Interpersonal Disputes: At What Point Do We Need a Peacemaker?

By Dr Mike Talbot

How far does a dispute have to develop before it requires some serious attention? Just how bad must it get, and what are the signs that it might have become particularly difficult to resolve?

The thought occurred to me when reading about some of Ursula von der Leyen’s comments at the G7 meeting in Canada last week. Well, not just her comments but her whole demeanour when talking about the EU’s emerging trade dispute with China.

The Israel-Iran war is looking like becoming catastrophic at a global level; the tragedy of the Israel-Palestine conflict rumbles on, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine may be approaching a disastrous endgame. At such a time, would an EU leader not consider restraint and diplomacy over hostility and defiance? No. Ursula von der Leyen is in fighting mood.

She considers that the EU and China are on the path to a major breakdown in trading relations: China’s export controls, intended to hurt the USA in the wake of the ‘Tariff Wars’, are in fact hurting the EU just as hard. China’s control over the world’s mineral supply, especially of rare earth metals, means EU manufacturing of cars and electronics will grind to a halt unless export controls are eased. Moreover, China’s (arguably lax) approach to intellectual property rules, and its large subsidies for Chinese manufacturing, together point towards its increasing dominance in global supply chains and manufacturing.

So, Ursula von der Leyen came out with guns blazing at the G7. She wants world leaders to know that the EU is being harmed by China, that China actually knows that its export controls are hurting EU businesses, and that the EU is not going to sit back and watch it happen.

And what about conflicts that happen at the other end of the scale, for example at the level of interpersonal fallouts: work colleagues, for example, who both feel they have each been wronged by the other? Rather like with the EU-China situation, communication has become strained, they each become increasingly suspicious about one another’s motives. They are second guessing each other’s next move, and they really want to draw attention to what the other person is doing, so that people in authority or power can see just how unjust and damaging the other person’s actions are.

It would be a step too far to compare the magnitude of a workplace fallout with an EU-China trade war, but the parallels are striking in terms of the evolution of the dispute: beginning with the words and actions, real or supposed, by which each person has upset or hurt the other, through the point where they start to imagine what the other person’s motives might be, progressing to the stage where they want the world to hear all about it.

And while mediation may not be the right remedy for this particular international trade war, at least not at this stage, it is certainly the right remedy for the great majority of interpersonal disputes, whether in workplaces or elsewhere. And if someone brings a dispute to your attention, if they are imputing bad motives to the person they are falling out with, second guessing the other person’s next ‘moves’, and are angry to the point of needing to broadcast it to as many people as possible, it is fair to say that the dispute has gone far enough to warrant third party intervention. Probably by a mediator!