From Our Friends | The Rewards of Healthy Conflict with Master Fixer Amanda Ripley - Fixable

Summary

Podcast Episode Summary

Podcast: At Work with The Ready (Sharing: Fixable - TED Audio Collective)
Episode: From Our Friends | The Rewards of Healthy Conflict with Master Fixer Amanda Ripley
Date: September 8, 2025
Hosts: Frances Frei & Anne Morris (Fixable)
Guest: Amanda Ripley (journalist and author, "High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out")
Main Theme:
Exploring how healthy conflict, as opposed to high/dysfunctional conflict or avoidance, can transform individual relationships and organizational performance. The episode provides practical strategies for navigating conflict at work, highlights the dangers of unhealthy conflict, and shares real-world examples of positive change.

---

Episode Overview

The central idea of this episode is that "conflict needs a rebrand." Most people see conflict as something to be avoided, but when handled well, it is a powerful force for innovation, closeness, improved performance, and more authentic relationships—at work and beyond. Journalist Amanda Ripley shares the dynamics of "good" vs. "high" (dysfunctional) conflict and practical tools to shift from destructive patterns to productive disagreement and collaboration.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Personal Experiences with Conflict Avoidance & Engagement

[00:41-02:56]

• Frances and Anne start with a humorous, relatable couple's anecdote illustrating different conflict styles: fight, flight, or "play dead."
• Frances describes literally falling asleep during conflict as a self-protection mechanism.
  • “In the presence of conflict, I play dead. And you know what? The conflict goes right past me. … I have to go to sleep right then and there. And then I wake up, and I'm ready to go.” – Frances Frei [01:26]

Insight:

People respond to conflict in varied ways, often shaped by upbringing and biology; being aware of our "go-to" tactic is the first step.

---

2. The Power and Necessity of Healthy Conflict

[03:08–06:30]

• Amanda Ripley argues that conflict, if well managed, benefits teams and organizations.
  • “Conflict needs a rebrand... The analogy I often use is exercise. All biological organisms need stress in order to perform at their best... that friction... those sparks are where we can be pushed, where we can push each other, where we can discover that there's a whole different way of looking at this, even if we never agree.” – Amanda Ripley [05:06]

Insight:

• Conflict, like exercise, is uncomfortable but essential for growth; avoiding it leads to superficial “niceness” and mediocrity.

---

3. The Dangers of “Nice Cultures” and Conflict Avoidance

[06:38–10:28]

• Organizations that pride themselves on being “nice” often suppress disagreement, becoming stagnant and only “average.”
  • “They just say we have a blank, nice culture. And they say it as a confessional to help explain why they're only average.” – Frances Frei [06:38]

Insight:

• “Nice” cultures aren't necessarily healthy or high-functioning; high-performing teams have and actively manage more conflict, not less.

---

4. Real-World Example: School Board Conflict

[07:16–10:14]

• Case study: School superintendent vs. board member started with deep distrust and public humiliation.
• With facilitation and “good conflict,” they learned to understand each other's roles and constraints, enabling collaboration.
  • “They're able to almost serve as an intelligence agency for each other... understanding the problem and the stakeholders.” – Amanda Ripley [09:18]

Insight:

Healthy conflict creates psychological safety, reduces rumination, and leads to better teamwork.

---

5. Good vs. High (Dysfunctional) Conflict

[12:33–14:12]

• High conflict is “conflict for conflict’s sake” (us vs. them, righteousness, blindness).
  • “High conflict... becomes conflict for conflict's sake... We become increasingly confident about our own superiority and righteousness... In this state, we make a ton of mistakes.” – Amanda Ripley [12:47]
• Most marital or organizational conflicts are not fully “solvable”; what matters is the way they're managed, not winning or resolution.
  • “John and Julie Gottman... found that roughly two thirds of marital problems are unsolvable. … As Esther Perel says, it's less about the content, it's more about the form.” – Amanda Ripley [11:40]

Insight:

Process (how you relate and argue) matters more than outcome; certain conflicts are unsolvable, but that needn’t block closeness or progress.

---

6. The Four "Fire Starters" of High Conflict

[14:17–19:45]

1. Humiliation
   • “The nuclear bomb of emotions.” Those who feel humiliated often become humiliators in new contexts.
     • “Once you see it, you're like, oh... If someone's behaving in a way that does not make sense, look for humiliation.” – Amanda Ripley [14:38]
2. False Dichotomies/Binaries
   • Splitting into “us vs. them” makes nuanced understanding impossible and heightens bias.
     • “Countries with only two political parties tend to be more polarized; you generalize about millions of people whom you don’t really know.” – Amanda Ripley [17:50]
3. Corruption
   • Lack of trust in institutions prompts people to take matters into their own hands, fueling unnecessary conflict.
4. Conflict Entrepreneurs
   • Individuals/institutions who profit from or thrive on perpetual conflict.
     • “We’ve built institutions—social media, journalism—that glorify and reward conflict entrepreneurs.” – Amanda Ripley [19:23]

---

7. Moving from High Conflict to Healthy Conflict

[19:45–25:40]

• Step One: Distance from Conflict Entrepreneurs
  • Change your social/news feeds, your advisors, or who you consult—avoid those who stoke and profit from conflict.
  • “It starts with identifying who they are and importantly, trying not to be one.” – Amanda Ripley [21:00]
• Step Two: Fluid Group Boundaries
  • Encourage people to participate in multiple groups and periodically “swap” roles for perspective (e.g., editors vs. writers at Time magazine).
• Step Three: Leverage Contact Theory
  • Foster cross-group relationships—ideally by working on shared, purposeful problems.
    • “Being in relationship [with the other side] is the only really well-proven way to get less dysfunctional prejudice over time.” – Amanda Ripley [24:35]

---

8. Individual Tools for Conflict Transformation

[25:53–30:37]

• Notice when you start seeing others as cartoons or two-dimensional villains.
• Get curious, spend time together, do something outside the usual dynamic.
  • “You have to kind of spend more time with them and get more curious than you want to be... it does tend to complicate that narrative a little bit.” – Amanda Ripley [26:12]
• WRITE IT DOWN: Externalizing a conflict by writing in the third person clarifies and adds distance, making it easier to examine your own story.
  • “The research on writing down what's going on in a conflict... is so much more helpful than just ruminating.” – Amanda Ripley [28:05]
• Ask: “What is threatened here?” Consider what’s truly at stake for yourself.

---

9. Organizational Practices that Promote Healthy Conflict

[31:27–37:15]

• Congressional Select Committee Example:

  • Chair Derek Kilmer consulted psychologists and coaches, held confidential sessions post-January 6 to process trauma, and created mixed seating and shared meals to bridge divides.
    • “He brought in a facilitator... so they leaned into that conflict, didn’t try to suppress it... And that was really smart and scary.” – Amanda Ripley [32:30]
    • “It had the interesting effect... you weren't making a bunch of assumptions about what they were saying before they said it.” [34:06]

• Result:

  • Radical productivity and improved relationships, even in a toxic system.

---

10. The Payoff: Why Bother with Healthy Conflict?

[37:15–40:25]

• Even in dysfunctional contexts, pockets of “sanity” can be created, leading to major productivity gains and less “soul-crushing” work.

  • “Even within a truly messed up system, [you can] carve out a little corner of sanity ... Not that they agreed on everything—but understood each other better, which meant they could get things done.” – Amanda Ripley [35:51]

• The Deepest Benefit:

  • Humanizing others isn’t “approval”—it’s about freeing your own mind, regaining full perspective and agency.
    • “You restore your full field of vision when you come out of the state where other people are two-dimensional evil cartoons.” – Anne Morris [39:31]

---

11. Final Reflections & Notable Quotes

• “Anyone who is underrepresented in your life will be overrepresented in your imagination. So that's why you gotta get to know them better.” – Amanda Ripley quoting Monica Guzman [40:25]
• “Living with contempt in your heart is not a great way to live. It's not good for you physically or mentally.” – Amanda Ripley [37:32]
• “To go from a cartoon villain to a complicated three dimensional human is a very powerful, powerful pivot.” – Anne Morris [39:56]
• Self-reflection and the "inside job" are critical but difficult:
  • “I think the hardest part... is being willing to access our curiosity, being willing to question our storyline... All of that is the individual work.” – Anne Morris [43:15]

---

Segment Timestamps

• 00:41–02:56: Personal anecdotes about conflict avoidance and style
• 03:08–06:30: Why conflict is essential (reframing metaphor, performance)
• 07:16–10:14: School board case study – from dysfunctional to productive conflict
• 10:28–12:33: Marital research & healthy conflict dynamics
• 12:33–14:12: Defining high/malignant conflict
• 14:17–19:45: Four fire starters of high conflict
• 19:45–25:40: Shifting out of high conflict (distance from entrepreneurs, contact theory)
• 25:53–30:37: Tools for individuals (curiosity, journaling, internal reflection)
• 31:27–37:15: Organizational practices—the Select Committee success story
• 37:15–40:25: The payoff and why it matters for leaders & individuals
• 40:25–end: Final advice, takeaways, and closing thoughts

---

Takeaways for Listeners

• Fighting well is essential; avoidance or hostility are both unproductive.
• Most organizations and teams can enable healthier conflict by:
  • Surfacing and reframing conflict as a tool for growth.
  • Distinguishing “good” from “high” conflict (and watching for the four fire starters).
  • Creating environments (even small “corners of sanity”) with new conversation norms, mixed groups, and formal spaces for deep listening.
• Self-awareness, curiosity, and even simple acts (writing, taking a walk, purposeful work) can interrupt cycles of negative conflict.
• Transformation is doable, but often uncomfortable—like exercise, the benefits are great.

---

For more on this topic, find Amanda Ripley’s “High Conflict” and additional resources at goodconflict.com.

Transcript

[A]

Hey, y'.

[B]

All.

[A]

Sam and I are taking this week off, but we wanted to pop in and share an episode we really love from our friends at Fixable, a podcast in the TED Audio Collective.

[B]

In each episode, hosts Frances Fry and Anne Morris solve work problems. And in this one, they set their sights on workplace conflict, joined by global conflict journalist Amanda Ripley. Their conversation covers why we try to avoid it, strategies for navigating it with our co workers, and how organizations can actually benefit from a culture of healthy conflict.

[A]

We hope you enjoy this episode as much as we did, and if you do, you can find more Fixable episodes wherever you get your podcasts. Frances, how would you rate our ability to handle conflict as a couple?

[C]

Ooh, I'm bringing down the average. I think you're a great individual performer.

[A]

I think we've actually gotten much better at this over our almost 20 years of being in this together. I recall early in the game that I was shocked at one of your main conflict tactics.

[C]

Oh, yes.

[A]

On this spectrum of fight versus flight, I am world class flight. So if I'm not trying, I'll simply run away. I kind of assessed you in the beginning that you were on the fight end of the spectrum, and that's not the behavior you demonstrated. Do you want to talk about what you do?

[C]

Yeah. So fight or flight is presented as the continuum. It's not. Because what I do, and I think I'm alive because of it, is I play dead. So in the presence of conflict, I play dead. And you know what? The conflict goes right past me in.

[A]

The form of you will literally go to sleep.

[C]

I never slept more deeply then when there's conflict around, I have to go to sleep literally, maybe just right there on the floor. I have to go to sleep right then and there. And then I wake up and I'm ready to go.

[B]

And you know what?

[C]

Half the time, the people are gone.

[A]

I remember the first time I observed this behavior. It was a couple years in, somehow, because there was a child, There was an infant. We had just taken this very stressful drive with this unhappy infant. And we got home and you and I were negotiating. Kind of the typical couple. Who's who.

[C]

We're both exhausted. Who's gonna care for em?

[A]

Yes.

[C]

And you went to sleep.

[A]

Went to sleep. And I could not believe it.

[C]

Yeah. Cause it seemed out of character if you were assessing my empathy, but totally in character if I was experiencing the.

[A]

Conflict and I was really stuck from an evolutionary perspective on how you, like your ancestors who had exhibited similar behaviors, were still walking around and that's when we realized that this playing dead tactic actually probably worked.

[C]

Well, there's really no other reason I'd be around.

[A]

You are listening to Fixable, a podcast from ted. I'm your host, Anne Morris. I'm a company builder and leadership coach.

[C]

And I'm your co host, Frances Fry. I'm a Harvard Business School professor and I'm. I'm Anne's wife.

[A]

This is a show where we fix things, and our ambition today is to fix workplace conflict.

[C]

Ambition is the right word, Frances.

[A]

Here's the problem. As we've talked about on this show before. Good conflict, healthy conflict is such a powerful force for making teams better. And yet that's not what most of us are experiencing. Most of us are experiencing conflict that makes us worse or we're just avoiding it altogether.

[B]

So how do we fix this?

[A]

We're gonna try to make some progress today by inviting master fixer Amanda Ripley on the show to help us get better at conflict. Amanda's a fantastic journalist who has covered conflict all over the world. She's the author of three bestselling award winning books, all terrific. Her latest is High why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out. She also co founded a company called Good Conflict that trains people in handling disagreements more productively.

[C]

She sounds perfect for the job.

[A]

I agree. We've been trying to get her on the show for a long time, and I couldn't be more thrilled that she's here. Amanda Ripley, welcome to Fixable.

[B]

Thanks for having me. Good to see you both.

[A]

We are big fans. We're delighted to host you on the show today. We seem to be living through a moment in world history where your expertise is sorely needed on a smaller scale, which is what we think about all the time. We're also seeing conflict tripping people up in the workplace a lot of the time. Unproductive conflict, avoidance of conflict, fear of conflict. These things all have a profound impact on our experience of work because I also think conflict has earned this bad reputation.

[B]

Totally.

[A]

And it can be so good for teams. It can be so good for performance when we get it right. So how can conflict help us when we're working in groups? Let's start there.

[B]

Yeah. So this is a good place to start because I agree, like, conflict needs a rebrand. Right. I mean, it's just, you know, it's like, what was the tobacco company that changed its name? Do you remember this? Yes. Which one?

[C]

It was Reynolds.

[B]

Okay. Yeah. Now they're like something that sounds nothing like tobacco. Conflict needs something like that. And the analogy I often use is exercise. So we know that all biological organisms need stress in order to perform at their best. That is just a fact.

[A]

I love that metaphor.

[B]

Yeah. So we know we need some pushback, some resistance training. Right. To get stronger. We don't like it. Most of us, Right. We're not, like, excited to go running or swimming or lift weights. And yet it is the only way that we can get stronger. And so there is an analogy there with conflict, which is that friction, that kind of. Oh, interesting. I see it totally differently. Right. Those moments, those sparks are where we can be pushed, where we can push each other, where we can discover that there's a whole different way of looking at this, even if we never agree. Right. And it just opens up this whole kind of understory of conflict that is very useful. And it can, if done right, make us feel more connected, not less, even as we disagree and maybe never agree. Yeah.

[A]

I'm trying to channel our listeners who are on the conflict averse side of this, which is probably where I identify. But, Frances, I'm curious where your mind went.

[C]

I was just gonna say that most companies that are like that describe themselves to us as company nice. Like we're this company, and they just say we have a blank, nice culture. And they say it with. As a confessional to help explain why they're only average.

[B]

Right. And it becomes not just normalized, but it can be actually a point of pride. Right. We recently had the privilege of working with a school superintendent and her nemesis on a school board.

[A]

I feel that example right away.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Yeah, I've been in that board meeting.

[B]

Uhhuh. Okay. So, you know, this is like ground zero for conflict, dysfunctional conflict. Our school board meetings today. So this particular school board member ran for school board in order basically to oust the school superintendent. She really had it out for her over a principal that she thought should have been fired. It wasn't fired. You know, kind of classic situation. So things did not start off well. In fact, all the signs that predict future dysfunctional conflict were sort of blinking red. There was distrust on both sides. The school board member didn't really understand the role of the school board board. So, like, which is happening a lot, where people think that if they just get on the school board, they'll be able to determine, you know, who gets to be a teacher and what gets taught. And that typically is not how it really works. So. So there was a lot of things going on. There was some public humiliation because of the nature of school board meetings. Which is also one of the four fire starters that leads to dysfunctional high conflict. Anyway, we kind of worked with them to trace back what did they do over time to get to a place where they became very strong collaborators. So in that case, that conflict, once they could shift it out of dysfunctional conflict into functional conflict, and I can share what they did in that case, once they could get to functional conflict, then they were much stronger as a team than they were as two individuals. Because the school board member could help the superintendent see how some parents were seeing things and how some school board members were seeing things. Whereas the superintendent could importantly help the school board member see the limitations and constraints that she was facing in her role as superintendent and also help her understand how the teachers were seeing things. So they're able to almost serve as an intelligence agency for each other to understand not just each other and the problem, but the other stakeholders who are creating challenges for them. So, yeah, I would say that was one where making that shift generated big returns. And just honestly, and this is what we just were talking with some congressional staff who we work with, one of the big returns is it's just like a better way to live. Like, you sleep better at night, you're not as preoccupied with imaginary conversations that you could have had or should have had or did have. Right. And it's just an easier, better way to live where you're kind of a little bit more yourself in the organization without having to suppress or ignore or avoid a bunch of things, but also feeling like you can make mistakes and be challenged without getting crushed and humiliated.

[A]

Yeah. I want to follow up on your fire starters as we get into this, but as long as we're in the public service announcement portion of this conversation, that conflict is a good thing. Good conflict is a good thing. High performing teams have more conflict, not less.

[B]

Yes. An easy way to think about this is in your personal relationships. Like if you're in a long term romantic relationship and you have no conflict conflict, you've got a problem. Like, there's a lot of research on this. Like, you need to have the ability to make mistakes, be misunderstood, point out where you got your feelings hurt, understand why, you know why that hurt. That is like obvious, I think. Right. Is that obvious? Sometimes I think things are obvious and other people don't.

[A]

So let's assume on this topic, nothing is obvious. Yeah.

[B]

Okay. The research on marital conflict is pretty clear that people who have resilient, satisfying long term relationships do have plenty of conflict. But that conflict leaves them feeling closer.

[A]

Nice.

[B]

So that's kind of an example of what I mean, that instead of driving them apart, the conflict actually brings them together. Even though, and this is key, John and Julie Gottman, who study marital conflict, have found that roughly two thirds of marital problems are unsolvable.

[A]

I love that.

[B]

I know.

[A]

I love. What's a total reframe.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So it's focus on the third that are solvable.

[B]

We'll focus on the third are solvable. And also, don't assume you're ever going to solve those. As the psychologist Esther Perel says, it's less about the content, it's more about the form. It's about how we are engaging in this dynamic and understanding that and taking a step back from it and trying to do that differently as needed. And that's more important than getting to a resolution.

[A]

And I think it's a beautiful example of the payoffs, too. So. And it's easy to visualize. So in a romantic partnership, the payoff of conflict, which we. Which is. Is intuitive, I think, is, you know, deeper intimacy, deeper connection, more authentic communication. All of those things are on the other side of engaging. And to your metaphor about exercise, it still feels bad in moments.

[B]

That's right.

[A]

All right, so now let's go to the other side of the spectrum with bad conflict, which you call high conflict. Is that a special type of bad conflict, or is all bad conflict in your lexicon? High conflict?

[B]

So high conflict, to answer the question, is sometimes called malignant conflict in the research or intractable conflict. It's the kind. It's a special kind of conflict that becomes conflict for conflict's sake. It's usually an us versus them kind of conflict. We become increasingly confident about our own superiority and righteousness and the other group or person's deep inferiority and threat to us in this state. We make a ton of mistakes. And this is the thing that is really important for folks to understand is that all of our normal cognitive biases, which we know are plentiful, all of those get much stronger. So we literally, for example, lose peripheral vision in high conflict. Like, we do not see things that are happening.

[A]

Blind rage.

[B]

Yeah, blind rage is a phrase. Now that I think about it, you literally lose sight of things. And so when opportunities arise, right. Not to resolve and we all get along, but like opportunities to do something to interrupt this, you don't see them, and eventually you end up mimicking the behavior of your opponents without realizing it and harming the thing you went into the fight to protect, whether it's your kids in a High conflict divorce or your country in high conflict politics.

[C]

Will you give an example of the mimicking? I'm super intrigued. I'm sure I've done this.

[B]

Sure. Yeah. Francis. So one of the four fire starters that we mentioned earlier is humiliation. Humiliation is a really interesting one that I think is so underappreciated in so many conflicts we're seeing.

[A]

Amanda, you call it the nuclear bomb.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Of the emotions which has really moved us.

[B]

Yeah. It has helped me understand things that were inexplicable to me before. Like, it's kind of like once you see it, you're like, oh, like, if someone's behaving in a way that does not make sense, look for humiliation. Like, even if they shouldn't feel humiliated. Do they? So to answer Frances's question about what this looks like, when people repeat the behavior, mimic the behavior of their opponents. Evelyn Lindner, who has studied humiliation and conflict, she found that when she did interviews of people in violent conflict zones like Rwanda, the people who had been humiliated, who were the victims of violence and dysfunctional conflict, often then became humiliate tors I see. In their own little world. Right. Like, you know that old saying, hurt people, hurt is true. So you often will. We all will take that sense of shame or degradation and just displace it onto someone else, whoever is the nearby target of convenience, whether it's our opponent. Right. Or if we can't access them, then maybe it's our boss or our school superintendent or our kid or our wife. Right. That needs somewhere to go. And that's where you get into real trouble. You know, you see this in politics all the time, where people are upset on one side because of the incredible cruelty, name calling, and prejudice of the other side. And then they begin to use cruelty, name calling, and prejudice in their rhetoric in response. And this just perpetuates this cycle, unfortunately. Right. Often without us realizing it, that we're doing it.

[C]

Yeah. Totally resonates. Thank you.

[A]

So, Amanda, let's hang out on the edge here. With high conflict, what are the other fire starters, beyond humiliation that will reliably get us into this state.

[B]

Right. Like, these are, like. I think of them as, like, tripwires where, like, they will set off some kind of reaction. And so the first one is humiliation. The next one is a false dichotomy or false binaries where we split the world into two camps, usually. So we start really. And the more fear and anxiety people feel, the more they engage in this splitting, as psychologists call it, where you just start to sort Everyone around you, everyone you see in this conflict, into one group or the other. This is totally understandable and normal behavior for humans. The problem is, in a pluralistic, interdependent world, it tends to backfire because you miss all the people who don't fit, and you begin to generalize about large groups of people that you truly do not understand. So that's where we get into those cognitive biases and mistakes. An obvious example is countries that have only two political parties tend to be more politically polarized. Because I can think in my head that I can generalize about 77 million people who voted a certain way, even though in reality that is just on its face, absurd. Right. I will never know even a fraction, a small fraction of those people.

[A]

And then, according to your work, groups in general promote unproductive conflict. But we live in a world where we have to divide up into groups. Even inside organizations, we have to divide up into teams.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

And I don't want to jump prematurely to solutions because I still want to understand the problem. But give us the other two. Give us the other two.

[B]

So we've got humiliation, false dichotomies, or false binaries. Then we have corruption. So this is very simple. When institutions are not trusted to do the things they're supposed to do, whether they should be trusted or not is almost irrelevant. It's like, are they trusted? Are they not? And if they are not trusted, then people will tend to take matters into their own hands. Right, understandably. And it will generate a lot of unnecessary conflict because we're seeing ghosts, because we don't trust the school board, we don't trust our ex husband, whatever. Okay, so the fourth one, and this is also a very important one that most people, or I certainly was not sufficiently aware of in the past, which is the presence of conflict entrepreneurs. So these are companies or individuals that are exploiting conflict for their own ends. So they are really juicing the conflict. They delight in the conflict sometimes because they get profit out of it, but just as often, if not more, because they get a sense of purpose. They get energized by the conflict. They get a sense of camaraderie, of meaning, of importance and power from the conflict. And so we have now, you know, unfortunately built a bunch of institutions from social media to politics to journalism, to really glorify and reward conflict entrepreneurs. I don't think it will always be that way, but that's how it is right now.

[A]

This is a show called Fixable. So we like to fix shit. So let's talk about moving out of high conflict, moving ourselves out, moving the people around us out, creating a context where it's less likely to get traction. I'm really moved by where you started us, which was when we're in this state, we are less creative, less able to solve problems, we are less intelligent. When we're in a state of high, we can't see clearly, we don't see our options. We get very muddled and confused in our thinking in this state. And yet the good news is we put ourselves there, and so we have the power to. To take ourselves out. So talk to us about moving away from this very distortive human experience.

[B]

Yes, we need that to move through the world and solve problems. We need a sense of what is possible and what is getting done. And the whole reason I wrote the book High Conflict was to follow people who were stuck in dysfunctional high conflict and shifted into good conflict so that we could create a playbook for how it is done.

[A]

So let's do it to believe, Amanda.

[B]

Let's do it. So everyone I followed, whether it was a politician stuck in high conflict in California or a gang leader stuck in high conflict in Chicago to a synagogue stuck in high conflict in Manhattan, all of these groups, all of these people, they did do similar things to shift out of high conflict. One of the first things they did was to distance themselves from the conflict entrepreneurs in their midst. Sometimes that means changing who's in your news feed, your social media feed. Sometimes it means hiring a new lawyer or a new advisor. If you're a politician, there are different ways to do this, but it starts with identifying who they are and importantly, trying not to be one. So I think we want to be careful here not to fall into the same us versus them thinking when it comes to conflict entrepreneurs, which is very tempting, I know, speaking for myself, but.

[A]

I believe in the multiple mind. So I'm sure we all have a conflict entrepreneur inside us 100%. And we just want to put him in the back of the bus.

[B]

Yeah, absolutely. Just notice when you're getting some, like, an extra high off the conflict, and there is something very energizing. Right. About knowing that you are right and you are better than and you are certain and convicted, that is a true high. But as Curtis Toler, who's the former gang leader in the book, as he says, anytime there's a better than and a less than, there's always room for war. And this gets back to your point about groups. Yeah, groups are fine. Groups are a human thing. There's no way around it and groups can actually have a really stabilizing effect on conflict because if they have norms and traditions that promote pro social conflict, they will enforce that among each other. So that that is hugely beneficial depending on the norms and traditions of the group. But I think in general, when we get into groups, we want to make sure that there's some fluidity so that we don't get stuck.

[A]

Meaning people, people participating in multiple groups. Ideally, we're not living in these binaries.

[B]

Yeah, like ideally, sometimes you can actually set that up. I talk in the book about how when I was working at Time magazine by chance, there had been this week where the editors went on a retreat, which like journalists never do. They're not very good at stuff like that. And so, so it happened that the writers, so often us versus them in journalism is writers versus editors. There's others, but that's one. Right. The writers were in charge for the week of the magazine. And of course at first we thought, this is, this is amazing. Finally we're gonna make the best magazine ever and not make all the stupid mistakes that the editors make. And of course by day three, we started to make the same compromises that they usually make because we could now see the constraints that they were under. And it was an incredibly productive management interruption. Right. Intervention without anyone intending it to be. But there are companies that do this on purpose, right. To kind of move people around, are very systematic when they have different locations. Often the headquarters becomes one binary and everybody else. So kind of having that constant back and forth, having people experience what it's like to be on the other side and really highlighting the stories of people who have shifted between them and learning from them. So there are ways to do it. Right. But you want to just try to keep those groups a little bit fluid, if you can.

[A]

And is this Contact Theory, is this the same thing or is this different?

[B]

Yeah, yeah. So Contact Theory is like the one intervention that's been shown to reduce prejudice basically among humans. And it means that you want to have relationship under the right conditions. Right. But you know, basically being in relationship is the only way to only really well proven way to get less dysfunctional prejudice over time.

[A]

So the idea is that I am exposed to the humanity of my so called adversary.

[B]

Yeah. And even better, I now have a new transcendent identity as someone who works on whatever problem you're trying to solve with that other. Right. So ideally it's not just, oh, I went to this, you know, potluck supper and talked to a bunch of, you know, white people or Jewish people or Republicans. It's like. And then we worked on trying to come up with a new playground plan for the neighborhood or something that we worked on together.

[A]

Francis talking about that. The power of doing something purposeful with other people.

[C]

When we give people purposeful work to do together, amazing things happen. And so it sounds like that's right in the sweet spot of this.

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

Okay, so let's say I'm starting to see some of the signs in myself. I'm turning Frances into a two dimensional cartoon version of her and I'm caring less that she had a bad day. If I'm at work and I'm starting to feel these things, how do I bring myself out of this state?

[B]

Yeah, And I think that's a great example because we've all been there, right? I mean, where we've started to feel like we start building a narrative in our head about this other person and then the brain will find evidence for that narrative, you know, confirmation bias. Yeah, yeah. Now you're off and rolling. And so everything they do is going to fit into that narrative. And sometimes that'll be true and sometimes it won't. So the best answer, which is sort of annoying, is you have to kind of spend more time with them and get more curious than you want to be. It's not a super satisfying answer, but it does tend to complicate that narrative a little bit. This is difficult when you're dealing with high conflict people or conflict entrepreneurs. Right. And so there's specific guidance for that. Right. Which we can talk about. But in general, for most people, it involves finding some way to get to know them outside of this dynamic that we're in. Right. And is it, you know, taking a walk together, which the research shows is a good way to kind of break out of those cycles, or is it doing something purposeful together that's outside of the normal scope? Is it breaking bread? Obvious things, right, that we know are useful for humans who are trying to, like, find some connection because we know you need like 5 to 1 ratio of positive interactions to negative. This again is from the Gottman research. So we want to find ways to boost that savings account, so to speak, so that we have a little more forgiveness in our hearts towards them.

[A]

Go ahead.

[C]

May I ask a follow up? I want the answer to. I feel it creeping up in me that I can do something on my own and that I don't have to involve the other person. Now. I'm an extraordinary introvert and so this is just my way. Is there really Nothing I can do without the other person.

[B]

I think you probably should start there. Right? I think it's a good idea. Francis, before you do anything else, is trying to work through. And we have some exercises we do with folks, which some of which you can just access for [e-mail] and we have some tools in there, but you want to start with thinking about and externalizing, like, writing down, ideally, like, it's wild. I'm sure you both know this, but the research on writing down what's going on in a conflict or in a difficult situation is so much more helpful than just ruminating in your head on it. And I resist this a lot. I don't know about you, but I'm like. The last thing I want to do is, like, journal about something that's just not.

[A]

I don't need to rebrand.

[C]

I totally need to rebrand.

[B]

Yes. And interestingly, there's a lot of research that shows that talking about yourself in the third person and the other person in the third person when you're writing is much more effective than saying I. And they. So that's wild. Right. But just something to try. So you basically describe what happened. You know, write down what happened as direct as you can be. This person is super annoying. They are always turning things in late and acting like it's a charming quirk and they don't take accountability. And then I look bad, or in this case, Amanda looks bad. If you're trying to talk in the third verse and just kind of get it out of your head onto paper. Right. So you can kind of see it. And usually in just in doing that, something will come up. Right. That you hadn't noticed before. But sometimes, you know, you need to do some more things. But that's a good place to start, is to try to figure out what is it about this that is bugging me. And there's an exercise that folks do in AA in recovery, which is like, what is threatened here? And so that's something worth asking, like, what is threatened?

[A]

You know, that's a great question.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

What I love about that exercise, too, is I can imagine I'm just picking out conflicts in my own life. I can imagine that getting it down on paper in this form, too, forces me to confront that this story that I have believed 100% to be true may have a couple gaps in the plot point here. And I may not be the hero of the story that I thought I was. You know, like, the. Putting it on paper, I think has a chance. It invites Me to confront some of those gaps.

[B]

Yeah, exactly. And not always. It depends on how far along things are. And I mean, look, some people do really appalling things, like sometimes things are not complicated, like sometimes things are fairly simple. But when you put it down on paper. Right. It does give you a tiny bit of space from it, which is what we're trying to do in every kind of conflict, even violent conflict, we're trying to slow down the conflict and get a little space from it. William Urie, the negotiator, talks about pretending in your mind that you're going to a balcony, watching the conflict, watching yourself from above. Almost like disassociating, honestly. But you're trying to see it from a little bit of a remove. And that way you make fewer mistakes. Right. So it feels less personal and less threatening. Wow.

[A]

So how do we create norms and structures and behaviors that inside organizations that promote healthy conflict? And I'm thinking about the answer, or I'm thinking about the example of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Conflict that you wrote about so beautifully. We were so moved by that. The leader of that team, most people listening are not politicians, but the leader of that team made some very deliberate choices that not only moved Congress's environment, where to your point, the risk of high conflict is everywhere and I think being reinforced by the media environment, but he created this separate universe inside that world where they were very healthy conflict and extraordinary performance. If you just measure output, extraordinary performance followed. So what give us some texture on that and what are the lessons that you take from that example?

[B]

Yeah, so that committee, it was wild because they needed to have a super majority to get anything done, but they were divided cleanly half and half between Republicans and Democrats. And they were meeting right after January six at a point where many Democrats did not even want to be in the same room as some of the Republicans. So there was a lot of rage and fear that was driving the conflict. And so Derek Kilmer, who's one of the chairs of that committee that you've mentioned, did some very creative things. First of all, he talked to people like Esther Perel, the psychologist. He talked to coaches, he talked to people that you normally, normally don't think to talk to when you're asking for congressional testimony. And he took their advice and really tried to think about conflict instead of politics. Right. First think about human behavior and conflict. So the first brilliant thing he and his co chair, William Timmons did is they brought in a facilitator and had a behind closed door confidential session about January 6th. So they leaned into that conflict, didn't try to avoid it or suppress it or ignore it. And that was really smart and scary, right? But that meant that they each got to speak about their experience on that day. And one of the Republicans told me that he felt like, although he didn't agree with some of the versions of that history that he heard, he now understood the fear that some of his fellow members of Congress had felt. And when you, once you see that, it changes everything, right? Because then you realize, oh, this is real. They're not just trying to politically manipulate the situation. Like, they were really frightened and had good reason to be in many cases. So that created enough of a space that they could then do other things. Like honestly, things that any good kindergarten teacher would do that do not happen anywhere in Congress. That's what Derek Kilmer did. So they had, at committee hearings, they would sit every other, like boy, girl, but Republican, Democrat, you know, that never happens. Like they're always cleanly separated. And it had an interesting. So I testified before this committee, which is how I got to know them. And it had the interesting effect of, you know, because they weren't all the super famous members of Congress, you didn't always know who you were looking at, like which group they were in. And that was kind of awesome, right? Because then you weren't making a bunch of assumptions about what they were saying before they said it. But he also did things like, again, like, this sounds so obvious, but it never happens. Like, he brought. All the members of Congress would sit at the same level as the witnesses, so they weren't up on high. You know, like again, basic stuff. They would, William Timmons, his co chair, would really insisted on having dinner together every so often. Again, this does not happen in Congress. So having dinner across the political divide and you know, they had a hell of a time just finding a space they could use in the massive infrastructure that is on Capitol Hill that would allow them to do this. So here you see how Congress could make this much easier, Right? And that really lies at the feet of the party leaders of both sides.

[A]

What did you learn from that example, from going deep on that example?

[B]

I think for me, it showed how you can, even within a truly messed up system, carve out a little corner of sanity. It's not ideal. I mean, they'd be the first to tell you that they need the whole system to get reformed. But sometimes I think we think, oh, this system is so messed up that it's not even. There's nothing I can do Right. But actually system change starts with small groups of individuals. Right. So it's not one or the other, it's both. And so in this case, they were able, despite all odds, to create a little oasis. Not that they all, by the way, it's not like they agreed and that's not what we want. Right. We don't want members of Congress to agree on everything that doesn't make sense for a country of this size and complexity. So they didn't agree on many, many things, but they understood each other better, which meant they could get some things done and they got a ton done. There was a lot of recommendations that they made that they super majority agreement on that were unanimous in many cases. So in the past, committees just like that have actually dissolved without getting any recommendations passed. So it is possible, even in a dysfunctional context, to create some functional conflict.

[A]

Yeah. And then back to where we started on the payoff. I mean, you use some mild sentences there, but in terms of the productivity of this committee compared to other committees, it was at a zero. What they were able to do on.

[B]

The other side, yes, radically better. And also just again, it was less soul crushing to go to work every day. So it. Living with contempt in your heart is not a great way to live. It's not good for you physically or mentally. So the more you can understand your enemies, the more joy and curiosity you're going to feel in your time on this earth. And that's not a small thing.

[A]

In your whole life.

[B]

Yeah. In your whole life.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

We often think about the phrase disagree and commit, which people say all the time. It's actually, it doesn't work. So we often say that it's a three step process. You have to disagree, understand and then commit.

[A]

But I think this tension is really important to this conversation because I feel like where people can get stuck is on this idea, which I think is a false dichotomy, is that if I, if I humanize my adversary in some way, then I am somehow endorsing these behaviors that I know to be misaligned with my own value system. But to me, what's powerful about that story is you doing the work to turn this person into a more dimensional human being, which made your life better. The point is that the payoff for you in doing some of this work is that you get to be closer to this highest and best version of you, that can see the world clearly, that can make smart decisions, that can move strategically through their environment. To me, it's almost like a vision, like you restore Your full field of vision when you come out of the state where other people are two dimensional evil cartoons with single motivation. I'm not saying there's not evil in the world. I'm not saying that there aren't choices, there's not cruelty in the choice. But we're trying to put you in a position to navigate the complexity of this environment as effectively as you possibly can.

[C]

Right?

[A]

And if we just trust our biology, if we just default to our reactions to the world, then we are going to fail in that mandate and that obligation to ourselves to be as effective as possible in the situation.

[B]

100%.

[A]

To go from a cartoon villain to a complicated three dimensional human is a very powerful, powerful pivot. And there's no endorsement anywhere in that journey for behavior that you don't agree with or for values that you don't share. That's not what this is about.

[B]

And it's more like, do you want people to live rent free in your head?

[C]

Oh my gosh.

[A]

This is hour one of a 12 hour conversation we could have with you and honestly want to have with you. What do you hope people take away from scratching the surface on this profound topic, honestly?

[B]

Well, I love to quote a friend and colleague of mine named Monica Guzman. She says in high conflict situations, anyone who is underrepresented in your life will be overrepresented in your imagination. So that's why you gotta get to know them better. And even if you don't hang out with them, which might not be the right thing for you, right. Depending on the situation, understanding them better or people like them better, just like an anthropologist or detective might, is going to help you, right? Size this person or this group or this problem in your head so that you're not creating all of that additional suffering.

[C]

That's really good.

[A]

It's really good. It's really good. All right, we're going to leave it there and I'm just going to sit with that. Amanda, thank you so much for being on the show. I hope you'll come back. I'd love that. So that we can continue.

[B]

I learned a lot from talking to you and I've just been taking notes over here, so anytime.

[C]

Right back at you.

[B]

Thank you.

[A]

Frances. That was so satisfying. Just in the sense that we have been thinking about her words and ideas and examples for a long time. And to finally meet her and connect the insight to this deep thinking, complex human was just super professionally satisfying.

[B]

I'm so glad she's in the world.

[A]

My gosh, what are you gonna take away from this conversation so much.

[C]

I mean, the bad news of the conversation for me is that I can't do as much alone as I wanted. So I really hope that I could solve a bunch of conflict I had with other people alone. And she said I can make a little progress. I can't make complete progress. So I'm disappointed in that. But what I'm gonna take is that we have to do some things we don't want to do, but they help, you know, exercise. We don't always wanna do it, but it helps writing things down in the third person. Getting like understanding to your point, going from the cartoon caricature to the three dimensional person. So I think the other part is I'm gonna have a little bit more can do spiritual. Not gonna be activated solely by wanting to. I'm gonna give a little bit more credence to needing to in order for me to ultimately be better. You know, reading the book, using the ideas, it just came to life. I don't know what I was expecting, but we're in really good hands.

[A]

Yeah. And I'm gonna push back a little bit on that. And I'll bring my coach's hat to this one.

[C]

Please do.

[A]

Which is that I think, and my bias is I spend a lot of time in one on one conversation and then people go out in the world and come back. And that's the modality of coaching. I think the hardest part of this work, maybe not in terms of minutes, it's not the biggest part of the work, but the hardest part of the work is the inside job. That is being willing to access our curiosity, being willing to pull, to question our own storyline, being willing to tap into the courage of that contact theory that she described so beautifully requires. All of that is the individual work.

[C]

So there's still a significant inside job.

[A]

I think most of the work is individual.

[C]

I'm so relieved.

[A]

That's the good news. The bad news is it's really hard.

[C]

And it's really unpleasant.

[A]

And it's a form of discomfort that as human beings, we prefer to avoid because we really like telling these stories and then believing them 100%.

[C]

So much confidence. When you said, I tell a story and I believe it 100%, but then I have to see it on paper and I'm no longer the hero. I was like, oh, my gosh, that's me. That is me.

[A]

Yeah. My other takeaway is this is a rich conversation. I want us to come back to it in various ways. And it is a. And we see this every day. In our work. It is a huge part of our experience at work and I think to the spirit of this show show, with a little bit of effort, we can get very far down the path of making our own experience of work better when we get better at conflict. And I hope that this conversation for our listeners was one step towards that goal.

[B]

If you want to be on Fixable.

[C]

Please call us at 234- FIXABLE. That's 234-349-2253 or email [e-mail].

[A]

Fixable is a podcast brought to you by Ted and Pushkin Industries. It's hosted by me, Anne Morris and me, Frances Frey. This episode was produced by Rahima Nassa. Our team includes Constanza Gallardo, Banban Chang, Michelle Quint, Daniela Balaurasso and Roxanne Hylash.

[C]

And our show was mixed by Louis at Storyyard.