Posts Tagged ‘conflict resolution’

   When two people find themselves in a conflict situation, the two parties usually focus trying to figure out what the other person is saying or what the other person wants. In the process, they can miss the point of the other person’s request or demand. They miss why the other person wants what they want.

   Focusing on what the other person is saying is important. It helps you understand their desires more fully. It helps you meet their immediate demands. However, addressing only the what without understanding the why can lead to continued miscommunication and unresolved conflict.   

   Consider these scenarios:   

   Scenario #1

When your spouse asks you to meet for lunch today, they have delivered a statement of what they want – lunch.

The questions to consider are these: Do they want to meet for lunch because they are hungry and they expect to be near your office at lunchtime?, or Do they want more time with you and this is the only way they know how to ask for it?

If their reason why is the former question, you can have lunch together some other time. If their reason why is the latter, you might be able to meet their request in a different way.

   Scenario #2 

The employee who asks for a raise has told you what they want – more money.

You should ask yourself: Do they have more cash demands because of something that happened at home?, or Do they want more money in exchange for tolerating poor working conditions?

If their reason why is the first question, a pay raise might actually address their concerns. If their reason why is the second question, a pay raise will not help the situation.

   Scenario #3

The co-worker who asks you to open a window has said what they want – an open window.

You should wonder: Do they want the room temperature cooler?, or Are they nauseated by some odor in the air?

If they want it cooler and you are comfortable with the temperature, you might find an alternative arrangement. If they are nauseated by an odor that you either do not smell or do not mind, opening the window may be the only way to help them.

   These simple examples illustrate the point. If you focus only on what people request without considering why they requested it, you could miss their real concern.

   I do not suggest that you analyze everything people say for deep, hidden meaning. I do recommend that you listen with discerning ears so that you learn to understand the why behind the what. I also recommend that you learn to question your assumptions about other people. Rather than snap to a judgment, ask a question. Seek clarification before you assume too much. Learn to search for their why without projecting your perspective onto their intentions.

   If you really work to understand the why behind their what, you will more effectively address the real clash of needs and desires that originally created the conflict.

   Guy Harris, The Recovering Engineer
 

    As I write this post, I am sitting in an office in Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia. Tonight I speak to a group of business owners in Brisbane (about 2 hours by car). This is not my first opportunity to work with people in a different country. To date, I have worked in Canada, Germany, England, Scotland, Switzerland, Holland, China, Thailand, Taiwan and now — Australia. This trip has triggered a thought for me that directly affects our approaches to resolving conflict with people at work and at home.

     In driving through Queensland and working with various people here, I am struck by many things. The country side looks like other places I have been, and it is also different. The buildings look like other places I have been, and they are different. The businesses are like others I have visited in the past, and they are different.     

      The differences create energy and enthusiasm for me on this trip. They give me something to focus on as I work to gain greater understanding of this beautiful country, its culture, and its people. The differences provide learning opportunities.    

     In conversation, it’s even a bit fun to joke and laugh about the differences. I have enjoyed lively banter about how Australians and Americans are different.     

     In jest, it’s fun to talk about our differences. In conflict, focusing on differences can destroy the relationship and ultimately the team.

     As I look around Australia and reflect on my experiences in other places with other people and cultures, I realize that we have many more similarities than differences. If we have more similarities across the world than we do differences, I think the same is probably true with the people we work and live with on a daily basis.

     The differences between us bring spark and energy to the team. They show us different perspectives and approaches to the many situations we address every day. They provide opportunities to learn from each other. They can also create discord and strife if we focus on them too strongly.

     So, here’s my closing thought from “down under.” The next time you find yourself in a conflict with a co-worker, family member, or fellow volunteer — look for your similarities. The differences will be pretty obvious. You may feel tempted to focus on them because they frustrate you. Resist this urge. Look for similarities. Look for common ground. That’s where you will likely find the way forward to resolve your conflict.

      Guy Harris, The Recovering Engineer 
 

Conflict conversations often go wrong when the two parties disengage too soon. As Daniel Dana, author of Conflict Resolution, says; people often don’t “argue” long enough because of a hard-wired behavioral approach commonly known as the “fight-or-flight” response. This natural response can serve us well as a protection from physical harm, but it seldom helps during the normal interpersonal conflicts we experience at home and at work. Our natural response tends to create two behaviors that short-circuit effective conflict conversations:

Misinterpreting other people’s intentions creates one of the biggest challenges I see in much of my coaching and training work. I suppose this is a natural part of human nature. Often, the only frame of reference we have for interpreting other people’s behaviors is our own. As a result, we often interpret their behaviors based on how we believe we would react or behave if we were in their situation.Unfortunately, we often don’t know everything about their situation.In a post earlier this week in Settle It Now, Victoria Pynchon states:

   As I read through some of the blogs I really like this morning, I found two posts that intrigued me. One comes from Victoria Pynchon at Settle it Now (Negotiating Influence How to Help Your Opponents Change Their Minds) and the other is from Diane Levin at Mediation Chanel (The Mind and Magic Conjuring Up Ways to Improve Awareness). They are both really interesting, and I suggest that you take a look. I’ll quickly summarize what I got from them individually, and then I’ll comment on the connection I saw between them.

   As Victoria says in her post, she will have more to say on this topic, and I’m looking forward to reading what she has to say. For now, she points to research that indicates the positive impact that face-to-face communication has on persuasion. Her comment that ”… opposing parties resist sitting in the same room with one another when attempting to settle litigation” really struck me. I have the same experience in workplace situations, people involved in a conflict often refuse to sit face-to-face to discuss it.

   Diane’s post links to How Magicians Control Your Mind in the Boston Globe. This article reports on research done to understand how we perceive things. It’s also a fascinating read (with some great videos). The research shows that we have gaps in our perceptions so that what we think we see may not really be what happened. In other words, our perception may be our internal reality, and it will drive our thoughts and emotions. However, it’s not necessarily the objective truth (what actually happened).  

 To keep things simple, I will outline the connection I saw with a progression of bullet points:

   When I entered my last post , I fully intended to add content to each of the seven communication tips in subsequent entries. As I have attempted to expand on my thoughts from that post this week, I have drawn a blank every time I sit down to write.    The thought that has been at the top of my mind this week is the title of this post – develop an attitude of curiosity. So, I’ll write on this topic for now and save my expanded thoughts on my previous post for later.  My thinking on this topic comes from my recent coaching and training experience. As I work with clients, I see the opposite of curiosity – judgment – driving much thinking during conflict conversations. Here’s how I see the difference between these two attitudes:

This post has been moved here.

   As I was looking through some of my favorite blogs this evening, I found this post by Tammy Lenski – 7 phrases you can’t say in conflict resolution. In her post, Tammy lists some of the communication errors we often encounter in the process of resolving conflict. I read and enjoyed Tammy’s post, and then a thought hit me. Six of the seven blunder’s shift blame and minimize personal responsibility.

   The original post contained great content, and I certainly don’t want to minimize Tammy’s work. That being said, here are some amplifying thoughts on the six points that struck me.

1. “Don’t take it personally.” This statement subtly implies that the other person’s emotions have no merit. It says that they should listen to our frustrations, fears, and concerns without having any of their own.
2. “He’s a difficult person.” This simple statement makes the conflict entirely the other person’s fault. It shifts blame without regard to what we might have done to encourage the other person to become “difficult.”
3. “She can’t handle change.” Another blame shifting statement. With a few words, we can make the conflict the other person’s fault without acknowledging that we may be moving too quickly or not considering the other person’s viewpoint.
4. “Be respectful.” As Tammy indicated in her post, 20 different people can have 20 different definitions of what “respectful” looks like. This statement is also a subtle blame shifting comment. In effect, telling the other person to “be respectful” says that any harsh, unkind, or unthoughtful words we might utter are the result of their “disrespect.”
5. “Control yourself.” Similar to “Be respectful.” We just told the other person that their out-of-control (based on our perception) behavior is the cause for anything we might have done to contribute to the conflict. This is a self-justifying statement.
6. “You shouldn’t feel that way.” This statement came from the comments to the original post. Who are we to tell someone else how they “should” feel or what they “should” think. This statement is patronizing. It implies that we somehow see the truth more clearly than the other person in the conflict.

   One of the keys to avoiding these errors begins with the mindset that we take into a conflict. When we own our contribution to the conflict and then focus our energies on understanding the other person’s perspective and clearly communicating our concerns without shifting blame, we can avoid these conflict resolution errors.  

   Many thanks to Tammy for creating the original list.
  

   Guy Harris, The Recovering Engineer