Peace and Conflict Prevention/Resolution Month
     One of the most conflicted organizations I’ve worked with was Kaiser Permanente, the company which invented the Health Maintenance Organization paradigm. After a highly successful launch, the health-care environment changed during the mid-90’s and for the first time, the HMO had to deal with direct
competition.

     Changes were implemented that sometimes resulted in patients being assigned to doctors that were not necessarily their first choice. Furthermore, the doctors were compensated in a less lucrative manner than they
were accustomed. As a result, patients were suing their doctors, the doctors resented the administrators, with animosity even spilling over to impact relationships amongst the hospital-based health-care professionals.   

     Indeed, the level of conflict was so high, I once had to repeat the same presentation because the doctors didn’t want to sit in the same auditorium with the nurses. It was a mess from the top down, and in many cases could have been avoided had people just taken the time to sit down and talk to each other.
     Of great concern to the organization was the rise in medical malpractice cases, which is why I prepared for the project by reading transcripts of legal depositions.
It soon became apparent that regardless of the circumstances, there was one common denominator.

     In response to the question, “Why are you suing? The answers were typically along the lines of. “1.Well, the doctor didn’t tell me about the potential complications. 2.Then he was evasive when I asked what had gone wrong. 3. Oh, and he cut the wrong leg off. 4.But he never bothered to apologize!”
Most of the answers were informed by a failure to communicate.

     The most serious matter didn’t arise until further down the list. A number of studies have documented that malpractice law suits can often be avoided if the person responsible simply takes the time to explain what happened apologizes.

     That principle applies to just about all disputes. My good friend and fellow Rotarian, Dr. Jerry Iwerks, is a professional mediator who has handled serious corporate disputes including several involving the US Postal Service. His sessions begin with clearly articulated objectives along with a process agreed to in
advance by both parties before progressing to an open and frank discussion.

     The strategy works because once set in motion, emotions tend to bounce around the brain in the same manner as a ball in a pinball machine. The anger becomes a barrier to reason thereby allowing the conflict to reach a self-destructive stage beyond repair. When a person translates their concerns into language, it takes time and tends to keep them grounded in higher-processing instead of going off half-cocked in reptilian mode. When they speak, they also hear their own words, which can nudge their senses just enough to perhaps catch a glimpse of a possible solution.

     If a dialogue can deescalate an existing conflict, imagine what it could do as a preventive measure. One more thing. Researchers have found that when
feelings are internalized instead of expressed, they’re more likely to wreak havoc on the cardiovascular system. Talking things through is good for relationships and also the heart.