Archive for the ‘Conflict Resolution’ Category

This post is more of a question than a statement. I’m looking for input and feedback on this question:

How does the nature of your relationship with another person affect the way you handle/view/approach resolving a conflict with them?

Like many things in life, I have an opinion on this topic. I would just like to hear your perspective as well.

Can you help me out by leaving a comment?

Thanks.

This post is now here.

Back in May, I found and linked to an interesting poll on what frustrates people most in conflict by Tammy Lenski. Somehow I missed her follow-up post in my reading when it first appeared, but I found it today.

Here is part of Tammy’s response to the poll responses: Relationship frustration: The “not my problem” problem.

Enjoy!

I really enjoy looking for good examples of conflict escalation, poor communication, and personality style clashes. A few months ago, I saw this episode of The Apprentice, and I thought it perfectly illustrated a common people-oriented vs. task-oriented conflict scenario. It also shows how NOT to resolve a conflict.

The interesting action for this post starts at the 3 minute 40 second mark where we see the interaction between Scott Hamilton and Tom Green begin. The part I’m commenting on runs for a little more than 2 minutes.

Just guessing from their behaviors, I would say that Scott has lots of task traits and that Tom has lots of people traits. My best guess is that Scott has really high “Cautious” traits and that Tom has really high “Inspiring” traits. If I’m guessing right, their primary behavioral traits are complete opposites of each other.

I don’t know everything about these two men.  I’m just basing my guess on what I see in this short clip.

Tom frantically tries to get noticed. A common “Inspiring” trait is to seek recognition. He makes a comment about “keeping himself entertained” and he complains that “they’re not listening to me” as he waves his arms in the air and says “they’re so focused on the task they don’t even know I’m there.”  Also common “I” traits.

Scott’s goal is to be “calm and organized.” A common “Cautious” trait is to seek structure. He makes reference to Tom as the “derailer” and he tells Tom to “sit and relax.”

I also notice that Tom pushes harder for interaction and that Scott withdraws more into the task as the conflict escalates. Two common signs of a task vs. people conflict.

I think both of them behaved in ways that made the conflict worse instead of better, and I’m not really trying to comment on who was more or less “right.” I want to keep the focus of this post on their interaction dynamics.

Notice that as each of them fights for what they want, the conflict gets worse and neither of them gets what they want.

The lesson we can learn from this interaction is simple to say and difficult to do: slow down to understand the other person’s perspective so that you can move towards resolution and away from escalation.

In The Phantom Menace, the great Jedi master Yoda says: “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

Fear in one or both parties is often the root of conflict, and we all fear something.

Some people fear losing control. Some fear looking bad in front of others. Other people fear confrontation. Still others fear having to make a decision with limited information. I could go on and on listing the fears we confront in our interactions with others.

To successfully resolve conflict, someone has to step outside the fear and get a handle on it so that it doesn’t lead to anger, hate and suffering.

The question for today is: What are you afraid of?

Today, I read two really good posts concerning the work of Albert Mehrabian. I enjoyed reading and comparing the two interpretations of Mehrabian’s work by both Bert Decker and Olivia Mitchell.

There seems to be some good-natured contention about what his research actually indicates, and I don’t know enough about the details of the research to add my two cents to the discussion. I do want to draw attention to both his research and the discussion about it from a workplace conflict resolution standpoint.

When we are in conflict with people close to us (at work, at church, at school, or in our family), we generally have ample opportunity to observe them in all sorts of situations. Over time, we start to pick-up on little non-verbal clues emanating from their body language.

Here’s what I draw from the discussion about Mehrabian’s work with regard to its application to resolving conflict in teams: the non-verbal message conveys a significant portion of the emotional message communicated.

I won’t even begin to discuss what percentage of the communication it represents. I’m not going to offer any interpretation of whether his study represents the listener’s feelings about the speaker, the listener’s thoughts about the speaker’s feelings, or the listener’s feelings about the speaker’s feelings. I haven’t read the actual study. I’ve just read other people’s interpretations of his findings.

Here is one point that seems to be pretty well accepted (I think), when non-verbal messages and verbal messages are inconsistent (or perceived to be inconsistent), the non-verbal message trumps the verbal message.

I’m sure that all of us have been on the receiving end of an “I’m just fine” said with a sarcastic tone and a roll of the eyes. In those moments, most of us realize that “I’m just fine” actually means “I’m really irritated, but I don’t want to tell you that.”

So, my thought for workplace and family conflict resolution is this: watch your non-verbal messages. People have a sense for your real emotional state no matter what words you use in an attempt to cover it up.

Instead of insinuating your true emotions with non-verbal clues, develop good conflict communication habits that honestly express your thoughts and feelings so that you don’t leave them open to interpretation (or misinterpretation) by others. Learn to use assertive communication techniques that clarify emotions in place of passive or aggressive communication techniques that tend to escalate rather than resolve the conflict.

Photo courtesy of www.sxc.hu

In my blog reading this weekend, I read this great post by Kare Anderson over at Say It Better. Check this post on Getting Others to Stop Arguing: What We Can Learn From Obama’s Cairo Speech.

A few weeks ago, a situation developed between me and another person where they felt the need to apologize. In all honesty, I was a bit irritated with the person and their behavior prior to receiving their call asking if they could come to see me in person.

However, they did come see me in person. They did sincerely apologize. And they genuinely felt sorry for their actions.

During the conversation, they said: “I don’t know why I did what I did.” I said: “I guess it’s because you’re human.” I then reminded them of the scene in the Disney movie The Lion King when Rafiki hit Simba on the head. After receiving a whack on the head, Simba said: “Hey, why did you do that!” Rafiki replied: “It don’t matta’. It’s in the past.”

When I told the story, I smiled and the other person smiled. The tension broke, and we moved forward with our relationship.

In this case, the other person really did do something that required an apology. And, they genuinely apologized.

They apologized. I accepted. We moved on together. We have now been in several meetings since then where we have worked productively and positively together.

When people apologize, there is nothing to be gained by attempting to humiliate them further. Accept the apology. Honor their sincerity, and move on. Remember, “It don’t matta’. It’s in the past.”