if we’re separate forever.” – Q-Tip (A Tribe Called Quest)

Whether your path to addressing a dispute is collaborative or adversarial, some degree of interaction with others engaged in the conflict is typically required. The frequency of such interactions can heighten their strain, particularly in circumstances where disputing parties co-exist in close proximity, such as if they share a workplace or are neighbours.

Establishing shared understanding can go a long way in mitigating anxiety and offer comfort through what is often an uncomfortable process – particularly if the dispute resolution path needed is an adversarial one. Having an interaction plan helps set expectations and avoid the toll of surprises.

While the notion applies to the disputing parties themselves, others engaged in the conflict can benefit from embracing interaction plans, too. Consider the difference between one party’s legal representative unexpectedly serving opposing counsel after 4pm on the Friday before a long weekend as opposed to offering the courtesy of a head’s up that they have something coming and coordinating timing together as professionals. Common decency can go a long way, particularly when modelled by those without emotional ties to the matter.

For the parties themselves, the benefits of an interaction plan may vary based on the dynamics of the situation. Yet, it is almost always the case that folks in conflict will have some form of interaction as they address their issues. In the setting of a conflict arising in a workplace, condominium community or other environment where space is shared, it is not uncommon for there to be both anticipated and unanticipated interactions.

Anticipated interactions involve some advanced warning of an encounter with the other party. Such as a meeting scheduled in advance to come together at a set day and time, for a particular purpose. With this comes a chance to prepare for the interaction. This preparation opportunity can breed anxiety and discomfort, especially if there isn’t an established understanding of how the interaction will go. By this, I do not mean the difficult subject matter to be addressed, but the way in which people engage.

Unanticipated interactions are often just chance encounters. The stars aligning for people in a spat to happen to run into one another without expecting it. Sharing an awkward elevator ride or just happening to bump into one another in passing are common anxiety-provoking unanticipated interaction possibilities in these circumstances. We are often reminded of what a small world we live in, particularly when we continue to run in the same circles or close vicinity as those we have beef with.

It may feel counter intuitive to try to find agreement with someone you are disagreeing with – particularly if that disagreement is going to be expensive to address. Yet, it can go a long way to enhance the procedural experience for everyone.

Elements of an Interaction Plan

While there is not one single template for an interaction plan, common focuses of them can include…

Greeting

If the parties involved in a conflict run into one another, how will they address each other? Will they go with first names, more formal salutations or ignore one another? Has the relationship deteriorated so much that there is no room to exchange casual banter about the weather, or a courtesy inquiry into how the other is doing? The range of what is comfortable varies by individual preference and situation, but a shared understanding can be helpful.

Sharing Space

Returning to the nightmare scenario of riding an elevator, only for the doors open and the person you are in conflict with coming in… what happens? On some occasions, parties can agree in advance to actively try to avoid the awkward scenario. Not entering the elevator, for example. Another approach is to avoid eye contact. This makes the elevator ride awkward, yes, but it is often more comfortable to establish in advance how this will work than to risk being on separate pages around what is appropriate.

Touching

Some engaged in a dispute are fine to still shake hands with others involved in the issue. Others are not so keen to do that. Having an understanding around how this works can prevent someone feeling left hanging by extending a hand without reciprocation, or like they should pull back the hand they extended for a shake and run their fingers through their hair like a good old-fashioned schoolyard psyche.

The Risk of Attempting an Interaction Plan

While establishing an interaction plan can help make the dispute resolution journey more comfortable, efforts made to try to make such a plan can also make one feel vulnerable. By proposing how interaction should go, you may also be showing your hand on the type of interaction you do not want to have with others involved in the dispute. If they are petty, that could be taken as offering up your buttons to be pushed, like a road map on how to make addressing the conflict even more uncomfortable for you. While this does not mean the benefits of interaction plans should be disregarded, it does justify giving pause and reflecting upon how best to approach attempting an interaction plan.

Best Practices

While there is nothing preventing anyone experiencing a conflict from attempting to form an interaction plan with those involved in the dispute, there are some common approaches that can make this exploration easier.

Involve People Not Directly Involved in the Conflict

Whether you consider involving a lawyer, a friend or someone sharing relations with others involved in the dispute, someone without deep emotional ties to a matter can help cooler heads prevail and facilitate reaching a base level of understanding. They can also be leveraged to make suggestions, reducing concern around exposure of vulnerabilities.

Put the Interaction Plan in Writing

Any understanding agreed upon should be captured in a record that everyone can look back to for clarity in the future. This prevents different recollections from fueling conflict. While this is often considered in instances of a fulsome settlement being reached, there is value in creating a record of any agreement – including about how ongoing interactions will go.

An interim understanding of how the parties will interact should be captured in writing as a frame of reference. It creates an opportunity for both good or bad faith behaviour to be clear. There is also a school of thought that people are more likely to adhere to what they agree to if the agreement is offered visually and committed to more formally.

This is not to say that an interaction plan has to be long or be presented in legalese.

Keep it Simple

There may be temptation to break down an interaction plan, such as by different potential scenarios. While you may imagine a wide array of possible situations in which there may be anticipated and unanticipated interactions, it is typically better to keep it simple. This avoids the prospect of negotiating interaction becoming time-consuming and costly. It also makes it easier to retain. Proactive arrangements like this offer people guidance in the event something occurs in the future. It is much easier for people to remember what to do in anxious or flustered moments if the agreement is simple. Kind of like a safe word.

Added Benefit – Planting Seeds

An added benefit of forming an interaction plan that I have seen play out on many occasions is how parties establish a framework for collaboration in agreeing on how they will disagree. Honouring the terms of an interaction plan can improve relationships and build trust over time. The conflict is about bigger issues with higher stakes and may need time to be addressed. It may not be possible to collaborate in resolving all of the issues in dispute. Still, good faith gestures and respect can plant seeds that grow over time into opportunities to explore what else might be possible to accomplish.