Newsletter #395 — October 26, 2025

Heidi Burgess and Guy Burgess

What Is "Constructive Confrontation"?

Constructive Confrontation is a concept we have been developing since the early days of the Consortium, when we discovered that many of our advocate friends had little interest in "conflict resolution," but they had a great deal of interest in learning how to engage in important conflicts more constructively.  We argued then, and continue to point out now, that there is a great deal of overlap between those two approaches. Constructive Confrontation is a way of applying the fundamental insights from the conflict resolution and peacebuilding fields to the realm of advocacy.  Doing so most often makes advocacy more effective because it doesn't create the fierce and counterproductive backlash associated with more common, and more inflammatory, forms of advocacy.

Constructive confrontation also gives people agency and a sense of hope. Instead of sitting at home bemoaning the state of our nation or the world, and despairing when our "team" loses, it gives us a way to get involved in making our communities and our nation better. And involvement makes our own lives better too, just by giving us a sense of belonging to something that matters and hope that we are doing something that can really make a difference.

Constructive confrontation has five principal steps (and a number of sub-steps), all drawn from conflict resolution (and conflict transformation, and dispute resolution) theory and practice. These include

1. Figuring out what is really going on. As we pointed out in "The Great Reframing," it’s never just “their fault.” Constructive confrontation starts with taking an honest look at ourselves and realizing when we are falling into the overly simplistic and antagonistic, us-versus-them frames.  Are we blaming somebody else for our problem(s)?  If so, might there be other causes as well? Are we contributing to the problem ourselves (see #2 below)?  Are other factors, outside anyone's control, contributing to the problem? We suggest people make a list of all the factors that might be contributing to the problem that concerns them.  Then consider what is influencing those factors. This is the very beginning of what we call a "why chain" or a simple "conflict map."  Both why chains and conflict maps are excellent tools to use to quickly see how any particular issue is far more complicated than our simple us-versus-them framework.  It also shows how impotent attempts to get "them" to change or disappear really are, because there is still all that "other stuff" going on.

2. Focus on Contribution Instead of Blame: In their book Difficult Conversations, Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen make a distinction between “blame” and what they call “contribution.” Blame is judgment. It’s the assertion that the other person (or group, or even country) is wrong. Blame looks backwards at what happened and who was at fault. And it creates backlash: the other side rejects the blame and blames you back. Contribution, on the other hand, seeks understanding — understanding how both (or all) sides contributed to the situation. It does look backwards, but it looks forwards as well. How did we each contribute to getting into the mess that we are in? And what can we do to change the way we interact so that this sort of thing doesn’t happen in the future?

3. Distinguish between Core Conflict Elements and the Conflict Overlay Factors: We have long made a distinction between what we call core conflict elements and conflict overlay factors. Core conflict elements are those fundamental issues that the conflict was originally about. 

Core Conflict Elements

Typical core elements include:

1. High-stakes distributional issues (e.g. who should get a particular piece of land, control the government, a job, etc.)
2. Moral disagreements (e.g., whether abortion is murder or simply a woman's right to choose)
3. Unmet Human Needs (including, particularly identity and security)
4. Status conflicts — who is on top of the status hierarchy and who is on the bottom. Conflicts between the oppressed and oppressors are common status conflicts (although they usually contain elements of moral and high-stakes distributional issues as well.)
5. Inequitable Power-Sharing, going beyond status to the hoarding of power: the more power people have, the more they seem to want to increase it further.

These core issues have an unavoidable win-lose character that lies at the core of what makes conflicts intractable. This is a topic we explore further in the next section on goals, interests, needs, and values.

Conflict Overlay Factors

Conflict overlay factors are the many things that "lie over" the core and make it harder to see and deal with. At times, the conflict changes so that the primary issues actually become these, not the original, core concerns. Overlay issues include: 

1. Conflicting Visions and Frames
2. Escalation  and Polarization and Hyper-Polarization
3. Communication Failures
4. Factual Disputes
5. Dispute Resolution Procedural Problems
6. Collaboration Problems

All of these overlay problems are common in difficult and intractable conflicts, and they make dealing with (or sometimes even seeing) the core issues much more difficult. Fortunately, everyone has an interest in peeling away these overlaying problems so that they can focus on what they really care about — the core issues.  For this reason, taking steps to address the overlay problems is often relatively easy, yet a highly productive place to start. Sometimes, people discover that most of what they have been fighting about is mostly attributable to overlay problems. For example, they may have said something in anger that provoked an angry response that people didn't really mean. They may have misunderstood and thought that the other side was advocating something that they actually weren't. They may not have had access to reliable information about some key fact. Or, they may not have been able to benefit from the services of a skilled mediator or facilitator.  In many cases, if these problems can be addressed, the parties will discover that their core differences are not as serious as they thought (especially if they're willing to agree to the terms of the Grand Bargain and tolerate, respect, and coexist with people with different views). At other times, however, they will find there are still remaining core differences that also have to be confronted in a constructive way. 

As we often say, "all problems create opportunities," and the first step in addressing both core issues and overlay factors is recognizing that they exist. Once you know what is really going on, you will be in a much better position to respond in a constructive way. Rather than bemoaning the extent and depth of our problems, it helps to consider how many opportunities there are for people who have the skills and interest in working to fix them. And better yet, find a place for yourself to start doing that work! (It doesn't have to mean changing jobs; it can just mean changing the way you interact with the people you are already living or working with.)

2. Determine the core issues: clarify your goals, interests, values and needs. The difference between interests and needs, usually, is that interests can be compromised, while needs cannot. But needs are also usually not win-lose (though they are thought to be). Rather, they are usually win-win.  If one side feels secure, then it won't feel the need to attack the other side. If their identity is respected, they won't feel a need to disrespect the other. So, even though needs are not compromisable, they often can be obtained by giving the same to one's opponents. The same is true for values. Values usually aren't compromised, but if you can set up a situation where everyone will be able to live their life according to their own values, conflict is likely to be greatly diminished.  So a principle to follow as much as possible is to let people follow their own values — as long as those values are not hurting others, and give them respect and security, so they don't feel a need to attack yours. This is the coexistence principle that lies at the core of the Grand Bargain.

Part of constructive confrontation is knowing how much you can ask for, and when your aspirations start to infringe on the needs and rights of others. (We shared an exercise for helping people think through this critically important topic in Newsletter #256, Thinking What Democracy's Winners and Losers Owe One Another).

3. Envision your desired future — but be sure to make a place in it for “them.” We are going to have a separate post on future visioning, so we won't go into detail here. But briefly, if there isn't a place for "them" in your desired future, you are setting yourself up for a protracted, destructive conflict that is virtually certain to pose a serious threat to your future as well.  Far better to figure out a future in which everyone (including those who don't share your values or goals) would be willing to live. While this will inevitably involve making some difficult compromises, it is far more likely to yield a livable future than would the quest for all-out victory.

4. Plan your strategy. What approach(es) are most likely to help you attain your goals and your desired future? This is where the sub-steps come in.

• Effective strategies will include efforts to reduce escalation, mis- and disinformation, and other overlaying factors. (How to do this takes far more space than we have here, but a great deal of information is available in the Constructive Conflict Guide folder on Striping Away "Overlay" Problems).
• Then use interest-based processes to negotiate mutually beneficial agreements on the core issues as much as possible,  before turning to rights-based, and then power-based approaches to resolve the remaining disagreements.
• When turning to power-based approaches, constructive confrontation stresses the use of an optimal "power-strategy mix," using integrative (or persuasive) power first, then exchange power, with legitimate forms of coercive power used only as a last resort.
• We also suggest "looking at your strategy in the mirror."  If the other side used that strategy against you, would you be angry?  Would you fight back with all of the power that you could muster? If so, you ought to think hard about pursuing a less inflammatory strategy. 

5. Implement your plan, monitoring responses as you go, and have a plan if agreements aren’t followed. Make sure that you also live up to any commitments that you make.

The Catch

Hopefully, this all sounds good; perhaps (we hope) you even saw an "ah-ha" idea or two.  But the catch is that this is hard to do. What we call "political hobbyism" – rooting for your own team, being happy when things go in your direction, but depressed or angry when things go the other way, is easy. And it is what most of us do most of the time. 

Recognizing how we and our team are contributing to the polarization problem and doing something to change that is hard. So, too, is fulfilling our responsibilities as engaged citizens — learning about the issues we care about from the full range of perspectives, not just going along with what "our team" tells us to believe without making the effort to see why other people think differently, is hard.  

Agreeing to the "Grand democratic Bargain" is also hard. Democracy only works if we understand that we cannot win all the time. But we must also understand that when we do win, we must still respect the legitimacy and the rights of the losing "team." The Grand democratic Bargain is that we get the freedom to live life as we choose, provided that we grant that freedom to others — even others with profoundly different lifestyles and values from our own. Democracy doesn't work if we define the other team as the enemy to be driven to be (figuratively) driven into the sea. It only works when we agree to work toward meeting everyone's human needs (particularly identity and security), while tolerating value differences and protecting fundamental human rights.

The Benefit 

So, yes, constructive confrontation is hard. It takes time and effort.  But it gives you power and agency — the ability to make a difference. And that can give you hope. Political hobbyists swing from joy to despair when their team wins or loses.  They are powerless to influence events and often become depressed, even hopeless when their team loses (which it will at some point). 

Now we should note: not everyone has the time and resources to do this.  Many people are so stretched just trying to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table that they cannot possibly get involved in civic issues.  But even if you are stretched to the max, you can stop making assumptions about others just based on unrealistic, evil stereotypes. You can be open to listening to people who might disagree with you when you encounter them — because you might learn something with relatively little effort at all. It is also important that you support those who are doing the difficult and sometimes socially risky job of building a democracy that works for everyone.  And that, too, is part of being an active citizen.  

We can all do something –– some more than others. But if we all do what we can to take responsibility for mending our relationships and our democracy, we will all be much better off than we will be if our current levels of hate, distrust, and polarization continue.

To Explore This Further

See the following sections in the Guide to Constructive Conflict. 

• Deep-Rooted Core Differences -- Understanding intractability requires understanding how fundamental, "core" tensions over moral, distributional, status, identity, and fairness issues continually pull us apart.
• Conflict "Overlay" Factors -- A series of problems overlying the core issues make conflicts even more intractable. These include: competing frames, escalation dynamics, communication failures, factual disputes, procedural problems, and collaborative difficulties.
• Stripping Away "Overlay" Problems That Make Conflicts Appear More Intractable Than They Really Are. Identifying and then fixing (or at least limiting) the overlay problems is one of the first steps of constructive conflict engagement.
• Civic Engagement-- If we are to have government "of the people," and "by the people," that means that we, "the people," must be involved. That means all of us!

Please Contribute Your Ideas To This Discussion!

In order to prevent bots, spammers, and other malicious content, we are asking contributors to send their contributions to us directly. If your idea is short, with simple formatting, you can put it directly in the contact box. However, the contact form does not allow attachments.  So if you are contributing a longer article, with formatting beyond simple paragraphs, just send us a note using the contact box, and we'll respond via an email to which you can reply with your attachment.  This is a bit of a hassle, we know, but it has kept our site (and our inbox) clean. And if you are wondering, we do publish essays that disagree with or are critical of us. We want a robust exchange of views.

Contact Us

About the MBI Newsletters

Two or three times a week, Guy and Heidi Burgess, the BI Directors, share some of our thoughts on political hyper-polarization and related topics. We also share essays from our colleagues and other contributors, and every week or so, we devote one newsletter to annotated links to outside readings that we found particularly useful relating to U.S. hyper-polarization, threats to peace (and actual violence) in other countries, and related topics of interest. Each Newsletter is posted on BI, and sent out by email through Substack to subscribers. You can sign up to receive your copy here and find the latest newsletter here or on our BI Newsletter page, which also provides access to all the past newsletters, going back to 2017.

NOTE! If you signed up for this Newsletter and don't see it in your inbox, it might be going to one of your other emails folder (such as promotions, social, or spam).  Check there or search for beyondintractability@substack.com and if you still can't find it, first go to our Substack help page, and if that doesn't help, please contact us. 

If you like what you read here, please ....

Subscribe to the Newsletter