Blog Posts

The Pros and Cons of Conflict-Based Identities

11/8/2018

Break-ups, getting fired, failing a class, divorcing, or even moving can be extremely traumatic in our lives. When we go through a significant conflict, we can be tempted to create our self-conceptions or identity around that conflict or trauma. Naturally, we form identities around significant events in our lives, but there are both benefits and drawbacks to individuals and groups forming what I call conflict-based identities.

Example of a Potential Conflict-based Identity
For example, I’m a child of divorced parents. When I dated guys during college, I remember hearing more than once the following: “You don’t seem like a girl who came from a home with divorced parents.” At the time, I found it odd that they expressed disbelief that I would be okay emotionally because I hadn’t focused my personal identity primarily on my divorced parents. I am many more things than that. Besides, “the girl with divorced parents” identity is based on my parents’ conflict with each other, and not even my own.

Certainly, my parents’ divorce influenced my life in significant ways. However, through that experience, I learned that I have multiple personal identities that serve to express who I am and who I am striving to become. Each of us are much more multi-faceted in terms of our personal identities than the conflict or trauma we have experienced. Yet, to understand ourselves and others more fully, it’s important for us to examine our conflict-based identities, especially when we have survived through very difficult conflicts in our lives.

The Benefits of a Conflict-based Identity
We can be wounded—and wounded severely—through the more intense conflicts we go through in our lives. But, whether or not we frame our identities around those conflicts is up to us.

Some conflicts identities may serve very positive purposes in our lives and communities. For example:

We can draw necessary attention to pressing social problems.
We can create opportunities for others with similar experiences to express themselves and seek support such as with veterans, abuse victims, alcoholic survivors, and victims of sexual harassment

We have all witnessed the power of people who have been inspired through their adversities and conflicts to become actively engaged in necessary causes to end injustice, abuse, intolerance, and all kinds of difficulties. In many cases, individual’s and groups’ conflict-based identities positively influence people toward greater love and understanding.

Despite these very positive aspects to advocating special causes through our conflict-based identities, there are some personal drawbacks to focusing exclusively on certain conflict-based identities, which we may have consciously or unconsciously created for ourselves.

The Personal Drawbacks of a Conflict-based Identity
Sometimes when we focus too heavily on our conflict-based identities, we may find ourselves blocked from the personal progress and peace that we desire. Some conflict-based identities may hold us back personally in the following ways:

The conflict may yoke us to the past.
We may separate ourselves from important others who lack our same conflict experience.
We may elevate ourselves as having more important knowledge of a topic than others, which separates rather than unites us.
We may not consider other important areas of identity in ourselves or others.

In addition to potential personal drawbacks of focusing too heavily on our conflict-based identities, there are some potential community drawbacks as well.

The Community Drawbacks of a Conflict-based Identity
When an entire group focuses solely on that one source of identity through conflict, we may fail to create the unity that allows for creativity, innovation, and true cooperation. In the worst cases, entire groups banded under a certain conflict identity may demonize those who are not affiliated with the conflict even if the unexperienced “others” desire understanding and unity.

At times, relying heavily on our conflict-identities may prevent forgiveness and unity. Certainly, forgiveness does not always imply reconciliation, but we must be careful not to perpetuate identities that limit ourselves or others from changing in positive directions.

The Hazards of Conflict-based Identities Imposed by Others
Interestingly, we are sometimes heavily influenced by conflict-based identities or labels that are imposed on us by others. The imposed conflict-identity may serve another’s identity needs, but not our own.

For example, we may have created very positive, multi-faceted identities for ourselves, but others do not accept those alternate identities. In a bullying sort of way, we may be pigeon-holed by others into conflict identities that do not serve us well. Stereotypes are evidence of other-imposed identities that tend to generalize, trivialize, and often demonize individuals and groups.

For example, who’s heard the following?

Blonds are dumb
Women bosses are wenches
Divorced women are men-haters
Southern men are chauvinists
Muslims are terrorists

None of these simplistic identity labels imposed by others serve us or others well. Such limited thinking only prevents the peace, unity, and cooperation, which are sorely needed in our homes, communities, and nations.

What Happens When the Conflict Goes Away?
Finally, we may be unconsciously or consciously fueling conflicts which serve our personal identity needs. For example, do I need to keep fighting with my husband to demonstrate that he’s the problem and that I’m the “good” spouse?

We may be acting in ways to perpetuate certain conflicts because they confirm who we think we are. In essence, we have created other-dependent conflicts to ensure that we maintain a positive personal identity. We can examine our motives and related actions to see whether we are okay with allowing the other person to change in positive ways while maintaining our positive sense of who we are.

Final Thoughts on Conflict-Based Identities
As with all identity conflicts, we need to carefully examine our many personal identities that have been created through myriads of personal experiences.

While explored in my latest blog post our identity conflicts, we need to beware of four common tendencies in meeting identity needs in our society:

Narrowly defining our own and others’ personal identities
Rigidly guarding our identities without any room for negotiation
Thinking of personal identities in dualities that oppose each other rather than move along spectrums that overlap in many important ways
Creating self-identity in opposition to someone else’s identity

Rather than unconsciously following the four tendencies mentioned above, we can consciously focus on creating long-lasting and positive personal identities by doing the following:

Gaining an awareness of our own identity needs and understanding how we’re currently seeking to satisfy our identity needs
Widening our vision of ourselves and the possibilities for others

To find common ground and understanding with others, we not only need to broaden our own self-identity concepts but widen our concepts of others’ identities. To avoid the intractable conflicts that surface with identity conflicts, we can adjust our conflict-based identities and focus on those personal and group identities that serve us and others in positive and constructive ways.

1 Comment

Understanding and Moderating Identity Conflicts: How can we satisfy our own and others’ identity needs?

11/4/2018

1 Comment

About five years ago, I found myself haggling with a middle-aged Palestinian man in a charming shop in the Old City of Jerusalem. Armed with the determination to not be swindled like I was during my study abroad days at the age of twenty, I had decided to be a tough negotiator; I was not going to be taken advantage of again for being a woman, especially a Western woman.

As the Palestinian man attempted to politely offer me a seat on his carpet while he remained above me in a chair, I refused to sit down. Having formally studied negotiation, I was holding my ground to try to maintain my personal power. To be polite, I peppered him with kind questions about his family and life in Jerusalem but skirted his offers for a higher price than I wanted to pay for a small chess set.

Finally, the man lost patience with me and said that I was the “hardest Mormon woman” he had ever dealt with. His comments felt like a personal compliment but also a slap in the face. While I left with the chess board at a decent price, I was furious about how he had treated me and the feelings of defeat I still felt after leaving his shop. Somehow, I had nearly gotten what I wanted, but I had simultaneously experienced discord and tension in this ancient city.

Many of my personal identities came into play during this brief experience in Jerusalem, including being a Western woman, a return traveler (i.e., not a novice), and an educated negotiator. Rather than dissect the particulars of this incident, I merely want you to notice that multiple personal identities played into what might have simply appeared to be a conflict about price.

As multi-faceted beings, each of us have many forms of identity, which we usually try to present in a positive light. As humans, we each have very real identity needs that play into how we feel, think, and interact with ourselves and others on a daily basis. Depending upon the specific environment, our personal goals, and the perceived goals of others, we choose to highlight or associate with certain personal identity labels. In short, whether consciously or unconsciously, we are often selecting from a rather large set of possible personal identities. Which personal identities we choose to focus on may play a huge role in the conflicts we perceive and engage in.

Given the amount of conflict and anger many are currently experiencing at home and in our communities, I am writing about satisfying our identity needs in ways that prevent unnecessary conflict in our individual lives and communities. We will briefly explore three areas:

(1) Defining identity needs
(2) Key concerns about satisfying identity needs
(3) Ways to moderate how we meet our identity needs to prevent intense conflict

Universal Human Needs
All human beings have needs. While we experience dramatically different economic, family, educational, and many other social conditions, we are still bound by universal human needs. Our needs range from the physical requirements for food, shelter, and clothing to the psychological aspects of love, belonging, self-esteem, and identity.

Identity Needs
In terms of identity, I am talking about our need to present ourselves and to be thought of in desirable ways; whether that be as smart, kind, authentic, strong, or beautiful. In short, our identity needs focus on how we describe who we are and how we fit into our social groups and society over all.

Many of our identities are socially negotiated through our interactions with others but we often have large control over what identities we convey to others and what personal identities we act upon. While our specific forms of identity needs may change over time, they remain a constant need that is critical for our overall well-being.

Conflicts over Identity

Of all human needs, conflict theorists suggest that some of our most intense conflicts center around our need for a sense of identity, security and/or recognition. As explained by conflict theorists from the University of Colorado at Boulder:

“[Identity] conflicts occur when a person or a group feels that his or her sense of self--who one is--is threatened, or denied legitimacy or respect. One's sense of self is so fundamental and so important, not only to one's self-esteem but also to how one interprets the rest of the world, that any threat to identity is likely to produce a strong response. Typically, this response is both aggressive and defensive, and can escalate quickly into an intractable conflict.
The tricky part about identity conflicts is that in order to resolve such conflicts, ways must be found to provide these needs for all individuals and groups without compromise--as human needs "are not for trading."(https://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/problem/denyid.htm Accessed October 2017).

Given the constant need for meeting our identity needs in relation to others, I am writing in hopes that you will begin to:

(1) Notice the negative tendencies we have toward meeting legitimate identity needs.

(2) Consider specific ways that you can flexibly and expansively meet your identity needs that allow others to have their legitimate identity needs met as well.

Where are we going wrong about identity in our culture?

Both individually and collectively, we are perpetuating several problematic tendencies for satisfying our identity needs, which may lead to intense conflict.

1. Our tendency to narrowly define ourselves and others

First, we have tended to narrow and confine our identities to a few key identities that are more exclusive and isolated than in recent years.

We have pared down our number of terms for ourselves and others and isolated ourselves from potential overlaps with many who share common traits, experiences, and needs with us.

Examples of Narrowly Defining Ourselves

Within this table, you will see a broad identity category on the left with narrower definitions on the right. While specific terms of identity serve to create authenticity to meet identity needs, we often overlook our connection through the broad categories of terms like “American” and view ourselves as completely dissimilar to others within the broad identity categories we share.

Broad Identity to Narrow Identity Categories

American (geography)
Southerner, New Yorker, Californian, Mid-Westerner, rural, urban, Texan

American (environment)
Tree hugger, Big Business, conservationist, NRA member

American (politics)
Liberal, conservative, libertarian, anarchist, activist

American (religious)
Atheist, Evangelical, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, and so on

American (education)
High school drop-out, prep schooler, Harvard grad, MBA, community college, technical school, self-made

American (economics)
Urban poor, intellectual elite, Wall Street banker, yuppie, from the slums, on welfare

From a broad category like American, I can draw hundreds to thousands of distinctions for more specifically satisfying my identity needs. So, rather than identifying as an American or a believer in democracy, I can divide up along much more narrow, specific lines.

While the specifics of our lives do matter and create varied experience and identity fulfillment, when we narrowly define ourselves, we often fail to see how our identities overlap with others who share common traits and experiences.

2. Our tendency to think in dualities that oppose each other rather than move along spectrums that overlap in many potent and viable ways

Remember the World War II terms of “the Allies” and “the Axis.” We often use (at least unconsciously) the same concepts of the “good guys” and “the bad guys” to understand our own and others’ identities. We may oversimplify identities and consider ourselves and others in terms of simple dualities of good and bad, liberal and conservative, rich and poor, and so on.

While creating dualities simplifies our thinking, we put ourselves at risk for stereotyping, prejudice and even dehumanization when we have too narrowly downsized the groups which we believe are good and broadened the large groups of people that we consider to be bad. Because we have narrowed our concept of ourselves, we often think that those who are not like us cannot possibly share any of the same values with us. We treat our values as if they are exclusive because our identities are so narrowly defined.

3. Our tendency to create self-identity in opposition to someone else’s identity

Sometimes, we create identities for ourselves based on what we are not. For example, I have been surprised by the strength of the “church member” or “not church member” identities since moving to Utah. I have always been in a religious minority wherever I have lived, so I often relied on other sources of identity to mix with groups that didn’t relate to my religious identity.

In Utah, I find that many people will try to create a whole identity by saying they’re “not Mormon” when they have many other important identities and experiences that may overlap with the church members they oppose. This is very common in majority versus minority group situations and is not specific to religious majorities.

What happens when the person who opposes any majority group moves to a new place where there is no similar majority identification to oppose? What happens to the dissident or rebel's ability to meet their identity needs? Of course, we may create meaning and identity through our other social relationships, but just beware of creating your most important identities in opposition to another person’s or group’s identity.

4. Our tendency to rigidly guard our identities without looking for overlap

Finally, we are growing increasingly rigid in terms of defining and defending our identity needs in light of other’s potentially conflicting identity needs.

We have become a society on the defensive, almost looking for difference rather than overlap. I firmly believe that we will find what we’re looking for with identity overlap or difference. According to the confirmation bias, if we are looking for reasons to demonstrate how we are too different to ever get along, we will find that evidence.

However, if we are looking to flexibly expand and understand our self-identity concepts in relation to others, we may very well find that we overlap in many areas of values, experiences, and goals.

Where can we shift our thinking to allow for our own and others’ identity needs?

1. Gain Awareness of Our Identity Needs & Understand How We’re Currently Seeking to Satisfy Them

First, we need to become aware of our identity needs and how we are seeking to satisfy those needs.

All of us, no matter who we are, have a need to be seen as “good people” meaning that we are consistent in our thoughts and actions in relation to positive values or characteristics. According to the theory of cognitive dissonance, we cannot thrive under conditions where our thoughts and actions are not in synch with each other. When our actions go against our beliefs, we can either correct our actions or change our beliefs. Too often, we are unwilling to admit a wrong about our actions, but instead change our beliefs to justify our action.

For example, can I still be “good” if you are my nice neighbor voting for the opposite party? Can we both still be “good” people?

Questions to ask yourself:

Have I been seeking to satisfy my needs in ways that inhibit others meeting their own identity needs?
Do my actions threaten the fulfillment of other’s authentic identity needs?

2. Widen Your Vision of Self-identities and Possibilities for Others

I am a writer. I am a mother. I am a mediator. I am a wife. I am a speaker. I am a daughter. I am funny (sometimes). I am intense. I am compassionate. I am artistic. I am intellectual. I am spiritual. I care about the environment. I don’t like affiliating with any political party. I have German and English ancestors. I am short with freckles all over my face. I straighten my curly hair that’s turning gray….

Looking into each major facet of my life, I realize that I have multiple credible and important identities that satisfy my basic needs for love, belonging, and importance. If I move from the narrow identities I have used to define myself into broader categories, I begin to see my overlap with all of humanity. As human beings, we share a myriad of attributes, aspirations, and experiences.

Expand Your Perspective on Yourself: From Narrow to Broad Self-Identity Concepts

I am a Caucasian mother of five children
I am a mother, I am a parent, I have children, I am a woman, I nurture life, I am human,

I am a member of a particular Christian Church
I am a Christian, I believe in a surpreme being, I am a religious person, I am a spiritual person, I believe in the worth of each person

I am a mediator
I work in the mental health field, I am a teacher, I am a speaker, I give workshops, I try to help people communicate with each other, I am a peacemaker

I am from Palo Alto
I am from the Bay Area, I am a Californian, I am from the West, I am an American, I am from the developed world, I have traveled throughout the world and love learning languages, I am a human desiring to connect with diverse peoples and cultures.

To find common ground and understanding with others, we not only need to broaden our own self-identity concepts but widen our concepts of others’ identities. We also need to see beyond the particularities of what individuals and groups broadcast and present about themselves to see where we overlap.

All of us will continue to have strong identity needs, but how we go about fulfilling these needs will greatly influence the personal and wider conflicts we experience in our daily personal and community lives. We can choose to combat the four common negative tendencies in meeting identity needs in two important ways:

(1) Gain an awareness of our own identity needs and how we’re currently trying to satisfy them.
(2) We can widen our vision of our own self-identities and the possibilities for overlap with others close by and around the world.

While simply a beginning of the identity and conflict conversation, please look for more information in the weeks to come about this important topic in future blog posts.

1 Comment

Avoid the Empty Calories of a High-Conflict Diet & Focus on the Important Conflicts in Your Life

10/18/2018

0 Comments

I have bad days when I say the wrong things, think bad thoughts, and feel generally crusty towards the world; on such days, I tend to stir up unnecessary conflicts in my life. We all have these days when we figuratively splurge on our bad conflict habits.

But, despite consuming the “Big Macs” of personal conflict on the bad days, we need to try to avoid the unnecessary conflicts of life on a regular basis because “you just feel better when you do.” When we focus on the essential conflicts, we naturally begin creating the sense of purpose and meaning we desire in our most important personal relationships.

Like with food, we are surrounded by all kinds conflict temptations that will leave us feeling guilty, bloated, and less comfortable than we started with. The unnecessary conflicts of life are like the binge foods that may feel good in the moment, but leave us feeling worse afterwards.

Conflicts—or differences that matter to one or more person—are natural for us. In our society, we are surrounded by all kinds of conflicts, both large and small, as well as the important and unimportant. Of course, we have differences of opinion, taste, temperament, style and so on in our various human relationships. As unique individuals, we will naturally differ from each other. But too often, we spend far too much time and energy dealing with unnecessary conflict in our lives rather than focusing on effectively dealing with the most important conflicts in our lives.

Figuratively, we inhale the Twinkies of bad, fluffy conflict habits when we should focus on the whole grains of human relationships that could create opportunities for innovation, greater human intimacy, and a sense of true human connection.

For example, how much emotional energy do we waste on getting angry with a lame driver during our commute to and from work? Are we gossiping about a co-worker’s bad habits, creating tension in the workplace, while we neglect working through a pressing issue at home?

When you read through these examples of empty calorie conflicts, you may think, “Duh, I already know that!” However, I’m going to ask you to be a little more self-reflective because our cultural habits of “binge” individualism and conflict have become increasingly pervasive.

EMPTY CALORIE CONFLICTS

Personal Physical Habits

Being late

Do I have the habit of being late to important events? Do I hold up meetings, family gatherings, or even work phone calls because I am late?
What am I willing to change about my scheduling habits to decrease unnecessary conflict?

Forgetting important appointments, events, people’s names, and following up within expected time frames
It may sound silly, but even when I’m running five minutes late for an appointment at the doctor’s or with a friend, I will call. Just 30 seconds of my time seems to lessen the potential for conflict among close and distant associates.

We all know the old adages about returning something borrowed in good time in order to avoid creating conflict with the lender. How often have I held onto something that causes guilt even though it would be simple to return a borrowed item. Many years ago, I borrowed a book from a neighbor—I still have not returned that book, but I think about it often. While the book sat in my drawer, I avoided talking with the neighbor because I felt guilty.

Not exercising
Do I feel lethargic and frumpy in my clothes because I haven’t exercised in weeks? Can I sense that I am overly irritated when others talk about all their 5Ks when I haven’t even gotten on the treadmill this year?

Skipping Meals
I may create conflict simply because I’m hungry. In some ways, I’m no better than a two-year old when it comes to low blood sugar. I know that I need a constant stream of food, so I carry around granola bars in my purse. When staying overnight with friends, I regularly inform them of my funny habit of eating at night. I simply cannot sleep if I am hungry. Usually, I have an extra box of Kind bars in my suitcase just in case I become a shy house guest unable to share my funny habits with others.

Staying up too late so we’re constantly tired
If you’re reading this blog post at night, you should probably just go to sleep. Again, we are no different than young children. When we don’t get enough sleep, we can become super irritable or just plain sleepy. We may not remember conversations very well and speed through our personal relationships simply because we’re tired.

Avoiding taking care of a critical health issue, physical or mental, such as an addiction or source of pain
In our individualistic society, we tend to think that our personal habits just affect us personally, but very simple health issues may affect our loved ones, friends, and acquaintances and fuel unnecessary conflict and dissatisfaction. You can powerfully address personal conflict by addressing critical health—either physical or mental—issues alongside any addictions.

Personal Communication Skills or Habits

There are many personal communication skills and habits that will enhance our relationships with each other and prevent unnecessary conflict. In this post, I focus on just two areas of concern: (1) not listening and (2) unorganized family communication habits. As we focus on these communication essentials, we will slowly gain the motivation to tackle the other larger communication issues we face.

Not listening
Too often, even when we say we’re listening, we’re preparing what we’ll say in response. Instead of connection, we create distance through unhealthy patterns of not listening, especially to our loved ones.

Have I really listened to the other person or have I just been figuring out my rebuttal while the other person is talking?
Have I interrupted before someone’s finished what they have to say?
Am I known for being someone who cuts people off and tries to get in the last word?

Have I asked any questions to make sure that I understand what the other person has said?
When I disagree with something, do I accuse or blame rather than find out how the other person is thinking and feeling about an issue?
Do I suspend my judgment until I’ve heard both sides of the story?

Unorganized Family Communication Habits
With the diversity of family make-ups, personalities, and habits, there are a myriad of topics we could discuss. But, to get you started, I have identified a few key features that pop up in our family life:

Lack of a regular sit-down time to discuss calendaring and on-going issues
Prioritizing time away from the family without focusing on regular family traditions and patterns for building relationships with each other
Neglecting appreciation of those closest to me
Not exercising so we feel sluggish and irritated
Arguing about family rules when these should be discussed, agreed upon, and even revised
Focusing on enforcing our preference or wants rather than basing our requests on real needs

Consuming and Digesting Conflicts Outside of our Control
We are inundated with information about local, national, and international conflicts that are mostly out of our control. We can spend countless hours and emotional energy reviewing and complaining about stressful events both at home and abroad.

Of course, we want to help out how we can, but do spend our energy complaining about the president rather than listening to child who is being bullied at school? When posed that way, it seems so obvious that we should focus on our most important relationships, but it is easy to get sucked in by far-away conflicts. Can we leave the news media conflicts to the side when necessary in order to deal with conflicts at home?

With the Internet and social media, we can easily get side-tracked into thinking about other conflicts beyond our control. We may have a legitimate role to play in addressing wider conflicts, but make sure you take care of your personal relationships first. Set your priorities and guard them closely.

QUESTIONS FOR PERSONAL REFLECTION

I didn’t write this post to give you a all a guilty conscience about how you handle the conflicts in your life. I actually have a generous motivation: spend your time on what matters most and decide to create habits that bring you contentment and connection rather than conflict fatigue.

We can choose to very positively influence the most important relationships in our lives by focusing on the high priority conflicts. When we are honest with ourselves, we can identify what we care about and begin to understand our power to influence the conflicts we encounter in our most important relationships.

For example, am I willing to go to bed a little earlier so that I don’t wake up my partner who is already sleeping? Many years ago, during one room-mate pow-wow about sleeping habits in our household of five, twenty-something women in D.C., I remember my roommate asking me, “Do you wear ear plugs?”

I had been complaining about not being able to sleep because I often heard the footsteps of roommates and guests above my basement bedroom, but I had only been demanding that others change their habits. Now, for about twenty years, I have worn ear plugs nearly every night to bed. A quick solution for a light sleeper like me that demanded a change in a personal habit rather than just a change in the behavior of those around me.

To guide toward a healthier conflict lifestyle, I have developed several questions that I am asking myself these days:

Identify the Empty Calorie Conflicts:

Where are the empty calorie conflicts happening in my life?
What role do I play in these unnecessary conflicts?
What conflicts am I spending the most time on right now?
What are the important conflicts in my life that should I be focusing on right now?

Make Personal Adjustments to Conflict Habits

How could I adjust my personal habits to create more peaceful relationships with others, especially with those closest to me?

What am I willing to change about myself so that I can get along better with others?

FOCUS ON THE WHOLE GRAINS OF CONFLICT: The Conflicts that Matter

Most of us are familiar with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs that outlines in a pyramid form basic human needs beginning with physiological needs like breathing and ascending to the pinnacle of self-actualization. While we may be moving up and down that pyramid based on our personal circumstances, we need to take the time to figure out what personal conflicts matter most.

Are these conflicts about personal safety, love or belonging?
Are these particular conflicts the most important to enhancing our closest relationships that we can directly influence?

Speaking in dieting terms, we’re consuming way too many empty conflict calories. Frequently, we are focusing on the more meaningless conflicts in our lives that often reflect selfish personal habits or conflicts that we have no control over. Instead, we will find more peace and connection by focusing on the whole grains of collaborative problem solving in the conflicts that influence our most important relationships.

0 Comments

Helping Others Manage Their Anger: A Nonviolent Communications Perspective

10/11/2018

1 Comment

Have you ever said any of the following to someone who’s angry?

“Calm down!”
“Take it easy.”
“You’re overreacting.”
“Hey, don’t take things so seriously.”
“This is not a big deal.”

Generally, these types of statements do not help angry people de-escalate their anger. On the contrary, these kinds of statements may actually make people angrier. When we judge and treat someone else’s anger as trivial and refuse to empathize with the angry person, no one wins; the anger remains as does the unmet need, which sparked the anger in the first place.

Linking Anger with Unmet Needs

From a nonviolent communications perspective, our anger reflects our unmet needs. While in a previous post, I outlined how to manage our own anger, in this post, I will focus on presenting steps from nonviolent communication that we can apply to helping others manage their own anger. We offer our help to others who are angry in order to experience more peace both individually and collectively.

While working with angry social groups in the 1960’s, the late Dr. Marshall Rosenberg first developed the principles of nonviolent communication, which address how to help others work through their own anger. Rather than judge the validity of another’s anger, Rosenberg suggests that we focus on empathically receiving what the other person is experiencing so they can discover themselves what unmet needs have sparked their anger.

Managing Fight or Flight Instincts

Before we review the four specific nonviolent communication steps of helping others manage their anger, we must first address and understand our natural fight or flight instincts when dealing with anger. Through the following personal experience, I will illustrate how I countered my natural fight or flight tendencies when dealing with an angry person. We have very real choices to make in helping others de-escalate and work through their anger in safe environments.

Several years ago, when employed as a manager at a small apartment complex in Northern California, I had to serve a tenant a nasty-gram from the management. While I can’t remember the details of the fine or rebuke from management to the tenant, I clearly remember my encounter with the furious tenant after she had received the negative letter.

Shortly after delivering the letter, I found myself opening my screen door to listen to the angry tenant spew forth a tirade of blame and accusations focused on me although I was merely management’s representative. As she drove into me with fierce words and an aggressive tone of voice, I could literally feel the wave of her hostility enter into my body. In this case, I had to counteract my desire to flee because I had an official post to fill as the apartment manager in residence.

As she vented great frustration, I braced myself physically and emotionally against the sides of my front door and decided to begin listening and asking questions to paraphrase her concerns. As I reflected back her concerns while filtering out her blaming and accusing, she began to slowly relax both her tone and demeanor. Her face mellowed into natural patterns of peace, as did her vocal pitch lessen in strain and tenor as I tried to receive what she had to say without judging her.

After emphatically listening to her frustration and translating her venting into actual unmet needs, we started to communicate as co-humans rather than as enemies to be annihilated. Gradually, I felt the tension release as she recognized the steps she needed to take to speak directly with management about issues unrelated to our relationship with each other at the complex.

At that time, I had not been trained in nonviolent communication principles for managing anger but had experimented and arrived at the same conclusion: while I desired to run away from angry people, I could help angry people find their true needs through structured listening and reframing. This experience cemented my desire to expand my tool set, so I could manage facing others’ anger with a constructive plan.

Without a plan, it is only natural that when we encounter an angry person our natural tendencies of fight or flight kick in. Neurologically speaking, we are wired to “survive” once we encounter ourselves or another in this primal mode of anger. To counter the wave of survival instincts that kick in, we can learn to stay quiet and not make any sudden move to blame or accuse another person when others are angry and still reasonably nonthreatening.

When I opened my front door to find the angry tenant ready to chew me out, I strongly desired to dismiss her and shut the door. Yet, I did not follow my instinct because I had a duty to carry out as the official apartment manager.

We do not always have official duties to carry out, but our willingness to counter fight or flight instincts in situations will benefit our closest relationships where reasonable displays of anger are involved. In safe situations, we can learn to counter our normal fight or flight tendencies to empathetically help others through their anger.

Warning: There are Natural Dangers When People Are Angry

However, there is good reason that our fight or flight tendencies kick in when others are unreasonably angry, and we are scared. We can be in very real situations of physical, emotional, or other psychological danger when others get angry. So, in sharing these nonviolent principles of helping others through their anger, I am not suggesting that we stick around with angry individuals who can and will hurt us.

As conflict theorists, Hocker and Wilmot explain in their textbook: Interpersonal Conflict, “Verbal abuse leads to escalation or withdrawal, hinders conflict resolution, and lowers the dignity and self-esteem of all parties…When another’s expression of anger, rage, or contempt burns out of control, you have a responsibility to protect yourself.”

They also suggest that “Listening to belittling; hostile blame; ridicule; demeaning or untrue accusations; sarcastic name-calling; contempt; or actual physical threats is not good conflict management. The other person should be told, firmly and consistently, “I don’t listen to this kind of talk. I can’t hear anything important you’re trying to say when you’re demeaning me.”

When threatened with verbal abuse, we should follow our instincts to protect ourselves. Please follow this link to find both verbal and non-verbal techniques to help defuse others’ anger and interact with an agitated person who may exhibit threatening behavior: http://www.resi-con.com/articles/de-escalation-techniques.html. When possible, we should try to stop the verbal abuse and find safety as soon as possible.

How to Intervene When Someone is Angry

Setting the truly dangerous cases of anger aside, we may encounter situations with both strangers, acquaintances, and loved ones that do not necessitate our escape from the situation. Instead, we need to empathically engage with angry others without expressing blame or criticism. There are very clear and tangible steps we can take to help others manage reasonably unconstructive patterns of expressing anger.

The Four Steps for Helping Others Manage Their Anger

In nonviolent communication, to help others work through their anger, we focus on the following four steps to uncover unmet needs:

Confirm what the other person observes (see, hear, remember, imagine, free from evaluations) which does not contribute to their well-being
Identify others’ feelings related to their observation(s)
Help others recognize their needs or values related to their feelings
Suggest specific actions that would meet their expressed needs and feelings

First, we help solidify what the other has observed or experienced related to the anger

While, most likely you will verbally express what you heard the other person observe, you may remain quiet during this phase if mere listening is required to be empathetic.

“When you read the letter from management, you….
“When you received the phone call from your boss…”
“When you turned on the news and heard…"

We’re trying to help the angry person pinpoint what observation stimulated the feelings of anger (and an unmet need) that they are currently experiencing.

Second, we help the other identify their personal feelings.

In this second step, we link the person’s expressed observation with a particular feeling that may be much more specific than just “it sounds like you were angry.”

Without wasting energy on blaming or accusing the other person, we help the other person express their own personal feelings. We help them share specific, accurate personal feelings like “I feel overwhelmed” or “I am confused or surprised.” As the listener, we may incorrectly identify the angry person’s main feelings. But, we can gently accept any corrections made to our guesses about the feelings that the angry person may be experiencing.

For example, when I encountered the angry tenant, I said something to the effect of: “It sounds like you were really surprised to receive a letter about this problem instead of just a phone call or a drop by visit.”

During this part of the conversation, I remember the tenant responding in a strong, angry voice with something to this effect: “I wasn’t just surprised. I’m furious that management would send a letter instead of just calling me to talk over the issue.”

The tenant’s comment demanded a further restatement of the observation and the feeling: “It sounds like you are really angry that management chose to send an official letter instead of just reaching out to you by phone to talk over the matter?”

Once, I correctly identified the tenant’s main feelings and the source of her feelings, I could seek confirmation by asking follow-up questions like: “Did I get that right?” or “Is that how you felt?”

The more intense the feelings, the more peeling back of emotions and even more observations we may need to reflect back to help the angry person. Usually we know that we’ve identified their core feelings when some tension has been tangibly released or if there is silence with no more to say on the subject.

But, we have still two more steps to go with understanding the person’s specific needs and helping the person identify ways to meet their unmet needs.

Third, we help the other connect their feelings with a specific need

In search of unmet needs, we now help the other person to connect their expressed observations and feelings with their underlying needs. At this point, as the listener, I may also help move the conversation along by sharing my own personal feelings and empathy so that the angry person doesn’t feel judged or blamed when we’re talking through difficult thoughts and emotions. Naturally, we may all feel vulnerable when revealing our core needs.

Empathizing with the subject of our anger may sound like an unreasonable expectation in the moment. Certainly, we may not be fully capable yet of full empathy in our minds and hearts, but we can imitate constructive behavior as a start. When I braced myself at my front door while the tenant verbally assaulted me, I had to consciously choose an appropriate tone of voice and non-threatening body language to begin the work of uncovering her unmet needs.

In this third step, we may simply ask questions like:

“What do you think you were needing when you received the letter instead of the phone call?"

If the other person is stumped and unable to identify a need, we may need to gently suggest possibilities. In this case with the tenant, I could have suggested the following:

“Were you needing a phone call because you wanted to feel more respect?” or “Would a phone call have been lower key and met your need to be treated on more friendly terms?”

There are many different ways to turn a phrase, but identifying the need is key to managing the anger. Once we have confirmed which unmet need is feeding the person’s anger, we can turn to seeking means to fulfilling the unmet need(s).

Fourth, we suggest what might help fulfill an identified unmet need

During this phase, we can help the person brainstorm by asking good follow up questions to paraphrase and seek understanding from the person about different possible solutions.

Suggesting a means for fulfilling an identified need may have been as simple as my asking the angry tenant:

“Would you like to talk directly with management about the letter?” or
“Would you like me to schedule a time for you to talk with management about the issue?”

We may simply need to brainstorm together possible solutions with questions like:
“What do you think would meet your need?” or “What possibilities would you consider for meeting your need(s)?”

Given the diversity of needs we each have, no one question will fit each situation, but we can keep things simple by asking questions. Sometimes, there is no immediate way to satisfy the need, but we can empathize with the other person’s desires to have their needs met.

As I mentioned in my last post, these steps to helping others manage their anger through nonviolent communication processes take time and effort to apply in our daily lives. Yet they are worth our greatest efforts both at home, in the community, and across our country. As we help address other’s unmet needs in an empathetic and sincere way, we are being peacemakers. We literally take the time to help others understand the peace they seek, but do not know how to find on their own.

As we connect with who we really are and what we each need, we will find that we are much more alike than we are different. Accessing that common humanity may curb the appeal of turning outward to blame others rather than looking inward to identify and to fulfill our universal needs for connection, belonging, and harmony.

1 Comment

Managing our Own Anger: A Nonviolent Communications Perspective

10/3/2018

1 Comment

I have often heard that anger is merely a secondary emotion, which reflects some deeper emotion like fear. But what if our feelings of anger are valid in and of themselves for reflecting our unmet needs?

For example, just last night, I was so surprised by my sudden outburst of anger while my son tried unsuccessfully to create a password for an algebra self-help website. While the anger—in the form of shouting—leaped from my lips, I had not entered the homework helping situation irritated or angry in any way. Actually, after moderating a political discussion for the first time at our local library, I had returned home happy enough. I had just not been expecting an intense round of algebra questions past 10 p.m. after a thirty-year lapse in studying slope intercept form.

As my voice rose with shouts of silly things like, “Just make the password!” and “How can this take so long?!” I could see my son’s incredulity at my sudden loss of my cool. I shared his disbelief, but quickly remembered what I had been reading earlier yesterday morning: according to nonviolent communication, anger is a feeling that arises from unmet needs. I quickly turned inward to ask myself the following: what were my unmet needs in that moment? A few unmet needs easily came to mind: sleep, food, algebra advice from an expert, and so on.

This short, recent experience with my son, coupled with recent national politic strife, have influenced my outlook today. I asked myself the following two questions:

(1) What if I chose another way of dealing with anger rather than stifling it until I exploded?
(2) What if each of us got in tune with our feelings enough to understand what our unmet needs are so we could express needs rather than blame, accusation, and punishment towards others?

Responding to patterns of blame, punishment, and domination he experienced while working with angry social groups in the late 1960’s, the late Dr. Marshall Rosenberg first developed the principles of nonviolent communication, which address how to constructively express anger. Rather than stifle our anger, we use anger as a wake-up call about unmet needs in ourselves and others.

In nonviolent communication we use four to five steps to constructively express our anger.

First, we take time to stop and breathe.
We must stop in the moment before the momentum of fight and flight takes place. Neurologically speaking, we are wired to “survive” once we enter into this primal mode of anger. To counter the wave of survival instincts that kick in, we can learn to stay quiet and not make any sudden move to blame or accuse another person when we are angry. We may even need to temporarily remove ourselves from the situation to calm down, breathe, and think.

Second, we identify our judgmental thoughts.
Dr. Rosenberg actually suggests that we stay conscious of the violent thoughts that arise in our minds, without judging them. We exercise restraint in blaming and judging others or ourselves, but learn to translate our judgements, labels, and thoughts of blame about what people “should” do and what they “deserve” into unmet needs.

Third, we connect with our needs and expressly identify them.
We turn our thoughts from thoughts like “I don’t like people who are…..” to “”When I make that judgment of a person, what am I needing and not getting?” Rosenberg talks about framing our thinking in terms of unmet needs rather than in terms of judgments of other people.
As we begin developing the habit of translating our anger into unmet needs, we might even need a pen and paper to write things down. We might need a long walk to fully cool off and digest the fight or flight tendencies we have just experienced.

Fourth, we empathize with the subject/person of our anger.
Of course, I apologized to my son for shouting at him with my silly comments, but I also needed to empathize with his predicament to create a climate for sharing my own feelings and unmet needs. As I shared my own feelings of frustration about not understanding the math immediately, I could make a critical connection with him that soothed both of our feelings.
Empathizing with the subject of our anger may sound like an unreasonable expectation in the moment. Certainly, we may not be fully capable yet of full empathy in our minds and hearts, but we can imitate constructive behavior as a start. Just like smiling helps people feel more positive, calmly requesting insight into the other person’s experiences, thoughts, and feelings—using an appropriate tone of voice and non-threatening body language—can change hostility into a tense peace.
We can exercise restraint and ask good follow up questions to paraphrase and seek understanding from the person who has stimulated (but not caused) anger in us. Rosenberg reminds us that others may be the stimulus but never the cause of our negative reactions. We have to own the responsibility for how we react in anger.

Fifth, we express our feelings and unmet needs.
Without wasting energy on blaming or accusing the other person, we sincerely express our own feelings along with our unmet needs. We share specific, accurate personal feelings like “I feel overwhelmed” or “I am confused or surprised.” We then voice our current unmet needs that may range from largely physical necessities like sleep, air, exercise, or shelter to more complex, social needs like closeness, appreciation, belonging, honesty, love, or respect.
In my case, after I took time to stop, breathe, and evaluate my angry responses to my son’s homework request late at night, I could gently review each judgmental thought that filled my head and gradually replace it with an unmet need:

(a) The judgmental thought: “Why didn’t he ask his sister or dad while I was gone for help with his homework?” “Why did he save this for 10 p.m. with me?”
(b) Expressing my feelings and an unmet need: “I am exhausted and need sleep, will you please talk with your teacher tomorrow to get a better explanation than I can offer right now?”

a) The judgmental thought:” Why didn’t he take better notes in class? Why didn’t he pay attention when the teacher explained it to him?”
(b) Expressing my feelings and unmet need: “I wish that I remembered the slope intercept form better, but I need to have a refreshed mind to help you through all these problems.”

These steps to expressing anger through nonviolent communication processes take time and effort to apply in our daily lives. Yet they are worth our greatest efforts both at home, in the community, and across our country. As we address our own and other’s unmet needs in an empathetic and sincere way, we may slowly see the tide of change across a vast ocean of misunderstanding and hostility.

As we connect with who we really are and what we each need, we will find that we are much more alike than we are different. Accessing that common humanity may curb the appeal of turning outward to blame others rather than looking inward to identify and to fulfill our universal needs for connection, belonging, and harmony.

1 Comment

The Pitfalls of Overusing "Power Over" or Competitive Approaches to Conflict

2/28/2017

1 Comment

This blog post draws largely from ideas presented in an article entitled “Power and Conflict” by Peter T. Coleman. I also refer to ideas about the competitive approach from conflict theorists, Thomas and Kilmann.

In contrast with pleasing, we now explore the competitive approach to conflict, which involves using “power over” tactics to get what we want. Do any of these workplace-based comments sound familiar?

“Ellen is always trying to control me. Even when I’m trying to “follow her rules,” it’s like she wants to catch me doing something wrong.”
“Jeff never backs me up in our meetings, even when we’ve come in prepared to present our case to the general manager.”
“Tom thinks he knows more about this than I do, so he keeps shutting me down in our meetings.”
“Why does my boss always take credit for my work as if my ideas were his? Can’t he just acknowledge what I’ve done?”

Each of these situations involve different levels of power, control, and competition. However, whether at work, home, or out in the community, we are bound to encounter similar interpersonal and wider conflicts that center around power and control, especially when we or others are using the competitive approach to resolving conflict.

When we use the competitive approach, we are actively seeking to fulfill our own goals using whatever power is necessary to win our position. When we compete, we disregard other’s concerns and goals so that we can get what we want. With competition, we use power for self-interest, not for collective goals. The competitive approach to conflict has its time and place (think civil rights, child advocates, enforcing your teenager’s curfew), but we may develop blind spots when we overuse this approach.

In our current social context, we have a president who enjoys using one main approach to handling conflict: the competitive approach. Rather than using a diversity of approaches to conflict, such as avoiding, accommodating, compromising, or collaborating, we have an executive who competes in nearly every arena of conflict that he enters. His behavior gives us a perfect example for examining the pros and cons of fixating on one conflict approach to handle a wide variety of personal and national conflicts.

While there are diverse interpretations and opinions about President Trump’s competitive approach, we can be sure of many natural consequences of overusing a competitive approach. While a competitive approach is widely acceptable in our western culture, many people are feeling the backlash and oversimplification that comes with using only one approach for conflict management. Without the nuances and graces that avoiding, accommodating, compromising, and collaborating bring to the table, we are stuck with many less-than-appealing results as a people and as a nation.

In this article, we explore the tendencies of high and low power individuals and groups, and what happens to the powerful and the less powerful when people overuse the competitive approach to conflict. Rather than drawing conclusions from Trump’s presidency, I will allow you, the reader, to draw your own conclusions from the conflict theory we explore. Whether on the national scale or in the home, overusing the competitive approach will eventually bring weakness to the user. Ultimately, human relationships involve more complex interconnections than the mere top-down influence of the more powerful on the less powerful in both large and small conflicts.

Defining and Identifying Sources of Power

To begin talking about the competitive or “power over” approach, we must first discuss power. We simply define power as the ability to bring about desired outcomes. We can try to dominate others and exercise “power over” others or exercise jointly held cooperative power as “power with” others. “Power with” is enhanced through collaborative approaches to conflict. Yet, generally, people gravitate towards coercive, top-down or competitive power use, to get people to do things that they might not want to do.

To build a framework for how to effectively handle the conflicts we encounter, whether competitively or otherwise, we first look at what types of power we may have and what cultural myths about power influence our use of the different types of power.

Three Main Types of Power

There are three main types of power that we can seek, find, and use in our lives. These three types include:

Environmental power—the ability to influence our environment
Relationship power-the ability to influence other people
Personal power-the ability to satisfy our own personal desires

While we may enjoy all three types of power in a situation, more often, we seek trade-offs by using one source of power to gain or exchange with another. These three types of power may or may not be interchangeable or constant, but remain dependent on shifting circumstances and dynamic relationships with others.

For example, to make sure my spouse and kids eat healthy food, I may remove all sweets from our kitchen and pantry (environmental power) during a normal school and work day. While I wield environmental power over the food in the kitchen, I must consider the possibility of decreased relationship power if I do not discuss the idea with my spouse or kids who may want to keep eating sweets. In short, when I assert power in one area, I may weaken my power in another area.

Myths about Power

We are subject to many cultural myths about power that may limit our ability to resolve (and even avoid) conflicts effectively. From conflict theorist, Peter Coleman, we learn that there are four main myths about power in our culture. These myths include:

Power and control are located in a physical location (i.e., the White House or the boss’ office)
The amount of power to go around is fixed (only so much power to divide up)
Power only flows in one direction (people usually think it’s just top-down)
Power is only real if it is held or used in competitive terms (we must gain power against someone or something versus expanding cooperative “power with” those who are less powerful)

Considering these myths, people differ in their core assumptions about power: is it limited or expandable? Is it competitive or cooperative? Is it equal or unequal? As cultures, we develop and often maintain power inequalities that make sure that certain patterns and practices keep the powerful in power. So many current conflicts both in the home and across the nation center on these power inequalities.

In Western culture, especially in the United States, we tend to think of power in terms of who has it and who does not. This “two polar ends” type of thinking comes across as the rich versus the poor, the Democrats versus the Republicans, the religious versus the non-religious, the black versus the white, and so on. Instead of acknowledging complex relationships that involve sophisticated power dynamics, we put things too simply with terms like the “haves” and the “have nots.”

In addition, we often see power in terms of finite or limited quantities. So, if you have more power, I must have less. Much of our society functions around the idea of power being a limited item like pieces of a pie. We simplify our views on power when our relationships are truly much more highly interwoven and mutually influential than our common explanations.

We also tend to think that everybody wants power, so we try to take what power or control we can get when it’s available. In this limited “pie of power” scenario, we encounter and even create all kinds of conflicts when we’d probably rather work, play, and enjoy life with greater peace.

Unfortunately, people tend to get fixated on using only one power strategy in conflicts, especially if they perceive themselves as having more power than the other party. We now look at the tendencies of the powerful and the less powerful to explore how over-relying on one power strategy actually weakens an individual’s or a group’s effective power.

Tendencies of High Power Individuals or Groups

As Peter Coleman carefully explains in his article on conflict and power, “The powerful tend to like power, use it, justify having it, and attempt to keep it (Coleman, 124). Generally, those who have power tend to enjoy their power so they try to safeguard it against changes.

In addition, the powerful who use the competitive approach usually exhibit the following tendencies:

May attempt to dominate lower power individuals or groups using pressure and contentious tactics
If challenged by lower power individuals or groups, the more powerful tend to use repression or ambivalent tolerance
May try to use force
Likely resistant to implementing any real change to alter power relationships

Benefits of Using the Competitive Approach

Those who competitively approach conflicts tend to enjoy the following benefits:

More personally satisfied
Less personally discontent
Have longer time perspective
Enjoy more freedom to act
More time to plan for the future
Develop rationales or reasons for maintaining power (i.e., “I’m smarter or more morally correct than those with less power.” Think of the wall with Mexico.)

Naturally, the powerful tend to like to maintain the status quo so they can continue to enjoy these benefits. But, overuse of the competitive approach may lead to many unhealthy and potentially weakening outcomes described below.

Drawbacks of the Competitive Approach

There are certainly drawbacks to using "power over" or competitive approaches to conflicts with less powerful individuals or groups. Some of these drawbacks for the person who continually competes include:

May develop the taste for power
Experience an Inflated sense of self
Tendency towards devaluing those with less power
May be tempted to use power illegally to increase personal power
More likely to pay less attention to less powerful people
May be more susceptible to using stereotypes about the less powerful because they don’t pay as much attention to the less powerful
Often neglect to analyze and underestimate the possible power sources of the less powerful
Likely to meet resistance and alienation from low power groups

The lack of attention to the less powerful and the tendency towards stereotypes and using force should raise a few red flags among us. Not only do we see these tendencies across national and international politics, but we see these tendencies in the workplace, in the community, and at home. When we underestimate, devalue, and stereotype others who seem less powerful, we weaken our fundamental capacity to achieve cooperative goals. In our complex society with great need for cooperation, we need to be aware of not only the powerful, but the seemingly less powerful.

Tendencies of Lower Power Groups and Individuals

In contrast with the more powerful, lower power groups and individuals tend to experience the following:

More dependent on others
Have shorter time perspectives
Unable to plan far ahead
More aware of power and privilege imbalances between parties
Generally, discontent

As described above, many people exhibit the tendencies of lower power individuals. Think of co-workers and children at home who do not participate in decision making processes and are not trusted with important tasks. Generally, we are familiar with the less powerful peoples’ discontent and inability to envision a better future because we sometimes experience being less powerful ourselves. But, if we are usually the one using power over tactics in conflict, we are less likely to even notice these tendencies, or to even care about what the less powerful are experiencing.

Finally, there are natural outcomes of the powerful overusing “power over” or competitive approaches to conflict. From the French Revolution to our three-year old daughter’s tantrums, we have myriad examples of how our “power over” tactics fail to bring about desired results. Such over-reliance on “power over” tactics in conflicts brings about a wide variety of undesirable outcomes.

Negative Outcomes of Overuse of the Power Over/Competitive Approach

While the powerful tend to want to preserve the status quo, overusing “power over” or competitive approaches to conflict brings about a variety of negative consequences that threaten balances in human relationships. These negative outcomes include:

Alienation of less powerful parties
Resistance by the less powerful to those in power
Limitation of power holders’ ability to use other types of power based on trust
Increased demand for scrutiny and control of subordinates
Greater distrust among the less powerful
Undermining of the powerful parties’ relationships with followers
Compromise of goal achievement

Ultimately, Coleman claims that “Excessive reliance on a power-over strategy eventually proves to be costly as well as largely ineffective” (Coleman, 122). Given our natural tendencies and the common negative outcomes of overusing the competitive approach to conflict, we benefit from re-thinking our overall strategy with conflict.

We have options beyond competing. Rather than relying primarily on power-over tactics with co-workers, family, friends, and even strangers, we benefit by envisioning a broader range of tools for dealing with conflict. We can learn to strategically and effectively avoid, accommodate, compromise, avoid, and collaborate in appropriate situations to meet not only our own goals, but others’ goals, too. As we expand how we handle diverse conflicts, we will create stronger relationships and far better conflict outcomes now and in the future. In short, we have choices, and we should use those choices in conflict to get better results every day.

1 Comment

The Benefits and Drawbacks of Pleasing Others in Conflict

1/24/2017

0 Comments

Identifying the Pleaser

Shortly before I got married, my self-centered and abrasive boss took me aside and shared her delight with having a boyfriend who was a “pleaser” like me. She mentioned how wonderful it was to have someone who always tried to make things right between them, even when “it wasn’t his fault.” She implied that my husband would also be as lucky as her because I was a pleaser. At the time, I considered her comments a somewhat back-handed compliment, but also a warning. Since that conversation, I have pondered on what’s pleasing and not so pleasing about pleasing others, especially in conflict.

From an early age, I learned the art of pleasing to try to get what I wanted with the least amount of conflict possible. Whether at home, church, school, or work, I relied upon a very limited repertoire of conflict strategies, mostly avoiding and accommodating, to try to meet my needs in conflict situations. Somehow, I believed that if I could just be pleasing enough, I would get what I wanted in life: friends, security, love, intimacy, academic or professional success, and even the dishes that I like.

Dishes, Co-workers, and Integrity

Fourteen years ago, to accommodate my new husband, I agreed upon plates that I didn’t really like, but did care about considerably. After capitulating during our rather normal negotiation over plates, I resented my weakness for not representing my own interests enough. Day after day, those plates, though petty in the grand scheme of things, reminded me of my pleasing nature that was not always getting me what I wanted. While I could have taken the time to collaborate with my husband years ago, I had opted for the more familiar, quick, and seemingly less risky approach of pleasing that caused a minor chasm rather than a stronger connection in an important relationship in my life.

During this same period of my life, when my same abrasive boss criticized my co-worker for her poor writing skills during a staff meeting, I didn’t say anything forthright to defend my co-worker. I held back from defending my capable co-worker because I didn’t want to stir the pot as a new employee. Yet, by withholding a natural comment to defend and encourage my co-worker in front of our boss, I built up my own continued resentment for my boss. I also lost an opportunity to secure the full camaraderie of my co-worker. Later, while I did privately confront my boss about her critical comments towards my co-worker, I realized that I had missed the central moment with all of us together to build unity and cooperation among us.

In seeking to please my boss during the staff meeting, I severely displeased my own sense of integrity and goodwill. This resentment built up over time after multiple frustrating episodes with my boss leading to my eventual resignation. Finally, before leaving the company, I met with the CEO to discuss what needed to change in my department: mainly, my boss who bullied her employees into meeting her needs rather than building a team. Both at work and at home, I began to realize that my over-reliance on pleasing or accommodation secured my immediate peace, but often created deep caverns of resentment and unmet needs within me.

Do you ever agree to something even as small as a change in the budget or a staff meeting schedule that really matters to you? Are you accommodating when you really need to take the time to work out differences with important people in your personal or professional lives through collaboration?

Finally, in my forties, I have come to realize that by using only one or two approaches to conflict, I am severely restricting my potential for meeting my own needs and goals. Relying solely on accommodating (and often avoiding) to deal with conflict has not necessarily helped me find the love, approval, security, intimacy, or success that I seek. As a result, I am learning to expand my conflict tool-belt beyond pleasing or accommodating others.

Understanding Pleasing as a Conflict Approach

We are each seeking enough personal power and autonomy to realize our needs, wants, and goals. We bump up against others who may disagree, disbelieve, or simply appear to stand in the way of our achieving certain goals and desires. Yet, too often, when we encounter conflict, we think that either we must be the masters or the servants in our social relationships. With a narrow lens, we may only see two types of responses to conflict: I will dominate or I will be subservient. Fortunately, in the human world, we actually have several more responses for effectively handling conflict, depending upon the situation at hand.

When we attempt to please others in conflict, we are accommodating and, perhaps, avoiding and compromising, too. When we try to please or accommodate others, we are either ignoring our own interests, giving up something that we want, or giving up part of what we want so another person can get something he or she wants. While certain individuals may focus exclusively on accommodating others in conflict, whole societies and cultures, such as the Japanese, are founded on the principles of accommodation in order to preserve individual dignity, group cohesion, and social stability.

You may not be a regular pleaser yourself, but I bet you’re familiar with one. Based on the master-servant model, there are many pleasers and “pleased” among us. We all deal with conflict in different ways, but we do have five basic choices for constructively handling conflict that expands our repertoire beyond avoiding or accommodating. These five basic conflict styles are avoiding, accommodating, compromising, competing, and collaborating, which we can modify and adapt even as adults.

Conflict approaches are more based on learning and experience rather than mere personality or native temperament. Our preferred conflict styles and habits are heavily influenced by factors such as our family background, how we were raised, our confidence, our communication skills, our personal experiences, and our most intimate relationships. Some of us like to meet conflict head on and fight for our interests directly in a competitive manner. Others prefer to talk things through and bring the conflict out in the open collaboratively. Yet, still others, like me, may prefer or have the habit of the preventive approach: pleasing others to avoid potential conflicts.

Whether competitive, avoiding, or collaborative, each approach represents our efforts to satisfy personal and/or group interests. Some of our approaches to conflict are so habitual and familiar that they just seem like part of our personalities. For example, when someone flips Jack off on the freeway, Jack likes to drive ahead of “the flipper” and cut them off. Jack and his friends call him a “hot head,” but he’s developed these habits over time. Beyond a fixed personality trait, Jack has a choice in how he reacts to road rage.

Given this choice and the strong power of habit, I suggest we take the time for some self-reflection about our approaches to conflict to make sure that our approaches are really helping us achieve our goals, both personally and professionally. In this post, we now take a closer look at the benefits and drawbacks of the pleasing approach and figure out why some pleasers try to stop pleasing others so much.

The Benefits of Pleasing

Pleasing others may come with generous personal and social rewards. I have lived in cultures like in Japan that are founded on the principles of accommodation and avoidance. The benefits of pleasing others in conflict may include some of the following:

People tend to rely on you
People may tend to treat you with kindness in return
You gain a reputation as a considerate, mild person
You are complimented on your generosity and likeability
You may build group unity by sacrificing your personal goals and desires for the benefit of the group

Why I Try to Please Others

While many writers and psychologists emphasize that fear and even co-dependency may underlie pleasers’ approaches to conflict, I believe pleasing and accommodation to involve more complex motivations. As you read through this list, consider that pleasing behavior may be motivated by fear, but also by love, concern, empathy, personal values, optimistic expectations, and family culture.

I love and care about people
I empathize with other people’s concerns and desires
I fear being rejected
I fear not being able to get what I want if I use a different strategy
I hope that others will return the favor of accommodating
I learned to please in my family, and this way of life feels most natural and familiar to me
I can show respect for people in positions of authority in my life
I want to demonstrate my goodwill towards others
I want to set a precedent of generous behavior with others

The Downside of Pleasing Others

While pleasing behavior may be associated with many positive values, virtues, and outcomes, overutilizing this strategy in conflict may have several downsides for both the pleaser and the “pleased.”

The pleaser may be taken advantage of by others who see pleasing behavior as weakness
The pleaser may overuse this conflict approach and fail to please his or herself in essential relationships
In over-utilizing the pleasing approach, the pleaser may generate resentment, which destroys feelings of intimacy and connection with others
People may have a hard time getting to know the “real” person behind the pleasing behavior
The pleaser may be condoning destructive or abusive behavior that not only hurts the pleaser, but also hurts the perpetrator of the “bad” behavior
The pleaser may fail to prevent a group spiral into destructive paths that could benefit from boundaries facilitated by more assertive conflict approaches

Recognizing the Limited Conflict Toolbelt of Pleasing

Whether we’re in a conflict over who gets the last cookie, the best parking spot, the opportunity to go first, or what account to chase, we have many options for how to behave in conflict situations that go beyond pleasing.

If you are a pleaser or work closely with one, you can begin experimenting with new approaches such as compromising, competing, and collaborating to build stronger, more authentic relationships with others. In meeting conflicts with a full tool-belt of responses, you will find more personal satisfaction, but also more satisfaction from others who are better able to sense your real needs. See my December 2016 blog post for more information on the five basic conflict approaches.

Four Questions with Four Answers about Pleasing Others in Conflict

Why do we please others?

Having been raised as a pleaser, we may be very familiar with the pleasing approach and understand the cues of this approach. We may have a certain confidence that pleasing others will get us where we want to go. Likely, we have had success in using this approach to our benefit in the past.

Even if we have not always been happy with our habit of pleasing others, we may not be familiar with other ways of dealing with conflict, or we believe that conflict approaches are unchangeable parts of our personalities. Finally, we may be socially rewarded or admired for our ability to use the pleasing approach in a variety of social settings depending upon our status, culture, and specific social roles.

Why may we want to stop pleasing others?

We may stop wanting to please others in conflict when we experience failures in using this approach. In our frustration or sincere distress, we may look for better answers to resolving the conflicts that we face. In short, we get tired of not getting what we want out of life. We may find that we have come up short and want better answers.

Perhaps, we have outgrown a certain overall approach to life and find that we need more fine-tuned or nuanced skills that relate to the grays of our social situations. We may observe and learn about more effective or alternative approaches that seem to work for others. When we have a small success trying a new approach, we may wonder if the particular approach will work better on a larger scale in our lives.

How do we stop trying to please all the time?

The first step in expanding our approaches to conflict beyond pleasing comes with self-reflection. Do we recognize our basic strategy or strategies in conflict and their related outcomes? When my boss directly called me a pleaser, I knew that something felt wrong about her label of my overall personality. In my mind, I thought, “I’m more than that. I can stand up for things I believe in without being cowed into submission by a stronger voice or personality.”

After recognition comes learning what other strategies are possible. Do I understand how to compromise, collaborate, and compete effectively? Am I familiar with the process of each approach and the ideal conditions for using each of the five main conflict approaches? To gain confidence and insight, I may need to read up on the research and talk with trusted friends about my particular patterns in conflict.

After learning the basics of the five general approaches, we then focus on practicing these approaches in real-life situations. Rather than saying yes to a request for a favor, I might reveal that I am too busy right now. Or, rather than avoiding talking about a raise with my boss, I might plan how to role play a conversation with my spouse so I don’t freeze in the moment. I pick specific situations to try out new approaches and use trial-and-error to learn.

Naturally, I plan for some discomfort and awkwardness as I adapt my natural conflict styles to new situations and strategies. I review my efforts and make small (and large) tweaks as needed. Perhaps, I even ask a trusted friend or confidant for feedback about my new communication approaches so that I can understand myself better from a wider perspective.

What happens when we expand our conflict approaches beyond pleasing?

As we grow into adulthood, we begin to see and experience the “grays” or the “nuances” in social interactions or conflicts with others. We usually are better able to see from others’ perspectives and understand that many conflicts are multifaceted and involve rights and wrongs at many different levels. While our more uncomplicated view of the world may have reinforced the need for “pleasing” or accommodating most differences with others, our continuing need for intimacy, authenticity, and self-actualization as full-grown adults may demand an enlarged toolbelt for living with differences.

In Conclusion

In more recent years, I have realized that pleasing others continually is like trying to hold your breath underwater: you only have so much lung capacity until you need to come up for another deep breath before submerging yourself again. But, even with the occasional puffs of air from the top, you’re still mostly underwater. Perhaps, you have felt this “underwater” feeling when you’ve had difficult house guests for too long, or you have held your tongue in a staff meeting week after week only to find yourself exploding at the smallest provocation. When we expand our conflict repertoire, we not only breathe easier, but allow others to do the same.

I’m not saying that we should not accommodate others in a variety of conflict situations, but I am saying that accommodation reminds me of the “rude American” who tries to speak English wherever she goes no matter the nation or country she is visiting. The rude American strums one key when there are many others to be played in social interactions. On the flip side, the savvy traveler expects adaptations to new cultures, languages, and customs. She expects diversity, and is prepared to meet it with a variety of approaches to conflict, drawing from a large tool-belt of skills and perspectives.

Undoubtedly, changing our approaches to conflict will take time and effort, but the possible rewards of authentic collaboration, satisfying competition to back up important values and goals, and thoughtful compromise that reflects respect for both parties will build stronger, more productive relationships both at work and at home. Maybe dishes don’t matter to you, but a new job, higher pay, increased responsibilities, and more true negotiation and sharing of goals may produce improved, positive results in your personal and professional lives.

0 Comments

Exploring the Five Conflict Approaches

12/10/2016

9 Comments

Whether consciously or not, you have learned different conflict languages or approaches throughout your life. Almost as a reflex, you may respond to different conflict stimuli in ways that may be effective, and sometimes not so effective, depending upon the situation.

As you read through these approaches, cut yourself a little slack because you may find out some things about yourself, which are not comfortable, but still valuable and enlightening. Consider the view from the Italian mountain top pictured above. Perhaps, some self-reflection will give you the needed perspective to make the changes that will bring you more peace in your life.

As discussed previously, rather than fighting or fleeing, we have at least five general choices for how to respond to conflict in our lives. Relying upon the language and research of conflict specialists like Spangle & Isenhart and Thomas & Kilmann, our five general choices include:

Avoiding-One party denies there is a conflict, changes topics, or avoids discussion, and is noncommittal.
Accommodating-One party sacrifices its interests and concerns while enabling others to achieve their interests.
Compromising-Through concessions by all parties, each party settles for partial satisfaction of their interests.
Competing -One party is aggressive, self-focused, forcing, verbally assertive, and uncooperative to satisfy his or her own interests at the expense of the interests of others (win-lose orientation).
Collaborating-Parties use active listening and issue-focused, empathic communication to satisfy the interests and concerns of all parties (win-win orientation).

Today, we will review the pros and cons of each of the five conflict approaches to better understand how each type of response may help or hinder us from reaching our communication and relational goals with others. In addition, we will explore the ideal situations and conditions for applying each conflict approach.

Throughout this post, I will pose questions that may help you better understand how you are currently using each of the five conflict approaches in your personal and professional lives. Hopefully, these questions will also provide insight into how you can improve and expand your conflict management choices.

AVOIDING
Avoiding may us help the maintain status quo or a sense of balance with ourselves and others. This approach may help us preserve personal and other-focused face-saving needs in tense or socially-awkward situations. In addition, avoiding may serve to release tension in unfamiliar or uncomfortable situations. This approach also allows us to reflect before responding to a tense or otherwise undesirable situation when we are unsure of how to respond effectively.

Pros: With avoidance, we may reduce the risk of physical or mental abuse and decrease our immediate stress regarding issues that are either out of control or that we don’t consider important.
Cons: If we regularly avoid important issues in our close relationships, we may fail to secure intimacy and unity with important others. Avoidance may also isolate us from others rather than provide the stability and social connection we may be seeking.
Ideal Conditions: Avoidance is most useful when (1) we are involved in a potentially dangerous situation involving physical violence (2) the issue is not important to us, (3) there is no chance of achieving our goals, or (4) the complexity of the situation prevents solutions.

Workbook Questions:

When do I avoid conflict?
How does avoidance usually work for me?
In what situations, could my use of avoidance be preventing me from reaching my goals?
In what situations, would avoidance help me reach (or protect) my goals or interests?

ACCOMMODATING
We often use the accommodating approach to avoid confrontation or to maintain harmony in an awkward or potentially volatile social situation. Accommodating serves to enhance our appearance of being generous, which is a socially acceptable trait. This approach may also help us preserve face saving needs for ourselves and others. Finally, accommodating may serve as a sign of deference to an authority or to the position of another party.

Pros: With accommodation, we seek to maintain a sense of harmony with others. This approach also helps to confirm to others our identity as a generous, caring person who is concerned about others. Accommodation may be considered mandatory in certain social settings, so social rewards may be based on using this approach.
Cons: Accommodation may not reflect our true personal desires so we might fail to satisfy our individual needs. This approach may alienate us from important others if we do not balance seeking to satisfy both personal and cooperative needs and goals.
Ideal Conditions: This approach is effective (1) in situations in which there is not much chance of achieving our own interests, (2) when the outcomes are not important, or (3) when there is a belief that satisfying our own interests will in some way alter or damage the relationship.

Workbook Questions:

When do I accommodate others in conflict?
What kinds of outcomes do I expect with accommodation?
What kinds of outcomes do I usually receive when I accommodate?
Are there situations in my life where I am accommodating too much or too little? If so, what approach would be more effective?

COMPROMISING
Compromising may help us to settle a conflict quickly in a socially acceptable way. Compromise may also help us avoid a tricky or overly tense situation with some form of “let’s split the difference.” This approach also helps provide the appearance of fairness among disputing parties and sets a precedent for future conflicts regarding similar situations. Finally, compromise may help demonstrate a person’s self-confidence while still respecting others’ goals and interests.

Imagine that two parties are trying to decide what to do with an orange. One wants the peel to grate for orange zest, and the other person wants the fruit inside to eat. As a compromise, the parties may just take a knife and split the orange in two, providing each party with half of what they had originally wanted: either all the peel or all the orange pieces inside.

Despite its popularity and ease of use, compromise may not always get us what we want. Ultimately, with compromise, we may both lose in a sense by only securing half of the peel and half of the orange slices. It is important to remember that compromise may sometimes be a “lose-lose” method in our personal or professional lives. We may overuse compromise in trying to settle all kinds of disputes over fairness and privileges that may sometimes warrant another approach, especially collaboration.

Pros: Compromise is generally considered a fast, efficient, and culturally acceptable way of dealing with conflict. This approach is easily understood and applied by others in Western culture.
Cons: Each party in a conflict must give up something to resolve the conflict (lose-lose, in that sense). Compromise may not provide us with what we desire—perhaps, only part of what we want. This approach may reflect an inability to connect on a deeper level over difficult issues, masking greater issues that need true resolution.
Ideal Conditions: This approach is effective in situations that (1) require quick resolution of issues, (2) when parties opposing us resist collaboration, (3) when complete achievement of our goals is not important, or (4) when there will be no hard feelings between us for settling for less than expected.

Workbook Questions:

When am I most likely to compromise?
How do I feel about the compromises I make?
Would I change anything about what I compromise about or with whom I compromise?
What situations in my life seem most appropriate for compromise?

COMPETING
When competing, we actively seek to reach our own personal goals despite what others may want. Often, with a competitive approach, we demonstrate our power and/or abilities to achieve our personal goals. Likewise, we may set a tone for domination or authority to establish hierarchy. At times, we may try to instill fear in the other party to preserve stability and harmony in current and future social situations.

Pros: With competition, we might get what we want quickly if we don’t care about other people’s feelings. This approach may help us establish dominance in a social setting.
Cons: If we use a competitive approach too regularly with important others, this may result in resentment and defiance. When we use force to realize our personal goals, we may permanently damage a working or more intimate relationship.
Ideal Conditions: This style is effective in situations in which (1) we need to make decisions quickly, (2) our options are restricted, (3) there is nothing to lose by pushing, (4) other parties resist cooperation, and (5) there is no concern about potential damage to the relationship.

Workbook Questions:

When do I compete with others to resolve conflict?
What has been my experience with using competition to resolve conflict?
In what areas of my life could I benefit from using a competitive approach to conflict?
In what situations in my life am I competing when I should probably be using another approach?

COLLABORATING
When we collaborate, we are demonstrating our commitment to a relationship. Collaboration tends to build trust and conveys empathy and a willingness to listen while maintaining interest in both personal and other-focused goals. Generally, collaboration represents a more balanced approach rather than giving in or demanding that the other party give in to our wishes.

Pros: Collaborative approaches help us to build relationships with important others, and may result in win-win outcomes. Collaboration tends to help us balance power differentials to demonstrate respect and appreciation for each party’s value. This approach may expand our creativity and imagination, and often results in innovative solutions.
Cons: Collaborating is usually more time-consuming and not always worth the effort on insignificant issues. To be effective in collaborating, we need trust and a certain level of communication skill (active listening, reframing, constructive questioning). This approach demands the engagement of both parties, so we must have mutual interest in spending the time and effort required for collaboration.
Ideal Conditions: Collaborating tends to be effective in situations in which (1) power is reasonably balanced, (2) we value the long-term relationship, (3) both parties display cooperative behaviors, (4) and there is sufficient time and energy to create an integrative solution that will satisfy both parties.

Workbook Questions:

When do I collaborate with others to resolve conflict?
What have been my experiences with collaborating?
How effective do I feel with collaborating?
Who do I collaborate with well? Who do I have difficulty collaborating with? Why?

Given what you’ve learned about pros and cons and ideal conditions for the five conflict approaches, how would you deal with choices within the original potential conflict scenario from the last post?

I am late for work, and the traffic is horrible. Someone cuts me off; I feel like swearing and showing them who’s boss, but I don’t’ want to miss my exit. I know that I should have left earlier, but I slept in that extra ten minutes then had to fix my daughter’s bike before I headed out the door—why didn’t she bring it up last night when I had time? Then my wife wanted me to let her know if I would be going to the kids concert that night. I just said we’d talk about it later—I couldn’t deal with that before I left. I could tell she was annoyed by my avoiding a direct answer, but I had to just get out the door.

When I get to my office, I’m already in an irritated mood, wondering how I’m going to get the board presentation ready in time for tomorrow. During my commute, my co-worker has texted me about a spontaneous budget meeting planned for today. I check my office messages and realize that I’ve forgotten to follow up with a smaller, but still important customer. Should I call now, a little later, or just hold off until after my budget and management meetings? I am already stressed before my day has really begun. I’ve mostly chosen to ignore the potential conflicts, but wonder how to respond to these different demands and potential conflicts in a helpful way.

In the weeks to come, we will apply these five approaches to other potential or full-blown conflict situations to see how the approaches work in different conflict settings. In the meantime, consider some self-reflection to better understand your current choices and how you would like to expand and/or modify your personal conflict framework. At heart, you have more choice and flexibility in conflict management than you may initially think.

9 Comments

Moving Beyond Fighting or Fleeing: Five General Approaches to Conflict

12/6/2016

0 Comments

I am late for work, and the traffic is horrible. Someone cuts me off; I feel like swearing and showing them who’s boss, but I don’t’ want to miss my exit. I know that I should have left earlier, but I slept in that extra ten minutes then had to fix my daughter’s bike before I headed out the door—why didn’t she bring it up last night when I had time? Then my spouse wants me to let her know if I would be going to the kids concert that night. I just said we’d talk about it later—I couldn’t deal with that before I left. I could tell she was annoyed by my avoiding a direct answer, but I had to just get out the door.

When I get to my office, I’m already in an irritated mood, wondering how I’m going to get the board presentation ready in time for tomorrow. During my commute, my co-worker has texted me about a spontaneous budget meeting planned for today. I check my office messages and realize that I’ve forgotten to follow up with a smaller, but still important customer. Should I call now, a little later, or just hold off until after my budget and management meetings? I am already stressed before my day has really begun. I’ve mostly chosen to ignore the potential conflicts, but wonder how to respond to these different demands and potential conflicts in a helpful way.

While hypothetical, this scenario demonstrates that every day, we encounter different kinds of minor to major stresses and potential conflicts that may challenge our ability to respond constructively and flexibly. From experience, we know that there is not just one approach to conflict that will work in every situation, even with the very same people we interact with every day. Instead, we encounter conflict situations that require adapting our conflict approaches to the specific conditions and needs we come across despite our likely familiarity with the people with whom we’re conflicting.

Rather than being rooted solely in personality, our reactions and approaches to conflict, better relate to learned languages than fixed genetic traits. In a way, our responses to conflict are like different languages with associated expressions, gestures, tones of voice, actions (or even inaction) to communicate our particular goals or interests. In fact, we may need to use a variety of languages or approaches to effectively communicate with even the very same person on a given day. Our language or choice of approach may depend upon the conflict situation and issue, and not just the person or our mood.

While hundreds of foreign languages and dialects exist for the spoken language, there are basically just five main approaches people use to deal with conflict. These conflict management approaches include: avoiding, accommodating, competing, compromising, and collaborating. By becoming skilled in each of these five approaches we can learn to more effectively communicate and resolve conflict in ways tailored to particular people, situations, and our respective goals.

Learning New Languages
To truly become skilled in conflict resolution, the trick is to first gain an awareness of our “native” conflict language(s). By native conflict language, I mean how we generally approach conflict in terms of our thoughts, emotions, words, behaviors, gestures, and reactions, both large and small. Native implies some sense of instinct or habit that comes from unconscious reaction and behavior in our daily lives. Based on how we were raised and our given temperaments, from a very young age, we have each learned conflict styles that heavily influence how we deal with daily conflict in both constructive and destructive ways.

Despite having learned certain conflict approaches throughout our lives, we can still modify and adapt our approaches to be much more effective communicators both professionally and personally.

Five Main Conflict Approaches

Identification of the Conflict Languages by Essential Characteristics
Borrowing terms adopted by Thomas and Kilmann, these five conflict approaches reflect various degrees of assertiveness (meeting our own goals) and cooperativeness (meeting others’ goals). Each general approach represents specific goals and values, and involves certain benefits and drawbacks depending upon our specific purpose for selecting that approach. The five main conflict approaches include:

Avoiding
Accommodating
Compromising
Competing
Collaborating

Rather than focus just on learning a new approach or justifying our own use of a particular response, we consider the five conflict languages with the purpose of learning each of them. We want to know each of the five conflict approaches well enough to be able to apply each of them in the right situations to satisfy our own and, perhaps, others’ goals. We focus on grasping each approach’s usefulness in the diverse conflict situations we encounter in our daily lives at work, at home, and in the community.

Definition of Each Conflict Approach
Paraphrasing the succinct language of conflict specialists, Spangle and Isenhart, we define each conflict approach as follows:

Avoiding

One party denies there is a conflict, changes topics, or avoids discussion, and is noncommittal.

Accommodating

One party sacrifices its interests and concerns while enabling others to achieve their interests.

Compromising

Through concessions by all parties, each party settles for partial satisfaction of their interests.

Competing

One party is aggressive, self-focused, forcing, verbally assertive, and uncooperative in order to satisfy his or her own interests at the expense of the interests of others (win-lose orientation).

Collaborating

Parties use active listening and issue-focused, empathic communication to satisfy the interests and concerns of all parties (win-win orientation).

Potential Goals or Meaning Behind Each Conflict Language
Different languages or approaches work in different situations. Just like speaking German to the English speaking cashier at our local grocery store might not allow for real communication, collaboration may not always be appropriate in certain forceful, competitive negotiations in the workplace. No one method will be appropriate for every conflict situation we encounter.

Throughout a lifetime, we seek to become fluent in each of the five approaches in order to achieve our own interests and goals depending upon the situation. The trick for us, in both our professional and personal lives, may be to move from one tactic to another depending upon the situation and our understanding of the abilities and needs of the people we’re interacting with. In effect, there is not just one conflict approach to resolve all conflict, but we consider more a blend of different approaches applied in the right situations.

For example, after driving a hard negotiation with a potential buyer at work, can I return home and switch my tactic to accommodation and/or collaboration if my tired toddler refuses to eat the meal that I have prepared? Will I then be prepared to avoid talking with the solicitor who knocks on my door while I’m eating dinner with my family? Later that evening, can I then carefully listen to my partner vent his or her frustration about a distressing health issue without interrupting?

Each relationship and/or situation may demand some flexibility and insight to get the right balance of achieving our own goals in relation to others’ goals. Given our native tendencies and habitual conflict approaches, we may over, under, or misuse certain conflict approaches in our lives. But, with our increased awareness and understanding of these five conflict approaches, we will greatly enhance the possibility of reaching our diverse goals and interests. We are not too old to learn some new approaches and move our communication skills beyond our current habits.

Pros and Cons of Each Conflict Language and Best Conditions for Use
In the weeks to come, we review the pros and cons of each of the five conflict approaches to better understand how each type of response may help or hinder us from reaching our communication and relational goals with others.

In addition, while difficult to predict all the particulars of each conflict situation we may encounter, we will explore the ideal situations and conditions for applying each conflict approach. We will also briefly highlight which contexts are most suited to reaching particular goals via specific conflict management approaches to begin developing our own decision making compass or framework for conflict.

0 Comments

Forward>>

The Pros and Cons of Conflict-Based Identities

Understanding and Moderating Identity Conflicts: How can we satisfy our own and others’ identity needs?

Avoid the Empty Calories of a High-Conflict Diet & Focus on the Important Conflicts in Your Life

Helping Others Manage Their Anger: A Nonviolent Communications Perspective

Managing our Own Anger: A Nonviolent Communications Perspective

The Pitfalls of Overusing "Power Over" or Competitive Approaches to Conflict

The Benefits and Drawbacks of Pleasing Others in Conflict

Exploring the Five Conflict Approaches

Moving Beyond Fighting or Fleeing: Five General Approaches to Conflict

Author:
Emily de Schweinitz Taylor

Archives

Categories

Author:Emily de Schweinitz Taylor

Archives

Categories

Author:
Emily de Schweinitz Taylor