For any community that’s been around long enough, especially if housemates don’t know each other before moving in, there may come a time when conflict escalates to a breaking point where someone says, "I want that person to move out". So what do you do?
It’s important to have a clear process for conflict escalation that all housemates are aware of, including incorporating good faith effort into resolving conflict before asking someone to move out.
One simple reason to have a clear process for conflict resolution and escalation is that it can be devastating to be removed from a community by surprise. Even so, people might think it should have been obvious to this person that people were upset with them. People might think a clear warning is useless because they don’t believe in a person’s ability to change. Maybe people are upset enough with the person that they don’t mind hurting them. But if no-one explicitly tells someone that they’re close to being asked to move out, they could end up completely blindsided, and – excepting extreme circumstances – I don’t think anyone deserves that.
I have abolition-leaning politics, which means I dream of a future where fewer harms are addressed by punishment or removing people from society (e.g. prison), and more harms are repaired through community-supported mediation and skill-building (see also: restorative justice and transformative justice). Repairing relationships is challenging work, often requiring a lot of time and emotional labor, and I don’t expect people to always have capacity for it. But it gets easier through practice. Community homes are some of the best spaces to practice and develop these skills, due to their smallish size and the ability for people to form closer relationships with each other through consistent interaction even if they’re unlikely to become good friends.
Since living in community, I’ve realized how important it is for me to learn to collaborate with people I’m not good friends with – people who are different from me, people I get annoyed with sometimes. Building the skills to move through conflict together will prepare us for the kinder and more collaborative future I want to work towards.
This is similar to processes that many other houses have, but I’d encourage any community to personalize the details of their own process based on the goals and preferences of its members.
step 1: self-discovery
Ideally before going into a conflict resolution conversation, the person(s) who feels a grievance know for themselves (a) what bothered/bothers them, and (b) what request (if any) they want to make. Communication is likely to be clearer and easier to be understood by the other party if this information is known beforehand. It also can help the person(s) with the grievance feel more confident and calm and hopeful.
This step can take 15 seconds, or several days. If it’s feeling hard, it can help to journal or talk things through with a trusted friend.
step 2: individual conversations
A good first step towards working through an issue with someone is to talk directly about it one-on-one. This works best if both people can go into the conversation with good faith, seeking to understand each other and taking both their perspectives into consideration when finding solutions.
Sometimes conflicts involve multiple people. In these cases, the group can decide together if they’d rather have a discussion as a group. Unless everyone wants to meet as a group, focusing on the 1:1 relationships until step 4 (house meeting) can help ensure everyone gets a chance to understand and be understood.
Potential blockers to this phase:
step 3: mediations
If progress can't be made talking one-on-one, the next step is to request a conversation mediated by a third party. This could be another member of the house, which is great because it’s free and they have more context. It could also be a volunteer from the extended community or a paid professional. It can be very helpful to have a preexisting list of potential mediators.
An ideal mediator is someone both parties feel comfortable around. They should also be able to hold an impartial calm tone, putting aside their own tense feelings about either party if they have any, which can be easier when there’s a structure everyone has agreed to follow.
There should be at least 1.5h set aside for this conversation. Mediation is often easier than one-on-one conversations, because the presence of a third party helps keep conversation kinder and more productive. Sometimes even just a third-party watching without speaking can prevent people from saying hurtful things or escalating the conflict. There are many tools and structures for mediation, such as the CLG Clearing Model, that a mediator can facilitate to build mutual understanding and connection.
Just like in one-on-one conflict conversations, mediations work best when both parties come in with curiosity and a desire to understand each other, are willing to let go of being right, and are willing to take responsibility for their own part in the conflict (even if it feels minimal compared to the other person’s contribution). Part of a mediator’s role is to help encourage these attitudes.
After the mediated conversation takes place, the mediator waits 2 or 3 days and then asks the participants for their feelings about how it went. If they feel positive enough, they can continue with further one-on-one or mediated conversations until the issue feels resolved on both sides. If they don’t feel hopeful they can resolve the issue, or don’t respond, the conflict is escalated to a house conversation.
Potential blockers to this phase:
step 4: house-wide problem-solving
If further escalation is needed beyond mediation, the matter is brought to a house meeting. First all housemates listen to the needs of all involved parties, acting in good faith and doing their best to understand each of their perspectives. After developing understanding, and perhaps at a later meeting, the house then works as a group to find any workable solutions and next steps, taking all the needs into account when collaborating to find or craft solutions. This stage is meant to be a collaborative process, and collaboration can be aided by effective facilitation (I’ve shared some facilitation resources at the end of this post). If a collaborative solution can’t be reached, then the question of termination may be on the table.
step 5: negotiating terms for continued membership
If the house can't find a solution that would satisfy everyone, and it appears that the solution might be asking someone (or multiple people) to leave, the house meets without the relevant housemate(s) to discuss the issue. The house is transparent about this process and avoids secret meetings as much as possible.
The house decides what would need to change and by when for this person’s behavior to be considered acceptable again, as well as the specific consequences that would be enacted if the changes aren’t satisfactorily met. These details are promptly communicated to the relevant parties, and a followup conversation is scheduled to check in.
step 6: termination vote
If the house has made clear requests for changes in behavior and it seems like there is no improvement (or not enough) in the communicated timeline, then anyone involved in the original conflict can call for a vote to terminate membership for one or more parties involved in the conflict. The house could choose that the resident is asked to leave if the vote passes unanimously (except for the resident in question) or with a majority of votes. (Decide how the vote works before you get to this point!!)
Conflict resolution processes are easier to engage in when (1) there’s trust that the process could work, meaning conflicts get resolved or else members are asked to leave, and (2) there’s trust that it won’t become too emotionally overwhelming to engage in the process. Trust can be built over time as communities practice and iterate on their processes, developing the skills to do it well. The more people develop conflict conversation skills, the more people experience well-facilitated mediations, and the more housemates demonstrate their overall willingness to support each other to find solutions that work, the easier it gets. We won’t always get it perfect, but each time we try and practice and learn, our communities become more resilient. Through this work, we create a kinder and more collaborative future.