It is more common, however, for the third party to explain the three steps of the conflict resolution process and secure the agreement of all parties to use the process. Then he facilitates the process, primarily by reminding people to follow the process when they slip off into other ways of interacting. Occasionally the third party may summarize the major issues raised by each person. The role of the third party is to stay out of the conflict, help others use a method by which they can communicate under stress, and help them learn a method that will enable them to handle future conflicts successfully without third-party assistance.
PREPARATION
FOR THE ENCOUNTER
Psychologist George Bach who has conducted “fair fight training” with couples and businessmen for over a decade, says that the mutual agreement to engage in conflict can be crucial to a productive outcome. According to Bach and Herb Goldberg:
The fair fight is implemented by the “initiator” who has a beef or complaint. He requests the other person (“fight partner”) to engage him in a fair fight. If the “fight partner” agrees to accept, a time and place for the fight is set.
The “engagement” process is critical for offsetting the tendency to jump right in and have it out on the spot. This would only result in one person being caught off guard, and a rapid spiral of destructive encountering would ensue. A fair fight is therefore always conducted upon mutual consent and under agreed-upon conditions.10
People commonly plunge impetuously into many of their conflicts without ascertaining whether or not the timing is right for them and whether or not the other person consents to fight, and without securing agreement on the conditions that can make the conflict productive. Once their dander is up, even those people who tend to shy away from conflict are likely to plunge into battle without first seeking agreement on the conditions for a productive dispute.
Here are some things worth checking out. Do each of us have sufficient emotional energy for this conflict? If a friend is going through a painful divorce, I may choose not to confront him on matters that I would bring up under a different set of circumstances.
Who should be there? As a general rule, the people who are involved should be there and people who aren’t involved shouldn’t be at the scene of conflict. When you are first learning to fight productively it is often easiest to do it unobserved—except perhaps by a mutually agreed-upon third party. Sometimes bystanders take sides or one of the disputants becomes self-conscious. Besides, a strong fight is seldom enjoyable to hear. Why inflict your conflict on other people? One can go too far in this direction, however. Conflict need not always be conducted in secrecy as though it were an evil thing. Then, too, when parents allow children to overhear some of their conflicts it helps the youngsters develop a more realistic understanding of human relationships.
When is the best time? Is there a period when you are both unlikely to be fatigued, when you can take as long for the conflict as is required, and when you can have time afterwards for reconciliation, problem solving, evaluation of how fairly and effectively you fought, and so on?
Where is the best place? Usually you will want to be isolated from the distraction of the telephone, radio, TV, and other people. Another consideration is the neutrality of the turf—should you fight on your ground, in the other person’s area, or in space that “belongs” to neither of you (or an area common to both of you)?
While each of these issues can be significant, the most important part of preparation is to refrain from a surprise attack on the other. The fight that begins with mutual consent and agreed-upon conditions (including the use of the conflict resolution method) is off to a good start.
EVALUATING THE CONFLICT
Many of the benefits of conflict listed earlier are not achieved or are only partially achieved because the people did not engage in a productive fight or because they did not take the time afterwards to learn the lessons of their conflict.
After the fight it is well to have a dialogue with your fight partner about how you fought and what you learned. If that is not possible, you may wish to have an inner dialogue about the process and results of the fight. The ideal, of course, is to process the fight with your partner and mull it over in your own mind from time to time. Here are some questions that may help you learn from your conflicts:11
What have I learned from this fight?
Can I learn anything from this fight about one or more of the things that tend to “push my button” or pushes the other person’s button? Specifically what “triggering event” started this fight?
How well did I (or we) use the conflict resolution process: preparation, respect, listening, stating my view, evaluation?
How badly was I hurt?
How badly was my partner hurt?
How valuable was this fight for my partner and me in letting off steam?
How useful was it in revealing new information about myself, my partner, and the issue in contention?
Did either of us change our opinions at all? If so, what do I think of the new positions we arrived at?
What did I find out about my own and my partner’s fight style, strategy, and weapons?
Are we closer together or farther apart as a result of this fight?
What do I want to do differently the next time I’m in a conflict?
What do I wish my partner would do differently the next time he and I fight?
EXPECTED OUTCOMES
OF THE CONFLICT RESOLUTION METHOD
One of the most dramatic outcomes of the conflict resolution method is its effect on the emotionality of an interaction. This method encourages the genuine and direct expression of feeling by one person at a time. When feelings are expressed, then heard and accepted by another person, they tend to be very transient. This method enables the rapid discharge of heightened emotion so people can then discuss their differences more productively.
A second outcome of this method for me is that I may grow in understanding and change. After all, I do not possess the whole truth. When I really hear another person so deeply that I experience the persuasiveness of some of his convictions, I may adapt some new ideas and methods or integrate part of the other person’s approach with mine. Also, when I am really challenged in a fair fight, I discover that which in my own experience is most rooted in reality. So at the same time I am integrating new insights I am strengthening those things that deserve to remain influential in my life and value system.
Another possible result of the conflict resolution method is that the other person may change. As Carl Rogers put it, “If I can listen to what he can tell me, if I can understand how it seems to him, if I can see its personal meaning for him, if I can sense the emotional flavor which it has for him, then I will be releasing potent forces of change in him.”12 Then, too, the skillful way in which I state my own point of view increases the probability of change in the other. However, the purpose of this method is improved communication in stressful times. It is important to realize that many times the other will not significantly alter his beliefs or behaviors.
Another frequent: result of this approach to conflict resolution is that the two parties may be ready to jointly develop a creative solution to the substantive issues of the conflict. This three-step process, you recall, was designed to deal with the emotional issues of a dispute, not the substantive ones. Once the emotions have subsided, the substantive issues can usually be resolved by means of the collaborative problem-solving process described in the next chapter.
This conflict resolution method can also be used to handle values conflicts constructively. Some of the most damaging fights are over values issues. When people hold different values at the beginning of a conversation it is unusual for them to have a complete meeting of the minds when the interaction ends. When this conflict resolution method is used in values clashes, the goal is to understand one another better, perhaps influence each other to some degree, and to agree to disagree on the issues that remain. This process enables the partie
s in a values conflict to communicate face to face until acceptance of the right to differ occurs. People can remain at odds in terms of some issues without being at odds with each other. The dialogue between Meg and Don demonstrated this type of outcome.
Finally, handling conflict this way tends to deepen and enrich companionships. Relationships tend to falter because the individuals in them don’t know how to handle the differences between them. To ignore the differences is to resign yourselves to a superficial relationship. To fight over the differences using inadequate methods causes heartache and blows conflicts out of proportion until they may needlessly dominate a relationship. When using the conflict resolution method, the truth and being of each is confronted caringly by the truth and being of the other. As a result, each person meets the other in depth, and after thrashing out the conflict they often experience a deep feeling of harmony and camaraderie.
This kind of harmony at the other side of conflict not only occurs between neighbors, friends, spouses, parents and children, and people in work relationships, it can also be experienced where there is national, religious, or racial hatred. Carl Rogers met with a group of five Protestants and four Catholics during the conflict and terrorism in Northern Ireland. The sister of one participant had been blown up by a bomb. Another had hidden behind mattresses while his home was riddled with bullets. The children of another were brutalized by British soldiers. These people met for a weekend of sharing facilitated by skillful leadership. By the end of the weekend “these centuries-old hatreds were not only softened but in instances deeply changed” and friendships were forged that cut across ideological differences.13
A Boston University professor wanted to “demonstrate that it is possible for a group of people with deep differences and antagonisms to learn to communicate with one another as human beings and start working together on solving problems.”14 In collaboration with Boston’s WBZ television station, he brought together a group of blacks and whites for a televised encounter lasting for more than a dozen hours. The session was facilitated by professional group leaders. The group began with several hours of attacks and recriminations on each other. Newsweek reports the change that occurred as participants began using elements of the conflict resolution method:
A Negro woman teacher set a totally new tone by abruptly giving a long, moving explanation of what it felt like to be black. Mrs. [Louise Day] Hicks [outspoken champion of the “neighborhood” schools], who has been accused by blacks of appealing to racism, responded sympathetically. “I just didn’t understand before,” she said. “No one ever told me.” Then she dropped her own aggressive mien and sorrowfully explained how agonizing it was for her to carry the image of a racist. At the end of her highly candid discourse, another Negro woman exclaimed: “You have been the symbol of everything I’ve always hated. But now for the first time I’ve seen you as a human being—and I want to see you again, Louise.” … [The] Negro militant who had clashed with Mrs. Hicks more than anyone else felt differently enough about things to attempt a little joke. “Tonight … I would like to announce my engagement to Louise Day Hicks.”15
When people use the conflict resolution method skillfully, the effects are usually positive—often dramatically so. Still, conflict is unpredictable, and no method of human interaction can be guaranteed.
SUMMARY
During a conflict, focus on the emotions first. One way of doing this constructively is to use the conflict resolution method:
treat the other with respect;
listen and restate to the other’s satisfaction; and
briefly state your point of view.
This method can be used by you alone or by agreement with the other, or it can be facilitated by a neutral third party. Preparation for a conflict is important and includes mutual consent and agreed-upon conditions for the fight. After the conflict a period of evaluation will help you learn from the fight and also learn how to fight more productively the next time. As a result of using this method, emotions are vented and usually subside fairly quickly, one or both parties may change, people can express themselves on values issues and “agree to disagree,” and the emotional bonds between people tend to grow stronger. The best human relationships usually exist on the other side of conflict.
*When we call this “the conflict resolution method,” it doesn’t mean that we think it is the only effective approach to dealing with the emotional tension of conflict. Someone on our staff started calling it this, and the label has stuck through the years.
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
Collaborative
Problem Solving:
Seeking an Elegant Solution
The problem-solving approach allows for mental double-declutching. It does not require a direct switch from one point of view to another. It provides a period “in neutral” where there is an openness to facts and, therefore, a willingness to consider an alternative view.1
—William Reddin, management consultant
THREE KINDS OF CONFLICT
There are basically three kinds of conflict. One is a conflict of emotions. In any significant relationship, because people are human and differences are inevitable, strong antagonistic feelings will develop. These can usually be resolved using the conflict resolution method outlined in the preceding chapter. Then there are values conflicts. There is rarely any “solution” to this type of conflict because nothing concrete or tangible is involved for the person who is upsetting herself. However, the use of the conflict resolution method may help people with opposing beliefs to better understand one another, help them to develop more tolerance for each other’s position, and occasionally influence their attitudes and actions.
The third type of conflict, a conflict of needs, is the subject of this chapter. After the values issues have been sorted out and the emotional components resolved, there are often substantive issues that remain to be settled.
Here are some examples of recent conflicts of needs in my life:
My Need Other’s Need
To have transportation to do necessary shopping tonight.
To have for an important date.
To have our home telephone “open” for an expected long-distance call.
To talk with friends about a mutual problem.
To have important typing projects completed.
To be with your young children because of problems with a babysitter.
To have the grounds of our Conference Center look well.
To avoid aches caused by the use of heavy equipment.
Each of these problems was settled in such a way that the needs of both parties were met. Before examining the collaborative problem-solving method that I employed to resolve those interpersonal problems, let’s review some of the other options which are commonly used.
ALTERNATIVES
TO COLLABORATIVE
PROBLEM SOLVING
There are four fairly common alternatives to collaborative problem solving: denial, avoidance, capitulation, and domination. Each can be used appropriately on occasion. Repeated use of any of these options, however, leads to predictable negative consequences.
Denial
Conflicts are so threatening to some people that they deny the existence of interpersonal problems. They do nothing about the problem except deny it, that is, exclude it from conscious awareness. The repression of conflict means “pretending” to oneself and others that everything is all right. In every age people have deluded themselves, crying, “‘Peace, peace’ when there is no peace.”2
When a person consistently denies that problems exist, she makes herself unnecessarily vulnerable in a world that can be dangerous. Repeated denial often leads to psychosomatic illness and other forms of psychological distress.
Avoidance
Some people are aware of interpersonal conflicts of needs; they simply do everything within their power to avoid facing them. They withdraw from situations when strife occurs. Or they gloss over the problem, acting as though it doesn’t exist. Many
couples build a falsely peaceful façade for a marriage that is ridden with conflicts.
Premature forgiveness can be a well-intentioned but destructive way of avoiding conflict. Premature forgiveness is an effort to patch up a relationship without working through the angry and hurt feelings and other conflicted realities of the relationship. Here again, the feelings go underground where they may build to the point of being uncontrollable.
Repeated avoidance of problems results in a greatly diminished existence. The paradox of avoidance is that people often use it to try to keep a healthy relationship. Yet avoidance undermines a relationship and leads to the bleak, chilly distance which I call ice-o-lation. Withdrawal often becomes a continuous retreat from the opportunities of the world. Furthermore, continued avoidance leads inevitably to denial and all its negative effects.
Capitulation
When confronted by someone else’s need that conflicts with their own need, many people capitulate. They give in, often without a struggle. They go through life without getting their needs met. Some parents use a “permissive” approach to childrearing. In actual practice this may be repeatedly expressed in capitulation to the child’s needs, wants, and desires in spite of one’s own legitimate needs, which go unmet.
When one habitually capitulates to another person there is a “flow of resentment” toward that person. One psychologist, speaking on the dangers of permissiveness, told a group of parents, “If you want to hate your child, just let him win all the time. That’s a sure formula.”
People Skills_How to Assert Yourself, Listen to Others, and Resolve Conflicts Page 30