As people are drawn together, their beliefs, values, and practices are bound to create differing opinions and attitudes. Keeping silent about these differences as though they don’t exist — adding them to the list of undiscussable issues — erects artificial barriers, stifles fruitful dialogue, fosters rejection, drives people apart, and most detrimental of all it conceals the truth.

The longer the list grows, the more tense and anxious people become. An effective way to get these unmentionable topics on the table is to gather people together on a regular basis to resolve those issues on the list.

Begin by asking each participant to make a list of those issues he or she would like to see resolved and rank order them in the order they are ready to join in the discussion. Collect the individual lists and compile a master list.

Next, work through the master list together one item at a time beginning with the lowest priority. Schedule the first session for about ninety minutes in order to give the participants ample time to learn how the process works.

The heaviest, more serious issues top the list. Heaviest meaning an issue so sensitive that no one has dared mention it. Such unresolved issues have been on the list so long that they take on additional weight and significance.

Start at the bottom of the list with the least sensitive issues and save the heavier issues for later. This process often exposes those in opposition to the possibility that they may not “know the truth” and that they may not be able to uncover the facts without help.

As the participants work their way through the unresolved issues list, they learn how to express their concerns without prejudice or judgment and how to bring up the issues that are keeping them from collaborating. When a festering issue is liable to pit one person against another, consider using a facilitator who has no personal interest in the outcome.

Here is an example of how a facilitator helped to resolve a longstanding feud between two critical care nurses in a large metropolitan hospital.

According to the director, the discord started when nurse Swanson asserted that she didn’t want nurse Martin taking care of her mother who was just admitted as a patient.

The implication from Swanson was that Martin was incompetent; at least that’s how Martin perceived it. As the conflict dragged on, the rumormongers embellished the story, adding unfounded tidbits that inflamed the situation.

The truth came out when the two antagonists were brought together by the facilitator and surrounded by caring colleagues. Swanson’s objection was not a question of Martin’s competency, but rather one of averting a personality conflict.

Swanson was concerned that her overly critical mother would pose a problem for Martin who was known and admired for her soft spoken and sensitive nature. Even though Swanson admired Martin for her gentle manner, she felt that Martin was not a good match for her mother.

Swanson was concerned that Martin would be overpowered by her domineering mother and wanted to spare her colleague from rejection. Once Swanson and Martin understood each other’s true intention, they sought forgiveness and agreed to communicate directly in the future.