Archive for Resolving Conflict – Page 2

Communication breakdowns are a common cause for conflict, and poor communication strategies can lead to rapid escalation. Likewise, effective communication strategies can help you correct these miscommunications to move conflicts quickly towards resolution.

One idea that can help you choose the best communication strategy for the situation comes from what I call the communication continuum.

The continuum runs from passive strategies on the left to aggressive strategies on the right. In passive strategies, you communicate in a way that protects the other person’s interests at the expense of yours. Aggressive strategies represent the other extreme where you communicate in a way that protects your interests at the expense of the other person’s.

Assertive communication strategies lie in the middle. These strategies depend on approaches that protect the interests of both parties in the communication – yours and the other person’s.

Assertive communication approaches represent a range of techniques rather than a single point on the continuum. Some of the approaches lie a little to the left of middle – they are a little more passive – and other approaches lie a little to the right of middle – they are a little more aggressive. Wherever they lie on the continuum, all assertive strategies have this in common – the interests of both parties are protected. Depending on the situation, you might choose to go a little more passive or a little more aggressive within the assertive range.

Whether it sits a little left of center or a little right of center, the guiding principle behind all assertive communication techniques is that the technique allows you to effectively express your needs and concerns in a way that respects the needs and concerns of the other person.

Here are some guidelines for communicating assertively…

  1. Use “I” statements.
    State your perspective as your perspective or interpretation without resorting to statements that blame the other person. For example, “You made me angry”  is aggressive while “I felt angry” is assertive.
  2. Focus on behaviors.
    Avoid the desire to slip into interpretations like calling the other person rude or insensitive. Comment on their behaviors or words without labeling them.
  3. Keep your responses short.
    The longer you talk, the more likely you are to slip into either passive or aggressive techniques.
  4. Monitor your tone of voice and non-verbal messages.
    You can choose just the right words and ruin it with a sharp tone or aggressive posture.
  5. Listen.
    Pay close attention to what they have to say as well. If you do not listen, you will become aggressive.
  6. Maintain appropriate eye contact.
    Too little eye contact and you could be perceived as dishonest. Too much eye contact and you could come across as aggressive.  In most situations in North America, relatively steady eye contact with brief breaks every few seconds is probably appropriate.

Here are some ways you can apply the general guidelines to communicate assertively without slipping too far into either passive or aggressive communication:

  • “When you (their behavior), I feel/felt (your feeling/interpretation).”
  • “When you said/did (their words/actions), I understood that to mean (your interpretation).”
  • “I see/perceive (a behavior, tone, or word choice), to mean (your interpretation).”

One of the common questions I get as I lead workshops and work with my coaching clients is:

How do I decide if a conflict is worth the effort to resolve?

I think this is a great question. Honestly, resolving a conflict can take lots of emotional energy. While I think it is generally a good idea to work with other people to productively resolve conflicts, I recognize that you do not need to invest this energy to resolve every conflict you might experience. Here are a few times when you might decide to avoid the conflict rather than work to resolve it.

  • When you do not care about the long-term health of your relationship with the other person.
  • When you have little concern about the outcome of the situation.
  • If you are concerned that the other person will resort to physical violence if you engage in a resolution conversation with them.

I’m still thinking through other situations when it might be reasonable to avoid the conflict rather than resolve it, and I think this represents a pretty good short-list of considerations when you make the decision.

As I said, in general I suggest that conflict resolution is worth the effort even though some situations might lead you in a different direction.

I would love to see your thoughts on this topic in the comments section.

Stuck in the pastToday, as I sat in an airport business lounge waiting for a flight, I overheard bits and pieces of another traveler’s conversation. I wasn’t trying to overhear. I just couldn’t help but overhear because his volume kept getting progressively louder.

From what I could tell, he was engaged in a bit of a conflict conversation.

I could also tell that he was making a common mistake that rarely, if ever, leads to conflict resolution and almost always leads to conflict escalation. Based on the bits and pieces of conversation that I overheard, I think the person on the other end of the phone call was making this mistake as well.

The symptoms of the mistake manifested as:

  • Justifying behaviors
  • Explaining why he was right
  • Showing the other person why he was wrong
  • Rehashing what had already happened
  • No focus on what to do the next time this situation occurred to make it turn out better

The root cause of the problem stems from focusing on the past rather than the future. I wrote about this challenge previously in my post about the 7 Deadly Sins of Conflict Resolution.

If you want to guarantee conflict escalation, keep revisiting the past — past statements, past actions, past reasons, past thinking, etc.

Talking about the past is like throwing out an anchor. It stops forward progress and keeps the conversation stuck in problem discussion rather than problem solving.

Problem discussion becomes negative and accusatory, if it goes on too long.

Problem solving is about finding ways to set and meet mutual expectations and how to interact with and behave towards each other so that conflicts do not recur.

If you want to productively resolve conflicts, move quickly to a future focus. Only stay in the past long enough to understand how the miscommunication or misunderstanding happened, and then look for ways you can interact with the other person in the future to stop the problem from happening again.

I tend to notice how people respond to certain words. I guess that’s something of an “occupational hazard” for me.

As I watch how people respond, I look for patterns. And I see a strong pattern developing around three words (and some variations) that almost certainly guarantee that a conflict will start or escalate if you use them carelessly.

So that you can beware of them slipping into your communications (especially in conflict situations), I’ll share the three common conflict escalation words:

No

While I’m not suggesting that you never use the word no, I am suggesting that you be sensitive to how and when you use it. I have noticed that some people tend to start many statements with this word. And, I have carefully observed the body language of people who receive the “no” statement. It is almost universally negative.

But

I have written on the dangers of this word previously. Today, I’ll share three other words that have essentially the same impact: however, except, and yet. My friend and colleague, JJ Brun, says that these words are “polite buts,” and I agree with him.

Always

My real point here is to beware of using words with an absolute or final connotation. Another word that fits in this category is never.

The next time you find yourself in a conflict or confrontation situation, beware of these words and their common variations. Remember to use them intentionally — to make a specific point — rather than out of habit because they are the first words that come to mind.

A little over a week ago, my wife and I drove our daughter from Indiana to Texas to begin her freshman year of college. On the return trip, we drove through Oklahoma. As is common this time of year, we encountered road construction marked with a sign similar to the one above, and I felt frustrated as I thought about the coming  delay.

We then saw another sign with additional information. The sign with additional information gave us an estimate of both the actual speed and the estimated time in minutes that we could expect to drive through the construction zone, and I felt relieved.

The actual speed was much slower than the posted speed. The estimated time we would drive in the construction zone was longer than I wanted to experience. The delay was the same, and, still, I felt relieved.

At that moment I gained a powerful insight into heading off conflicts before they start.

As I wrote previously about why your natural response to conflict is probably wrong and how conflicts escalate, we often feel angry or frustrated as conflicts get started — just as I felt frustrated when I first saw the construction signs.

In my driving situation, the frustration dissipated when I got further information. The speed I could drive and the time I would likely spend in the construction zone did not change. The delay I would  face did not change. Nothing about my experience would change.

The change in my frustration level came from knowledge about what to expect.  And that is the insight I had about heading off conflict.

When you communicate clearly about what people can expect in the future — even when they do not like what they will experience  — you will probably reduce the frustration and anger levels they feel as a result of the experience. By reducing their frustration and anger levels, you can reduce the emotional energy that they bring to their interactions with you about the issue in question. When you reduce the emotional energy, you reduce the risk that the communication will escalate to a destructive conflict.