Posts Tagged ‘conflict communication’

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.

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!

Last week, Amanda Bucklow left a comment on my blog about a video that I discovered on another website.

I didn’t do an exhaustive search of my followers and friends at various sites, but I am sad to say that I did not recognize Amanda’s name when I got the comment. I have no idea how she found my blog.

So, I decided to take a look at her blog – The Mediation Times -  to learn a bit about her. I immediately liked what I saw, and I started to look around a bit.

In the process of looking over her blog, I found one of Amanda’s posts titled Language, linguistics, and mediation. In this post Amanda, referenced a post by Lera Boroditsky titled How Does Our Language Shape the Way We Think.

Being a student of how we think and how our thinking affects our behaviors, I was instantly hooked. I just had to read further. So, I clicked over to Lera’s post.

I really enjoyed the reading.

In the process, I observed two very interesting things.

One, Lera’s research seems to confirm something I have suspected for a long time – the language we speak both reflects and affects how we think.

While I have learned some Latin, Spanish, French, and German, I am not fluent in any language other than English (although I’m pretty good with HTML and PHP).

As I learned these smatterings of other languages, I noticed both the different ways that things are described and the different ways the cultures that speak them tend to “do” life.

Here’s a funny side comment. My mother-in-law was German. In German, “cat” is a feminine word, and she always called our male cat “she”. Mama’s behavior seems to fit Lera’s research.

Back to the main point. If you want to work out a conflict with another person, pay careful attention to how they describe the world. If your words don’t fit theirs, you’ll likely have a difficult time connecting in a way that resolves the conflict. This observation may be obvious if you speak clearly different languages like English and German.

Consider this additional thought though, what if they seem to speak your language but you notice that their version of it is slightly different from yours?

For example, I often say that task-oriented people speak a different flavor of English (or any other language) than people-oriented people. If language both reflects and affects the way that we think and we want to resolve a conflict with a person who speaks a different “version” of our native tongue, we need to take extra care to make sure that we understand what they really meant rather than run with what we thought they meant. We need to consider that the words they speak might mean something slightly different to them than what they mean to us.

Second, I found it interesting that I learned something from someone I have never met, Amanda, because she led me to another person that I have never met, Lera. Both of them have great things to say. Amanda and Lera, thanks to you both.

Image from www.sxc.hu

I’m running a bit behind in my preparations for a trip today, and most of my blog readers are not my newsletter readers. So, I’m posting my most recent newsletter article here today. I’ll be back for my next scheduled post this Thursday.

________________________________

When you have explained something a number of times to the same person or group of people, it is really easy to allow your frustration with the communication process to build. It’s a small step from frustration to anger, and another small step from anger to an escalating conflict.

A failure to understand generally indicates only a few possible scenarios:

1. I haven’t explained it properly or in a way that makes sense to them.
2. I haven’t yet explained it enough times (most people need to hear new concepts something like 5-7 times to grasp and remember them)
3. They don’t have the capability to understand the concept
4. They simply don’t care to understand or remember.

Let’s consider each of these possibilities.

In the case where I haven’t yet explained it properly, the fault lies entirely with me. So, I have no reason to get angry with the other person.

If the concept is new or complicated, having to explain it several times is normal. Why should I get angry when it takes several explanations for it to make sense to them?

When people don’t have the capability to understand a concept for some reason, I am asking them to do something beyond their skill or maturity level. Again, the fault lies with me and my expectations and not with them. And, again, I have no reason to get angry with them.

If the other person simply does not care to understand or remember, I have to evaluate the relative importance of the task/concept compared to the value of the relationship. If the balance tilts towards preserving the relationship, I have to place the task or concept as a secondary priority. If the balance tilts towards the task or concept, then I have to find a way to get the task done with or without the other person. In either case, I have to ask myself if getting angry will accomplish the desired results. 

As a parent, I get the frequent opportunity to “practice what I preach” with regard to this conflict resolution tip. In working with my children (now 14 and 16), I often experience situations where we are discussing the same problem, issue, or overlooked task for the third, fourth, or fifth time.

Now that we are firmly into summer vacation season and my kids are home all day, I get these opportunities pretty regularly. I have to keep reminding myself that getting angry because they do not understand will probably not help the situation.

In the vast majority of situations, I find that the real cause for the problem lies within me. I have not yet explained it properly. I have not yet explained it enough times for it to “sink in.” Or my expectation of their comprehension is beyond where they are at the time.

Seldom do I experience situations where people simply do not want to understand. Even in those rare situations where I have experienced a total lack of concern, I often find that there is something I can do to make the issue important for the other person. In these cases, I find myself back at scenario number one: I haven’t yet explained it in a way that makes sense to them.

As you work with people on your team or in your family, remember not to get angry because they don’t understand.

Photo by Zen Sutherland.

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

As I was reading through some other blogs this week, I found this post on Empathy, Apology and Forgiveness by Arnold Zeman at Dialogic Mediation Services.

Once again the power of apology surfaces in the context of resolving conflict. I really liked this post because it derives from research and not just from a single person’s opinions.

The full citation for both the underlying research and the chain of reporting is in the post at Dialogic Mediation services.

As Arnold Zeman reports in his post, the key learning point of the research is:

Empathy must be experienced by, and communicated by, both parties to the conflict, not simply one or the other. In other words, to be effective in resolving conflict, apology and forgiveness are best viewed as interactive processes, not simply one-sided speech events.

In the context of workplace conflict, here’s the bottom-line: for an apology to have any significant impact on the situation, you need to allow some processing time for both parties to realize (preferrably on their own) that they both contributed to the conflict.

I seldom see conflicts where one party is clearly wrong and the other party is totally “right.” I’m sure that it happens from time-to-time but not very frequently.

When you find yourself in a conflict, you should offer a well intentioned apology. You should also give the other person time to reflect on the situation before you “force” them to accept it. It seems that the reflection time is critical for the development of “mutual empathy.”

Thought for Thursday: Be willing to apologize for your contribution and then give people time to reflect.

In my last post, I offered three ways to Be a Victor, Not a Victim. In the context of conflict resolution, the thought is not about seeking victory during a conflict. Rather, the thought is about taking personal responsibility so that we don’t “play the victim” by blaming the other party.

Today, I’m offering a thought that goes with my last post. A thought that will allow you to own your piece of the conflict much more easily. Simply put, the idea is this:

Consciously assume that the other person had a positive intention for whatever they did or said.

If you are anything like me, this will take some work. On more than one occasion, I have assumed the worst of people and gotten angry only to learn later that the other party did not intend what I assumed they intended. I have thought that people were insulting me, only to find that I misunderstood some colloquial phrase. I have thought that people were angry, when they were actually in pain or frustrated by an event that had nothing to do with me.

Rather than assume that someone intends to harm me, I have learned to first assume that I misunderstood. I assume that they meant something other than what I heard, or that they are struggling to communicate their thoughts and feelings. By assuming the positive, I have found that I feel less stress, less frustration, and less irritation with others. Because I feel less stress, I am better able to work to understand their perspective without feeling compelled to force my perspective on them.

I am not perfect at applying this principle. Just read through my blog, and you will find examples of times when I did not pull this off very well. In fact, it is in the times that I failed to do this that I learned the lesson again.

When we assume positive intent, we have greater control over our emotional response, and we retain the power to control what we can control – ourselves.

In looking over the post before publishing it, I notice that it begs the question: “What if people really do mean you harm?” I acknowledge that some people really do have ill intent, and that opens a whole different sort of discussion. I find that starting with the presumption of positive intent, I am more often right about them than I am wrong. As a result, I have fewer real conflicts with people, and the ones I do have get resolved much more quickly. It is when I assume negative intent that I have more problems.

Thought for Thursday: Assume positive intent until they prove otherwise.

(I owe a hat tip to Kit Cooper for reminding me of this idea with his post over at Lifehack.

Yesterday, my wife had an interchange with my oldest daughter that did not go very well. I only heard part of it, but I heard enough to know that they experienced a brief conflict.

As I took my daughter to school, I managed to “unpack” her frustration so that we could solve the problem. Through discussion with my daughter, I learned that my wife had offered a solution to a situation at school that my daughter heard as critical of her actions. Please catch this key point: my wife offered a solution, my daughter heard a criticism.

Neither one of them wanted a conflict. Both of them wanted the day to start smoothly. In the rush of getting out the door early in the morning, their communication wires got crossed. No bad intentions were involved. It was just a case of poor communication.

One person thinks and speaks in a direct, bottom-line, “solve the problem” fashion (my wife). The other person thinks and speaks in an indirect, step-by-step, process oriented fashion (my oldest daughter). Both of them want the relationship to work. And both of them have moments of frustration with the other. It’s just a normal, everyday situation.

When I returned home from taking my daughters to school, I discussed the situation with my wife. She openly embraced my observations about our daughter’s perspective without becoming defensive, and she took action to correct the miscommunication as soon as she saw our daughter in the afternoon. My wife took responsibility for the communication breakdown rather than blaming my daughter.

This learning point ties directly to this Monday’s Momentum Message where I asked you to question yourself and your results. My wife did not get the result she wanted, and she immediately questioned her perspective. She looked for ways under her control to correct the situation. As a result, she is building positive momentum into her relationship with our daughter.

Thought for Thursday: Identify the areas in your interactions with others where you subtly (maybe even unintentionally) blame them for problems between you. Then, take the responsibility for fixing the breakdown.