If the other person has a difficult time expressing her feelings or opinions during conflict, offer an invitation for her to talk about her beliefs and feelings and assure her of protection once she has spoken. During conflict, many of us want to have the last word—and most of the words that went before it! So it isn’t always easy to encourage the other to talk by saying something like, “I’d like to know how it seems to you.” When the other person tells you her differing point of view on a tense topic, there is a strong tendency in many of us to argumentatively disagree, put the other person down, or angrily denounce them. It is not enough to invite the other to open up, you must protect them from your potentially angry attack. I find that this is incredibly difficult to do, but very important—especially when the other person is underassertive.
Finally, a careful appraisal of the full consequences and cost of a conflict may deter you from involving yourself in needless disputes. It is difficult to estimate the cost of a conflict, because emotional interactions are unpredictable and frequently get out of hand. Nonetheless, it is a dumb fighter who hasn’t tried to estimate the consequences of engaging in an unnecessary dispute.
GROUP/ORGANIZATIONAL
CONFLICT PREVENTION
AND CONTROL METHODS
Certain kinds of social arrangements breed needless conflict, other procedures and structures keep unrealistic conflict at a minimum, while still other social arrangements block facing and hence resolving realistic conflict. Let’s look at some types of social arrangements for families, groups, businesses, individual relationships, and so on that help to prevent the development of needless controversy.
The way an organization (or a relationship) is structured has a bearing on the amount of conflict generated in it. For example, Eugene Litwak claims that the potential for conflict tends to be greater in centralized, bureaucratic organizations than in organizations where there is less centralized control.19 Rensis Likert’s extensive research enables him to place organizations on a continuum from fairly rigid to fairly flexible institutions. The more rigid institutions, according to Likert, have less effective communication and are less adept at managing conflict constructively than are the organizations at the other end of the continuum.20
The personality and methods of the leader are also important. Managers who have low levels of defensiveness21 and who are supportive22 tend to help people in their organizations avert unnecessary strife. Though it is possible for a “weaker party” to inaugurate the use of constructive conflict resolution and conflict prevention methods, a person in a position of power, one who has great charisma, or one who has developed effective communication skills tends to have the greatest influence on the way conflict is handled.
The climate of a group also influences the amount of conflict it generates. Though some kinds of competition can be healthy, research evidence suggests that win/lose competition fosters needless conflict and diminishes the ability to resolve disputes effectively. On the other hand, cooperating to achieve goals that could not be accomplished without joint effort promotes more genuine harmony.23
Well-conceived and clearly stated policies and procedures which have the understanding and support of the relevant persons create orderly processes which can help mitigate unnecessary chaos and conflict. Think of the vastly increased number of accidents and disputes that would occur on our highways if there were no rules of the road! Some people would be driving on the left-hand side of the road and some on the right-hand side, and incidents of strife would multiply enormously.
Polygamous marriages, though they are uncommon in our society, graphically demonstrate the need for clear-cut policies and procedures to prevent a surplus of conflict. Robert Blood writes:
Whenever there are several wives but only one husband, the danger of jealousy and conflict among the wives is very acute. It is not surprising, therefore, that polygamous societies have devised … measures for preventing the outbreak of conflict. (1) Avoidance is achieved by placing each wife and her children in a separate hut. (2) Authority over subsequent wives is usually allocated to the first wife—her position is thereby less threatened and the loss of exclusive wifehood is offset by the addition of maid service. (3) More important for our present purposes is that the man treat his wives equally, that he not play favorites among them. This often takes the form of requiring the husband to follow a strict schedule of rotation among his wives, spending an equal number of nights with each in turn.
Robert Blood goes on to say that in the contemporary American household the presence of certain policies and procedures are essential to conflict management. This, of course, is true of business and other organizations. On the other hand, when policies and procedures do not meet the needs of the organization or its members, when they are arrived at arbitrarily and administered highhandedly, they can add to the level of unrealistic conflict in the organization.
The degree of change and the methods by which change is introduced into a family or other organization influences the amount and severity of disputes in that institution. In a rapidly changing society, families and other organizations must change to some degree, sometimes significantly, or experience the tension of being unresponsive to the surrounding culture. At the same time, too rapid a change, or change utilizing inadequate methods of communication, can create significant and needless conflict.
Mechanisms to settle grievances need to be established. Kenneth Boulding says that the major factor in the negotiation of conflicts between organized groups is not the establishment of an agreement so much as the setting up of machinery for the adjudication of subsequent grievances and claims. According to him, labor and management made little progress when they focused exclusively on obtaining settlement of an issue. They made great progress, however, when there was an emphasis on the inclusion of machinery for the fair settlement of grievances that might arise thereafter.24
“Emotional plague” is a source of much unnecessary conflict. Psychotherapist Wilhelm Reich coined this term, which I use somewhat more broadly than he did. It is the affliction of people who behave in destructive ways to those who pose no threat to them. “Plague” individuals may be attractive, intelligent, and active. When they come in contact with a healthy, loving life or someone intensely involved in constructive work, they often do whatever they can to block or destroy the other’s fulfillment. Nineteen hundred years ago when the crowd insisted that Barabbas’ life be spared instead of Jesus’, “emotional plague” was at work.25
“Emotional plague,” like some other diseases, should be treated by isolation. I choose not to hire these persons into our organization or admit them into my relationships. The trouble is that emotional plague may be difficult or even impossible to spot at first. When these persons are finally discovered they need to be fired from the organization or decisively terminated from personal relationships. If someone with emotional plague is in one’s family, the choices are indeed difficult.
Training for conflict management is necessary both for the prevention of needless conflict and for the resolution of the conflicts that are inevitable in any relationship or organization. My bias is that presentations alone are virtually useless. To be able to use sound methods in stressful conflict situations requires skill development. Further conflict management skills should be taught as part of a training program that includes listening, assertion, and collaborative problem-solving skills. Finally, the training should be but one aspect of the family or organization’s effort to utilize conflict better. Agreed-upon ways of preventing and resolving conflict, adequate channels of communication, mechanisms for handling grievances—these and other methods when combined with effective training are parts of a comprehensive program of conflict management.
THE DANGERS
OF CONFLICT PREVENTION
AND CONTROL
Some conflict can be prevented constructively. Some conflict can be judiciously controlled to the benefit of all concerned. But much conflict needs to be faced and resolved at
the earliest possible moment. When prevention and control strategies are used unwisely, they merely postpone the inevitable. The final result is worse than an early, direct resolution of the strife.
When some people want to dodge conflict altogether, they tend to misuse the prevention and control strategies listed above. Others use denial, avoidance, capitulation, or domination as mechanisms for keeping their lives free of the unpleasantness of strife.
SUMMARY
Conflict, which is unavoidable in human life, is disruptive at best and horribly destructive at worst—yet some forms of conflicts have important benefits. There are two very different kinds of conflict. In realistic conflict there are opposing needs, goals, or values. Nonrealistic conflict, on the other hand, stems from ignorance, error, historical tradition and prejudice, poor organizational structure, displaced hostility, or the need for tension release. To a large degree, nonrealistic conflict can be prevented or controlled utilizing the personal and group prevention and control methods outlined in this chapter. Efforts to repress conflict by denial, avoidance, capitulation, or domination only postpone the conflict and make the rupture more difficult to mend.
The next chapter presents a tested method for resolving the emotional dimensions of realistic conflict. Chapter 14 goes on to teach how the substantive differences of most realistic conflicts can be settled in such a way that the needs of both parties are satisfied.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
Handling
the Emotional
Components
of Conflict
The point here is that, while my emotions are throbbing with these fears, angers, and self-defensive urges, I am in no condition to have an open-minded, honest and loving discussion with you or with anyone else. I will need … emotional clearance and ventilation … before I will be ready for this discussion.1
—John Powell, theologian
FOCUS
ON THE EMOTIONS FIRST
A useful distinction can be made between the emotional and the substantive aspects of conflict. The emotional components include anger, distrust, defensiveness, scorn, resentment, fear, and rejection. When feelings are strong it is usually a sound strategy to deal with the emotional aspects of conflict first. Substantive issues can be handled more constructively once the emotions have subsided.
The substantive issues involve conflicting needs, disagreements over policies and practices, and differing conceptions of roles and uses of resources.
These two aspects of conflict interact with one another. Substantive conflict often generates emotional conflict—anger, distrust, and so on. And emotional conflict may multiply the substantive issues. These two dimensions are often intertwined and difficult to separate.
Many approaches to conflict resolution stress the importance of rationally examining specific issues at the outset. My experience suggests that this should usually be the second step. When feelings run high, rational problem solving needs to be preceded by a structured exchange of the emotional aspects of the controversy. After this has been accomplished and the emotions recede, the persons or group may proceed to the next stage—a rational and creative examination of the substantive issues (if any) that divide them.
There is a reason why the rational approach rarely works when the emotions are strongly engaged. Emotional arousal actually makes us different people than we are in moments of greater calmness. When we are angry or fearful, our adrenaline flows faster and our strength increases by about 20 percent. The liver, pumping sugar into the bloodstream, demands more oxygen from the heart and lungs. The veins become enlarged and the cortical centers where thinking takes place do not perform nearly as well. As we’ve noted previously, the blood supply to the problem-solving part of the brain is severely decreased because, under stress, a greater portion of blood is diverted to the body’s extremities. George Odiorne, a management consultant, says, “This is an emotional condition that the person is in, and it means that, while he’s beautifully equipped for a brawl, he’s very poorly equipped to get a problem solved.”2
In conflict resolution, then, the first goal is to deal constructively with the emotions. That is the purpose of what I call “the conflict resolution method.”*
THE CONFLICT
RESOLUTION METHOD
The conflict resolution method can be thought of as a set of simple rules that govern conflict. We have learned through the centuries that conflict can be too dangerous if it is not governed by regulations. Thus, when burly wrestlers attack each other on the mat, they know they will be protected from certain types of violence by the rules which govern that sport. When the heavyweight boxer climbs into the ring, he has the security of knowing that there are certain things his opponent cannot attempt because the rules forbid it and the referee will enforce the rules. When political parties battle for the privilege of ruling the country, they agree to obey specific laws. Even when nations go to war there are some agreed-upon rules of conduct. But in some of the most important areas of life our conflicts are largely unregulated. For example, when a husband and wife pitch into each other, there are usually no agreed-upon rules designed to protect them or their marriage. The conflict resolution method described in this chapter provides a simple but practical set of rules that enable conflict to be more constructive.
While this conflict resolution method can be thought of as a set of rules to govern interpersonal strife, it can also be viewed as a constructive process for handling emotion-laden disagreements. This process encourages assertive communication and the expression of feeling, but it does not permit the typical verbal free-for-all which blocks creative resolution of conflict and which tends to be very destructive of relationships. The three-step process of conflict resolution helps people fight constructively—in a systematic, noninjurious, growth-producing way.
Step 1: Treat the Other Person
with Respect
What does it mean to treat the other person with respect in the midst of a controversy? Clark Moustakas, a psychologist, says:
In the creative dispute, the persons involved are aware of the other’s full legitimacy. Neither loses sight of the fact that they are seeking … to express the truth as they see it. In no way is either person reduced by this. Such a confrontation, within a healthy atmosphere of love and genuine relatedness, enables each individual to maintain a unique sense of self, to grow authentically through real communication with other persons, and to realize the worth of simplicity and directness in relationships.3
Martin Buber, one of the modern world’s finest philosophers, tried to put his philosophy of dialogue into operation in the social, religious, and political turmoil of the Middle East. In his book The Knowledge of Man, he portrayed the respectful way of relating to others which he tried to embody amid the turbulent conflicts within which he was enmeshed:
When two men inform one another of their basically different views about an object, each aiming to convince the other of the tightness of his own way of looking at the matter, everything depends, so far as human life is concerned, on whether each thinks of the other as the one he is, whether each, that is, with all his desire to influence the other, nevertheless unreservedly accepts and confirms him in his being this man and in his being made in this particular way. The strictness and depth of human individuation, the elemental otherness of the other, is then not merely noted as the necessary starting point, but is affirmed from the one being to the other. The desire to influence the other then does not mean the effort to change the other, to inject one’s own “rightness” into him; but it means the effort to let that which is recognized as right, as just, as true (and for that very reason must also be established there, in the substance of the other) through one’s influence, take seed and grow in the form suited to individuation.4
Respect for another person is an attitude conveyed by specific behaviors. The way I listen to the other, look at him, my tone of voice, my selection of words, the type of reasoning I use—these either convey my respect or they co
mmunicate disrespect.
Unfortunately, a disagreement with another person’s beliefs or values or a conflict of needs often degenerates into disrespect for both the other person’s ideas and his personhood. Even when I greatly respect another person, I am apt, in the heat of conflict, to disparage him. I may speak in put-down vocabulary: “What a dope! That’s the dumbest idea I’ve heard in years!” Or I may turn sarcastic: “That’s a marvelous idea, but it will take all the gold in Fort Knox to pay for it.” Or I may attack the person and undermine his sense of self-worth. These words of disrespect are often spoken carelessly, but they block the current of communication and create wounds that may never fully heal.
After an angry outburst I have said, “You know I didn’t mean that. I was just mad and wasn’t thinking of what I was saying.” But the other person tends to think, “The fact that you said it shows that it was on your mind. It took a burst of anger for me to find out what you really feel about me.”
Some people think their disrespectful thoughts but do not say them outright. When one’s attitude toward the other is disrespectful, his body language whispers the truth. The other will read it in his facial expression, tone of voice, gestures, and so on. This also blocks the conversation and may cause long-term damage to the relationship.
In conflict we tend to descend to meet. There is an interpersonal gravitation that tends to pull us down to the level of disrespect for the other person. There is an inclination to stereotype the other. When this happens we talk at each other or past each other, not with each other.
People Skills_How to Assert Yourself, Listen to Others, and Resolve Conflicts Page 28