This source is a little corporate-sounding at first but well-written. I think they discuss a chamber of commerce non-profit in an unnamed city.

Does anyone find this useful? I relate to many of the topics.

As I indicated in Leaders Working Together, "The cornerstone assumption remains: Collaboration does not mean we all have to agree, but we do have to maintain mutual understanding." Having a process in place to deal with inevitable conflict goes a long way in assisting a board in reaching that mutual understanding and preventing destructive conflict. CPR is such a process. And, while I've seen the process work effectively, one of the first things a board must realize is that it takes time to move through the steps and volunteer board members are often resistant to working through a seemingly lengthy process that may resolve an issue or problem within the board. In response to an interview question asked during my research, board members from around the country revealed: "Resolving disputes is a priority but dispute resolution is not." Hence, board members agreed that disputes are a part of the decision-making process but, nevertheless, they do not welcome a formal dispute-resolution process.

Therefore, when I introduce the notion of implementing a process to resolve a dispute, I ask participants to weigh the alternatives. In other words, how do they feel about carrying the weight of a chronic problem through every decision-making exercise as compared to taking a little time away from the regular agenda to resolve the issue thereby pulling that particular weight from the board's shoulders? Generally, participants agree that it makes sense to resolve the issue and they also discover that collaborative problem resolution is designed as a simplified model with volunteer boards in mind and is well worth the time it takes. Imagine how far ahead the chamber would be in terms of time and money if they had taken a few hours to step back and resolve the real problem at the root of its conflict.