What strategies can you use to resolve conflicts arising from differences in treatment goals?

It not so easy to identify the source of a conflict. Human nature tends to look at controlling exterior factors to channel their frustration and anxiety. And one easy way to do it is to designate someone responsible for the situation. In my view, first thing is to have stakeholders step back and work on keeping aside people from the issue at end. A very effective way to achieve this appears to ask people to describe what they have been doing to date to deal with the issue and what has proved successful. Then go on to identifying what depends on them or on others.

Trust and rapport are the foundations of any attempt to conflict resolution. I find indeed essential to acknowledge the difficulty people are experiencing and have them talk about what they feel about it. Then, I tend to ask what they would like instead to drive the focus to a future improved result. To that effect, in order to avoid slipping on to the usual "you should do this" or "I should do that" (patronising and self-guilt are very counterproductive), I find that listening, considering and "mirroring" the experience of each person involved is imperative before trying to envisage new possible options. It allows people to "let go" part of what is on their mental charge, that stop them accessing their available creativity.

Collective intelligence is above all a process. Such process requires certain essential conditions to be present if one wishes to allow stakeholders to get creative in findings new solutions. As Einstein said, "we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them". But to envisage new ways, one has to feel secure enough to express himself (ie not experiencing fear of losing something or experience retaliation for having done so), one has sometimes to be allowed to express an idea (feel that it is possible and important to do it). Without this, there are reduced chances that parties will get motivated to engage.

Reaching a consensus or compromise is great. getting people taking action is even greater. If one wants that a consensus or compromise to go beyond simple words and be converted into a result, parties have to gain something in engaging. Another process has to be then implemented to have them to commit and actually do their part. Getting stakeholders to share about what would certainly make the consensus fail can be very interesting, and help parties taking responsability for the end result. Getting the compromise reconnected to values discussed at the beginning, and why it is important to each to see the success of what was decided will allow to anchor the motivation and action.

again, words may fly away in the long run, because the levers of motivation to decide are not the same as the ones needed to keep going when facing hurdles and VUCA. Hence the necessity to proceed with a proper "project management" way for measuring, testing and learning all the way to the conflict resolution. Meta-communication is then essential to talk about how progress is made, what has been working well, what was less efficient, how things could be adjusted and describe to which specific indicators one would know that things are moving in the right direction. Conflict resolution is a team's work.