“Knowledge is Power” – so they say. If one, for example, had the exceptionally valuable comprehension for carrying out the ideal process for an important act, that person would be terribly powerful indeed. Tragically, through most of my life, I have been less than mighty in this most important societal act, communication – and more specifically that very significant subset, conflict resolution. Well that was then, and this is now. I have recently acquired some extremely valuable and detailed erudition for the resolution of interpersonal conflict, and now find myself to be a Superman in the field! Well, how about a Better-than-average-man in the field?!
Interpersonal conflict has always been a misunderstood and shunned activity, when, in fact, it should be viewed as a promising opportunity to improve communication and strengthen relationships. For many years, I have practiced poor habits in this process, and have paid the price for it. As people are wont to do, I perceived conflict as a sign that something was broken and needed tending. It was going to be an unpleasant task, and there would be much work involved. Therefore, my courageous choice was to turn and walk away from the relationship, rather than put in all that hard work. This is not a choice to proud of, but that was this young (at the time) man’s selection.
Now I know that conflict is a natural occurrence that must be dealt with on some level on a more or less constant basis. “The inevitability of conflict is made manifest in every field of human endeavor. Nations strive with nations. Workers strive with employers. Parents strive with children. Children strive with siblings” (Watson, 2007, ¶ 6). As authors Cahn and Abigail (2007, p. 3) express, interpersonal conflict is one whose participants are interdependent and who find an incompatibility in their goals, which could adversely affect the relationship. There is also a sense of urgency involved because of the importance of this interdependency.
One must also understand that there are different kinds of interpersonal strife. Conflicts can be deemed false, or unreal, for instance, if one of the participant’s perceptions of the situation are faulty. That person could believe there is an issue at hand, when in reality there is not, and discovers this upon finally broaching the subject with the other person. Perception, as in all communication scenarios, can play a very pivotal role but especially in the area of conflicts. A flawed perception can cause a domino effect, which results in terrible complications down the road. It is for this reason that success in communication and in conflicts relies upon being self-aware and constantly self-monitoring.
Other dangerous unreal conflicts are those which are misplaced (central issue being argued is not the real issue at all), and displaced (in lieu of dealing with the person with whom there is an issue, one attacks another, safer, individual). These are both unfair to the other person. In the misplaced scenario, one is being purposely dishonest in avoiding the true issue and causing unnecessary unpleasantness for the other without cause. Even more objectionable, in the displaced dispute, one is taking out frustration and resentment toward another on one’s partner. This is a breach of trust in the relationship.
In improving my outlook on conflict, understanding the various theories of how and why humans behave in conflict situations the way they do has helped me see the reasons behind the choices they make. Three of the major intrapersonal theories, Psychodynamic, Attribution and Uncertainty focus on the methods for how people function. Two of the relationship theories, Social Exchange and Systems, each explain the mechanisms for interacting in conflicts.
Based on Freud’s work concerning the subconscious mind, the Psychodynamic Theory (PD) deals with impulses, needs, wants and fears deeply rooted in an individual. The frustrations and unfulfilled impulses can cause disruptive behavior in the individual sometimes manifesting in displaced conflict, for instance. Undesirable behavior is a result of the fact that humans are, at their core, emotional beings who do not always have control over these feelings; and this behavior can extend out, drawing those we care for into its negative consequences. Stress, anger and anxiety can be catalysts for the negative effects covered under PD.
Attribution Theory (AT) posits that participants make ongoing speculations about why and how the other person is behaving in the conflict. Therefore people often carry on the discourse anticipating how the other person will behave, and attributing motives to their behavior. I think it is a very dangerous way to interact with someone who is important to us, because this of itself can create many misconceptions and prejudices. Many misunderstandings and convoluted paths can manifest themselves because of negative and erroneous assumptions we make about the other person.
Uncertainty Theory (UT) expresses the uncertainties that exist within individuals, as well as those that exist within the relationship, and consequently within an ensuing conflict. As stated earlier, perception plays such an important part in conflicts and may be a cause of the uncertainty. “People may not share the same perception about the issue or may not agree on the conflict issue at all” (Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 142). This uncertainty can be compounded with the stresses found in the Psychodynamic Theory to produce quite a powder keg of dynamic anger and hostility.
A result of the work by John W. Thibault and Harold H. Kelley, “The Communication Theory of Social Exchange is a theory based on the exchange of rewards and costs … People strive to minimize costs and maximize rewards and then base the likeliness of developing a relationship with someone on the perceived possible outcomes”
(Honors: Communication Capstone, 2001,¶ 1). Participants in conflict weigh the advantages and disadvantages to resolving the conflict based solely on their own point of view. As cutthroat an approach as this seems, I do believe that it accurately describes how people carry out decisions on whether or not to resolve conflict. People do extrapolate from the relationship’s history to predict where it is going, and whether it is worth the effort to salvage.
Lastly, the Systems point of view is that conflict does not occur as isolated instances, but as an ongoing part of a process which improves itself by adapting to change. The relationship itself has a purpose in this scheme and that is to thrive, improve and adapt. In this viewpoint, of course, conflict could not be viewed as negative, but as a necessary vehicle for the stimulation of this process.
Now that I understand the various points of view for explaining how humans behave, and how the relationships they have function, I have learned that I must consider the optimal way in which to behave in these conflicts – I must plan my strategy. Knowing that conflict is not the terrible and emotionally overwrought experience I once thought it would be, but a situation that simply needs to be analyzed, interpreted and resolved intelligently and with planning, I can proceed to plot out the best approach. A strategy is that approach.
Most experts in communication agree that there are five primary strategies for the resolution of conflict – avoidance, accommodation, competition, compromise and collaboration. Behaviorally, avoidance and accommodation are considered nonassertive tactics and are the least effective for long-term satisfaction of resolution. Resolution is actually a misnomer as nothing is really resolved in these two strategies. One may choose to ignore objectionable behavior by avoiding confrontation as an alternative to what one sees as the greater of two evils – conflict. As Michael E. Roloff and Danette E. Ifert contend, “Avoidance can serve useful purposes, as long as it eliminates arguing and does no damage to the relationship” (as cited in Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 166). Though avoidance can sometimes be warranted, overall it is not the healthy choice to make as it produces a “lose-lose” result. As one who has cause to initiate the management of a conflict and does not, this person loses in that there is damage to the relationship, not to mention to one’s self-esteem, and so both parties are harmed.
One might choose accommodation and simply acquiesce if the issue is not that important, and yet the happiness of the other person is. This is not a form of surrender, just a way to result in a win-win situation with a minimum amount of effort and turmoil. If, however, the motivation for accommodation is to avoid the perceived unpleasantness of confrontation, this is more or less a lose-win situation, which can cause future dissatisfaction and more intense conflict because of unresolved issues. As Toronto-based psychotherapist Lori Dennis points out, “You don't get heard and you aren't speaking the truth … It's a short-term, Band-Aid solution that isn't satisfying or meaningful in the long run” (as cited by Sponagle, M., 2009, ¶ 4).
If we have little concern, trust and/or respect for the other, we might opt for a competitive style. “Competitive processes tend to yield the inverse, negative effects: obstructed communication, inability to coordinate activities, suspicion and a lack of self-confidence, desire to reduce the other's power and to dominate them” (Deutsch, 2000, ¶ 3). If we are only concerned about our own self-interests with no real interest in the other’s, we would go for the win-lose scenario that results from a competitive approach. Though we may have achieved a “win,” it is probably a short-lived one in the grand scheme of things, and not a producer of long-term satisfaction. This would be deemed aggressive behavior and a destructive approach.
It is generally believed that the most desirable strategies that should be employed are the constructive ones of compromise and collaboration, of which collaboration is truly the ideal because it produces a win-win result achieved through mutual respect and cooperation. A compromise generates a negotiated resolution, which may still leave one or more parties dissatisfied with the outcome. “This strategy is generally used to achieve temporary solutions, to avoid destructive power struggles or when time pressures exist. One drawback is that partners can lose sight of important values and long-term objectives” (Hoban, n.d., ¶ 20). Therefore, collaboration is the preferred strategy.
If two people are to engage in a cooperative effort, they must do so with the appropriate behavior, which would be an assertive one. Assertiveness simply means that one is self-confident enough to be able express himself clearly and stand behind his beliefs and desires. It is not an aggressive posture which is more of a destructive, competitive approach; nor is it passive aggressive which entails duplicitous behavior to achieve “success” at the expense of the other. Invariably, this becomes a lose-lose proposition for no real solution to the problems has occurred, and questionable actions used to achieve the ends. Being assertive is carrying on a nonabusive dialogue for the solution of a problem. “In fact, [Joseph P.] Folger and his colleagues refer to the collaboration approach as the ‘problem-solving orientation’” (as cited in Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 83).
This then, is the key to solving an interpersonal dilemma – working efficiently, objectively and unemotionally toward a mutually satisfactory goal. It is looking at the issues from the other’s perspective as well as one’s own. It is removing ego from the equation. It is brainstorming and learning healthy negotiating skills. What is true in successful conflict resolution in organizations is also true in interpersonal relationships. “Further, learning to use constructive conflict strategies builds team cohesiveness by clarifying and resolving issues within the team and builds trust” (Hartman & Crume, 2007, p.1).
One excellent technique for organizing issues, illuminating one’s perspective and truly recognizing the relevant elements is mind mapping, developed by Tony Buzan. This line of attack is a method for visualizing all the components of a problem and for seeing the relationships of those components. “[Mind mapping] is especially useful in creative thinking, speech preparation, speech presentation, note taking, strategic planning, decision making, problem solving and training at all levels” (Buzan, Executive Excellence, 1991). Considered a “right-brain” approach to problem solving, it entails making a list of all the issues and graphically exhibiting the connections that link the different elements. This tool allows one to identify the real issues at play and to prioritize those that need to be dealt with.
Another superior method is that introduced by D.D. Cahn and R.A. Abigail in Managing Conflict Through Communication (2007). Their methodology is to approach conflict, not with emotions, but with a clear, organized plan. They have presented their S-TLC system, an acronym for its three parts, Stop, Think, Listen and Communicate. A very fundamental approach, it advises that when one is first confronted with conflict, he immediately refrains from a reflexive emotional response; thinks about the issues he is about to dissect, as well as the qualities of the person with whom he will be in a dialogue and the best way to engage him; listens closely to what the other is saying, including any unspoken subtext; and then communicates in a clear, logical fashion with the aim of resolving the problem to each’s satisfaction.
As Cahn and Abigail express, true listening is a key element. Often in a conflict dialogue, we are preparing in our mind what to say next, rather than truly “listening” to what is being said. Here is where our knowledge of our propensity to predict what the other will say and why through Attribution Theory, should help us to stop these prejudgments and truly listen and interpret the core message. When we are prepared to respond with the best possible communication tactic, we could also keep in mind that the Psychodynamic Theory might be at work, and the other person is actually expressing misplaced or even displaced conflict. This would require further probing to unearth the true issue.
In understanding the structure of conflict, it is helpful to recognize the five stages in which it occurs - prelude, trigger event, initiation, differentiation and resolution. In the prelude to conflict, certain factors exist which affect the inclination for a conflict to manifest itself. The second phase of the process, the triggering event, is the catalyst for acknowledging a potential issue that requires attention. It is at the initiation stage that both parties acknowledge that an important dilemma has arisen which requires their concerted attention. It is here that we enter the stage where the most important work is performed, the differentiation stage. This is where all the analysis, evaluation and planning are applied for the successful collaboration regarding the issue at hand. Finally, and ideally, a solution will have been achieved, and we may move into the resolution stage in which we confirm that we have truly reached a mutually satisfying result for the dilemma – a genuine win-win scenario.
These are the concepts I have been fortunate enough to have been exposed to of late, and which I am hoping to apply to future interpersonal conflicts. This comes at an opportune time as I am currently attempting to make a major career change. The future for me is very uncertain at this point. Whether or not an employer will take a chance on a mid-50’s prospect with no real, or at least recent, experience remains to be seen. Even the exact field into which I shall attempt to infiltrate is unknown.
Needless to say, therefore, not only am I currently in a state of prolonged stress, but I shall probably be so for a considerable amount of time when I have attained a position. Stress and anger can be one’s enemy, and so I must monitor myself in my new job to ensure that I do not allow these negative feelings to manifest in an unfortunate fashion. Stress is often the result of the perception that the demands surpass one’s ability (or time). A helpful technique I have learned for this situation is to monitor and modify my self-talk, which is the self-perception I reinforce with the way I think about myself and view stimuli.
I can only hope that this new work environment will provide a supportive climate so that I can make a successful transition. I must not allow myself to let defensiveness enter my persona because of resentment of my lack of power in the work hierarchy, or for the fact that my “superiors” are half my age. This is where preemptive intellectualizing can prevent any misconceptions or negative spiraling anxieties that create conflict situations.
For above all, this is what I have learned. One must think! One must not allow emotions to be in the driver’s seat on a regular basis. Social circumstances must be examined and one must have a tangible plan for effectively maneuvering through them. Conflicts are indeed a natural occurrence in any social environment; and must be seen as opportunities for enhancing relationships. If approached properly, their resolution can become a very satisfying, fulfilling accomplishment.
No, I am not the Superman of communication and of conflict. I am, however, surely stronger, more confident and measurably capable. I can make a conscious and informed decision in how I deal with any disagreement or misunderstanding I encounter on an interpersonal basis.
References
Buzan, T. (1991, August). Mind mapping. Executive Excellence. Vol. 8, Iss. 8; pg. 3. Retrieved April 29, 2010, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=393355&sid= 2&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Cahn, D. D. & Abigail, R. A. (2007). Managing conflict through communication. Boston: Pearson.
Deutsch, M. (2000). Cooperation and conflict. The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bas Publishers, 2000, pp. 21-40. Abstract retrieved from http://www.beyondintractability.org/articlesummary/10166/?nid=5732
Hoban, T. J. (n.d.). Managing conflict: A guide for watershed partnerships. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/kyw/brochures/manageconflict.html
Hartman, R. L. & Crume, A.L. (2007. Public forum mediation: a training exercise
for conflict facilitation skills. Industrial and Commercial Training. Vol. 39, No. 3. Retrieved April 30, 2010, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did= 1343646601& SrchMode=1&sid=9&Fmt= 6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS= 1272688344&clientId=74379
Honors: Communication capstone spring 2001 workbook. (2001). Social exchange theory.
Retrieved April 30, 2010, from http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/capstone/interpersonal/socexch.html
Sponagle, M. (2009, October). The art of the hissy fit. Flare. Vol. 31, Iss. 10; p. 110. Retrieved May 1, 2010, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1885607161&sid= 2&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Watson, S. (2007, August 1). The inevitability of conflict. Security Magazine. Retrieved April 22, 2010, from http://www.securitymagazine.com/Articles/Feature_Article/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_10000000000000144843
No comments:
Post a Comment