The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed)

by Peter T Coleman

  Stage 1: Preparation

  There is some preparatory work that we can do to help ourselves become more self-aware and knowledgeable about those with whom we interact. We have experienced so much in life that there are many layers of influencing factors that have shaped who we have become and are becoming. There are endless opportunities for us to know ourselves and other people more deeply through every experience we have.

  Self.

  Developing stronger self-awareness is a foundational necessity to improving the quality of communication so that conflict is either prevented or managed constructively. Knowing our worldview, values, and what is important to us helps us identify our core needs and interests and how far we are willing to go to stand up for what we believe in and not feel compromised. At the same time, it helps us prioritize our interests so that we have more clarity when we enter into negotiations with others. There are two suggestions for tools that facilitate this exploration into deeper self-awareness. One is the daisy model from coordinated management of meaning (CMM), which provides a format for us to map our social worlds and the influencing factors that have shaped our worldviews (Pearce, Sostrin, and Pearce, 2011). In the center of the daisy model we put our name and then on each petal surrounding the center, we write in key people, events, and circumstances that have had a profound influence on us. The petals on the surface have a stronger influence at this time, and the petals underneath have a secondary influence. The influencing factors on these petals may change places to be more or less influential depending on the context and relationships with those with whom we are interacting.

  A second model is the social identity map that is a Venn diagram, including life context, life choices, and personality attributes (Fisher-Yoshida and Geller, 2009). In the life context circle, we include items such as our cultural background, family status and birth order, socioeconomic status, age, and physical attributes. In the life choices circle, we include educational attainment, career choices, religious practices, and leisure pursuits. In the third circle, personality attributes, are items such as aptitudes, strengths, limitations, and motivations. This information may seem obvious, but we have found that the process of thinking about it, writing it down, and mapping it out brings new insights to people about their core values and the reasons they place importance on certain aspects of their lives. This influences our behavior and the choices we make. The more we understand this, the better able we are to make choices that satisfy our core interests.

  Other.

  The second part of preparation for dialogue and transforming communication, in addition to knowing ourselves, is to know others with whom we are in relationships. We can use the daisy model and social identity mapping as tools to identify influences on the other party and his or her values, beliefs, and assumptions. We can do this before meeting with this person and then spend time with him or her verifying that what we assumed to be true is accurate or not. This can be done directly by sharing the daisy models and social identity mappings or creating them together if the relationship and context are conducive to this level of disclosure. If not, then we can use active listening skills so that we are attuned to listening for information that can help clarify and verify whether the assumptions we made about the other party are accurate or need to be modified. Either way, knowing more about the other party’s values and beliefs will support us in understanding the other person better and identifying resolutions that will appeal to his or her needs and interests. Using inquiry to gather information and reflecting back what we heard can assure the other party that we hear him or her and acknowledge this person’s interests. In order to do this well, we may first need to create the context that allows safety and trust to be built in order to expand the level of disclosure possible.

  Cultural Framing.

  The influences that develop who we are and how we see the world create frames from which we view, interpret, understand, and make meaning of our worlds. The more we develop our self-awareness and awareness of others, the more apparent these frames are to us and the more aware we can be about the perspectives we are taking and how these may be biasing our understanding of a situation. This in turn will also influence the decisions we make and the actions we take, and the same is true for our conversation partner. Transforming communication so that we transform conflict into constructive relationships requires us to broaden our perspectives so that we can see, interpret, understand, and make meaning from more than one perspective (Fisher-Yoshida, 2009). Using different frames offers us a broader spectrum of possibilities, which can allow us to be more creative in seeking mutually beneficial outcomes to a conflict situation.

  Stage 2: In the Moment

  Engaging in dialogue with others requires good listening skills to create shared understanding that is mutually beneficial. We are able to do this more effectively once we have a stronger sense of self-awareness and awareness of others because we will have been able to identify our core needs and interests through this exploration. The more developed this awareness is, the better equipped we will be to engage more deeply in empathic listening and clarify our own thoughts and feelings. It might be helpful to frame dialogic encounters as episodes (Pearce and Pearce, 2000) so we can clearly mark the beginning and end of a series of conversation turns within an interaction. This framing of a dialogue as an episode would lend itself to all three approaches to dialogue as building relationship, holding an event, and creating the context. This section addresses the dialogic episode by looking at relationship, context, and dialogic communication.

  Relationship.

  Dialogic communication builds relationship because within these dialogic episodes, we are engaging in quality communication that improves our mutual understanding. There is an increased chance of feeling heard and acknowledged, and this empathy can go a long way in improving relationship dynamics. In addition, through relationship building, we are able to address dynamics that may stem from power differences to level the playing field within these episodes. These dialogic episodes transform the very nature of our disjointed and destructive communication in conflict to one of mutual benefit and caring as we engage in meaning making in peace.

  Context.

  We need to create suitable conditions that make it easier for us to be open and receptive to listen to others more deeply and express ourselves in ways we want to be heard (Isaacs, 1999). This space needs to make us feel safe and to have trust in the process and others, which is a leap of faith when we have been in conflict. Having a facilitator (as mentioned in the Public Conversations Project work in Burundi) often provides the security for feeling safe and developing trust as the participants initially rely on the facilitator to be the protector and enforcer of the agreed-on ground rules. This responsibility will eventually be shared by all once their experiences in these dialogic episodes strengthen their relationships and trust.

  Dialogic Communication.

  The characteristics of dialogue communication include empathic listening in that our focus is on listening to understand. Gathering information through good listening skills helps us identify the core needs, interests, and feelings of the other party with whom we are in communication. Listening as a first step is a way to show caring and can then relax the other party and open him or her up to being more receptive to hearing what we have to say. There is a craft and an art to expressing ourselves constructively. The craft is to phrase our thoughts and feelings in ways that are easier for the other party to hear and accurately reflect what we want to say. The art involves developing sensitivity to timing, framing, pacing, and phrasing that is favorable to a constructive conversation and relationship building.

  We all make assumptions, which can be traced back to tactics we use for survival. In dialogue, it is important to temporarily suspend the assumptions we make or look for confirmation to prove them accurate or not. This deepens the connection we make with the other party, which shifts the tone of our interaction and improves the quality of the relationship.
Stringing a series of these dialogic episodes together can dramatically transform the nature of the relationship. New habits and patterns are being formed to replace the URPs that may have characterized the relationship and conflict in the past. There is mutual respect even in disagreement and a desire to honor and stay with the process because of the belief that it will lead to beneficial outcomes.

  Stage 3: Reflection

  There is much learning opportunity in the space we set aside for reflecting on our interactions and communication. Argyris and Schön (1974) identify reflection-on-action and reflection-in-action as two stages of reflective practice. When we engage in reflect-on-action, it is after a communication is completed, and we look back over what took place, assess the process and outcomes, and examine the status of the relationships as a result of that interaction. When we do this on a regular basis, we build up experience on reflecting and being able to identify best practices that we can then apply to future communication. Reflecting-in-action takes place when we can take a metaview of the situation and detach emotionally from what is happening so that we can look at it with an eye toward assessing the process and whether it is leading us toward desired outcomes. The advantage of reflecting-in-action is that we are better able to redirect our communication in the moment, as it is taking place, and ensure more constructive outcomes. Dialogic communication is what reflective learning can foster. It is a method that needs practice in order for it to become more deeply ingrained in how we operate on a regular basis. This section addresses reflective processes from the perspective of critical reflection and unwanted repetitive patterns.

  Critical Reflection.

  This can take place whether we are reflecting on action or in action as long as we are identifying our assumptions, beliefs, and perspectives. The act of critically reflecting stimulates us to become more conscious about what we think and feel and how that relates to the decisions we make and the actions we take. This process is a disciplined way to surface hidden assumptions we have about ourselves, other people, our situation, and the context and how this influences the perspective we take (Mezirow, 2000).

  One of our challenges is that when we are in the middle of an interaction and if it is a conflict situation, our emotions may cloud our judgment, and we will not be able to engage in reflection-in-action. In reflection-on-action after the interaction has concluded, and our emotions are back to normal, we can have a less biased and emotional view of the situation and may be able to gain insight into the interaction. Another model that might be useful in these situations to use individually or with others is the quadrants-of-reflection chart with guiding questions (Fisher-Yoshida and Geller, 2009). One axis represents the individual and group and the other in-action and on-action. A series of questions within each quadrant can be used to stimulate dialogue and reflection on the process of interaction. This is especially useful as a tool to use in teams to reflect on group process.

  Unwanted Repetitive Patterns.

  In addition to reflecting on our assumptions, beliefs, and perspectives, we can reflect on the patterns of our communication and whether any URPs are inhibiting us from having more productive communication. These URPs can be interrupted through this focus of consciousness by looking at our communication rather than through it. First, we need to recognize that our communication has fallen into a pattern of responses that is not benefiting us and may be causing our relationships to deteriorate. We then want to identify ways in which we can interrupt these patterns to change the dynamics for better outcomes.

  The more we have developed our self-awareness, the more we will know our core needs and interests. A model that may be useful to detecting URPs is the serpentine model in CMM (Pearce, 2007). This model helps to track the flow of the conversation, and within this flow, the parties take turns in the communication. Each one of these turns can be thought of as a bifurcation point or critical moment (Pearce, 2007). Bifurcation points are choice points we have within any communication episode. Someone says something to us as a first turn in a conversation, and we have a choice as to how to respond in the second turn. How we respond will influence the next choice or third turn our conversation partner makes, and so on. Each response stimulates a response from the other person. Being more deliberate about the choices we make will help direct the communication flow toward a more constructive and desirable outcome, creating new and healthier patterns of communication.

  CREATING NEW SOCIAL WORLDS MADE FROM DIALOGIC COMMUNICATION

  This chapter has focused on looking at ways to transform communication so that we shift from conflict communication to dialogic communication. This shift changes the quality of our communication, interactions, and relationships, resulting in better social worlds. Why is this important for sustaining a more constructive environment?

  If we think about the communication patterns we create and sustain out of habit, we can use this to our advantage by creating and sustaining healthier patterns of communication, which build healthier relationships. Earlier in the chapter we identified dialogic episodes as being more sustainable than ongoing dialogic communication and more expansive and extensive than dialogic moments. Making these dialogic episodes more of a reality, even if only an intention as a beginning, will support the creation of a different type of interaction from what may have been experienced in the past. It is certainly different from what happens between people in conflict.

  Conflict is habitual, and it engages us in URPs that lead us to destructive relationships and deteriorating social worlds. When we have experienced that over a period of time, it becomes tiresome and an energy drain. Turning these patterns upside down so that we create constructive habits and patterns is not only possible but desirable. They will be easier to sustain in small bites. The more we practice and support these dialogic episodes, the more they become a part of who we are, a part of our communities, and the new social worlds we are creating.

  References

  Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  Bohm, D. (1997). On dialogue. New York: Routledge.

  Buber, M. (1996). I and thou. (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). New York: Touchstone Book. (Originally published in 1970.)

  Cissna, K. N., & Anderson, R. (1994). Communication and the ground of dialogue. In R. Anderson, K. N. Cissna, & R. C. Arnett (Eds.), The reach of dialogue: Confirmation, voice, and community. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

  Deutsch, M. (1982). Interdependence and psychological orientation. In V. Derlega & J. L. Grzelak (Eds.), Cooperation and helping behavior: Theories and research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

  Ellinor, L., & Gerard, G. (1998). Dialogue: Rediscover the transforming power of conversation. New York: Wiley.

  Fisher-Yoshida, B. (2009). Coaching to transform perspective. In J. Mezirow & E. W. Taylor (Eds.), Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community, workplace, and higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  Fisher-Yoshida, B., & Geller, K. D. (2009). Transnational leadership development: Preparing the next generation for the borderless business world. New York: Amacom.

  Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together. New York: Currency.

  Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  Pearce, W. B. (2007). Making social worlds: A communication perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

  Pearce, K. A., & Pearce, W. B. (2000). Extending the theory of the coordinated management of meaning (CMM) through a community dialogue process. Communication Theory, 10, 405–423.

  Pearce, W. B., Sostrin, J., & Pearce, K. (2011). CMM solutions: Field guide for consultants. Tucson, AZ: You Get What You Make Publishing.

  Stewart, J., Zediker, K. E., & Black, L. (2004). Relationships among philosophies of dialogue. In K. Anderson, L. A. Bax
ter, & K. Cissna (Eds.), Dialogue: Theorizing difference in communication studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  Yankelovich, D. (1999). The magic of dialogue: Transforming conflict into cooperation. New York: Simon & Shuster.

  CHAPTER THIRTY-SEVEN

  AN EMPIRICALLY BASED APPROACH TO COUPLES’ CONFLICT

  John Gottman

  Julie S. Gottman

  Andy Greendorfer

  Mirabai Wahbe

  In this chapter we summarize the research strategy and major findings from approximately forty years of scientific research and clinical work in the study of couples. The basic initial research question was, “What discriminates relationships that work well, are stable, and reasonably happy from relationships that dissolve or stay together and are unhappy?” The initial hope was that there were indeed differences between successful and unsuccessful couples that were measurable, reliable, stable, and understandable.