A Ghanaian project manager is drawing attention in business circles for a simple three-step conflict-resolution framework he says has repeatedly defused disputes that could otherwise have escalated — using a heated standoff over a utility pole as his latest example.
Maclean Kajola Dzormekuh, a business development executive who manages metering projects for Brainsfield Ltd., describes the approach as “pragmatic systems thinking” — a problem-solving style that favors workable, real-world fixes over theoretically neat ones. Rather than applying the same tool to every problem, he argues, leaders should first understand what kind of problem they’re actually facing, then find the smallest intervention that produces the biggest shift — what systems thinkers call a leverage point.
The pole dispute
The case that put the method to the test began with a call from one of Dzormekuh’s subcontractors. A homeowner had reportedly confronted the subcontractor’s crew as they climbed a utility pole to connect a new customer, angry that neighbors were tapping into a pole he had personally paid to install.
Dzormekuh’s first instinct was to lean on a rule commonly cited in the utilities industry — that a privately purchased service pole becomes utility company property after 24 hours — and have his subcontractor explain that to the homeowner. But at the subcontractor’s request, Dzormekuh got on the phone with the man directly, and the conversation revealed a different problem entirely.
The homeowner, it turned out, had waited more than two years to get connected to the electrical grid, had personally funded the pole while his neighbors declined to contribute, and now felt those same neighbors were connecting for free without so much as an acknowledgment — all while the added load caused his own power to cut out during peak hours. His real grievance wasn’t legal ownership of the pole; it was feeling disrespected and unable to keep his lights on.
The framework
Dzormekuh frames his method in three steps: listen, diagnose what must be traded, and deliver the exchange. The idea is that the complaint someone brings to you is often not the actual problem — in this case, a dispute that looked legal and technical was, underneath, relational and emotional.
Once he identified what the homeowner actually wanted — recognition and reliable power — Dzormekuh says he validated the man’s frustration, then offered a concrete fix: moving the household to a less-loaded electrical phase to cut down on outages, at no cost to the homeowner. The tension broke almost immediately, and the call ended amicably.
The broader pitch
Dzormekuh’s larger point is aimed at other leaders: many people default to familiar tools no matter what problem lands in front of them, and end up puzzled when results vary. He argues that pragmatic systems thinking works best when leaders move fluidly between the big picture and small details to find root causes, rather than reaching for the same fix — or the same legal argument — every time.
He also notes, as an aside, that the framework overlaps with a personal philosophy he calls “rational realism,” which he says he’s developed over several years and may write about separately.