When It All Goes Wrong: Effective Conflict Resolution

Speaker: 00:00:00

th of January,: 2024

Speaker: 00:01:08

nal of Managerial Sciences in: 2009

Speaker: 00:02:45

Conflict of Interest This occurs when there is tension in how limited resources are allocated between two or more parties. Usually, each party agrees on the fundamentals of the situation, but they are in essence competing for the same resources and are therefore at odds. Retributive Conflict As the name suggests, this describes a conflict where one or both parties is engaged in punishing the other for some perceived crime—usually an instance of that party trying to punish them! Conflict in Values This is not a disagreement about facts (i.e., what is) but about principles, values, and beliefs (i.e., what could or ought to be). Goal Conflict This occurs when people cannot agree on a shared goal. Displaced Conflict This is a kind of secondary conflict; both parties may shift their hostilities onto a third, unrelated party, or focus on irrelevant issues and fight about those instead of the real problem. Of course, people are endlessly creative in the ways they clash with one another, so any particular conflict can be a unique blend of a few of the above or change over time from one to another. Understanding the type of conflict you’re dealing with is a great first step in resolving it.

Speaker: 00:04:12

As we’ve already seen, getting an insight into the unmet emotional needs behind conflict (that is, relatedness, certainty, autonomy, fairness, and so on) can give us a way forward in addressing those needs and relieving conflict. The Thomas Kilmann Model Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann are the two researchers behind this method of conflict resolution. According to the model, people come into conflict simply because they have different ideas, values, motivations, or wants. The main way around this difference is to use plenty of both assertiveness and empathy. Broadly, however, the model outlines five conflict-resolution strategies: competing, avoiding, accommodating, collaborating, and compromising. Each strategy is a quite different approach to navigating conflict. None is right—each has their own pros and cons, and the one that will work best is the one that most accommodates the unique facts of the circumstances. Empathy and assertiveness are present in all five models, but in varying degrees.

Speaker: 00:05:25

You can imagine a matrix with empathy on one axis, and assertiveness on the other. Let’s take a closer look. 1. Competing On the matrix, this strategy is high assertiveness, low empathy. This is the tactic of working out disagreements using aggression or competition, which can be thought of as low-key aggression. Whatever the degree, it’s about working against the other person, not with them. The strategy is great when you genuinely are in a position of control or authority, and also when you don’t necessarily have the time, money, or energy to solve the problem or be overly empathetic. This tactic can actually work (if “work” means bring some kind of resolution to the conflict), but obviously, it won’t win you any friends and your competition may alienate people to the extent that they no longer want to “play” with you. 2. Avoiding Characterized by low assertiveness and low empathy.

Speaker: 00:06:29

This position is basically attempting not to engage at all. You don’t defend your own position or make your point, but you’re also not making any special attempts to listen to the other person’s concerns. Naturally, there’s a time and place for this approach. If you know for certain that you have very little power in the situation, and that the other person is unlikely to budge or listen, then it makes sense to just walk away. The approach becomes a bad choice if the conflict is actually your responsibility or even your fault, and a response to it is expected. Not responding can come across as disrespectful or weak and may actually increase negative feelings and create a bigger conflict down the road. 3. Accommodating The approach using low assertiveness but high empathy. This is the peacekeeper’s tactic.

Speaker: 00:07:25

Such a person will try hard to work things out, make concessions, and find some harmony. They’ll tend to go along with satisfying others’ needs just to keep the peace and err on the side of not expressing their own needs. This way of doing things is a good strategy to take when you don’t have much power and are highly invested in a harmonious outcome. If there is a genuine but tricky conflict in a relationship that is very valuable to you, being accommodating can work—so long as it doesn’t go too far and you become a doormat. 4. Collaboration Uses high assertiveness and high empathy. The approach of working together on a problem. Here, you balance your own needs and desires with the other person’s, and you value both equally. A typical technique is to try to find some common ground or a shared goal and work from there.

Speaker: 00:08:21

This approach is a great one if both sides can genuinely say that they want to come to an agreement. The approach will waste time and muddy the waters, however, if one or both parties is not really interested in finding a way forward—collaboration takes both sides working together, not just one. If there is low trust or reason to believe that there cannot be a reasonable shared goal, this approach is not ideal. 5. Compromising This last strategy can be seen as the middling approach, somewhere right in the middle of both assertiveness and empathy. Compromising means embracing difference and disagreement without letting it jeopardize the relationship. It’s a balancing act and a way to get people who disagree to nevertheless get along. Typically, the solution is for each party to move ahead with a plan that suits them in some ways but not all. Certain rules can be put in place to protect you, but you are also required to be flexible enough to abide by the rules of others, even if you don’t particularly like them.

Speaker: 00:09:29

It’s an approach that can really work since both parties will by definition leave with something they want. VOMP You might like to combine the above model with another framework introduced by Crosby Kerr Minno Consulting called VOMP. It’s a simple acronym that can help you pause, regulate your own emotional response, and plan to respond in a conscious, measured way. Here’s what the VOMP acronym means: Ventilation In other words, let people “air” their side of the conflict. So much trouble and misunderstanding can be avoided if people speak up and speak honestly. Keeping secrets, mulling silently over resentments, or even outright lying about how you feel will only prolong the negative feelings. But this ventilation process is not the same as solving the problem, nor is it a chance to escalate negativity by throwing blame or accusation. It’s not necessary to decide if you agree or not, or counter with objections or corrections—just listen.

Speaker: 00:10:41

Simply share your side of the situation and give the other person a fair opportunity to share theirs. Ownership There are seldom any conflicts between adults where there is a bad guy and a good guy, with the bad guy shouldering one hundred percent of the blame. Try to take responsibility for your portion of the conflict and “own” your part of it. This takes humility initially, but if you can acknowledge it plainly and move on, you may find it’s actually a relief to stop being defensive. What’s more, it can invite the other person to “put down their weapons” and frankly take responsibility for their portion of the conflict, too. It’s important, however, that you don’t take on more than your fair share. Granted, it’s not always possible to neatly portion out blame, and you might be arguing precisely because you can’t decide who’s more to blame. But in this case, say something like, “I acknowledge my part in the problem” in a more general sense, and move on.

Speaker: 00:11:43

Never knowingly take on more of the blame in an attempt to gain an upper hand—it’s dishonest and usually backfires. Moccasins This refers to the old advice to “walk a mile in the other person’s moccasins. Both sides need to actively try to understand the conflict from the other one’s perspective. Again, this is not the same as acquiescence or agreement. It just means that you make efforts to notice what the other person is going through and how they see things (including your behavior). Plan Finally, you need a way forward. Conflicts need to end at some point. Once you have both shared your views, listened, taken ownership, and so on, it’s time to collaboratively decide on how you’ll move on.

Speaker: 00:12:36

What will be different? How will you avoid the same problem in the future? What rules or new expectations are there? Any new goals, reassurances, or commitments? Whatever they are, they need to directly address what each person has shared in a realistic and practical way. Now, while the above may seem great on a theoretical level, you can probably already tell that it may be difficult to apply in real-life situations, especially when tempers are flaring. One of the best things you can do when you notice that a conflict is occurring is to get a little distance. Pause and make space.

Speaker: 00:13:14

This will allow you to downregulate those strong emotions—which as we’ve seen get in the way of more rational thought processes—and help you slow down and look carefully at what is happening. The conflict will still be there, but you will have a strategy for moving forward. So, a general strategy for all conflicts is: 1. Pause and step away (if possible). Use the distance to become conscious of both sides’ unmet needs, their concerns, and their goals. Process your feelings and take a moment to cool off. 2. Decide on a strategy using the Thomas Kilmann model. Think carefully about the degree of both empathy and assertiveness you’ll need to best resolve the conflict. Don’t forget to think about the other person’s approach, not just yours.

Speaker: 00:14:05

3. Consciously attempt a conflict-resolving conversation, as we’ve explored in earlier chapters on “crucial conversations." Plan a time and place, conduct yourself with civility and compassion, and do your best to come to a mutually satisfying resolution. Uh Oh—We Talked and There’s Still Conflict Let’s be honest. You can do everything “right” and still find yourself facing an unpleasant situation. Sometimes, the best thing you can do is to compassionately detach and try to move on as soon as possible. Not every situation has a comfortable resolution for every party, and not every problem has a solution. Sometimes, hurt feelings remain hurt, and relationships or connections are damaged or terminated. Nevertheless, even though you may find yourself in a stalemate and unable to compromise much further, try to at least come to some sort of inner resolution with yourself.

Speaker: 00:15:08

Ask honestly what you can learn for next time. You will get over the dispute a lot faster if you know deep down that you have allowed the negative experience to make you a better communicator going forward. How to Master High-Stakes Discussions and Stabilize Intense Emotions So far, we’ve looked at ways to take control of your conversational frame, to convince and persuade, to ask useful questions, and to use tact and deliberation as you conduct yourself in dialogue. All of this, however, becomes far more difficult if we find ourselves in the middle of a distressing conflict situation. Chances are, you’ve been there before: Emotions are running high, things feel a little volatile and unpleasant, and you may even notice that you’re acting impulsively ... sometimes to your later regret. Conflict is human, and being destabilized now and then does not mean you are a poor communicator. Nevertheless, it is possible to learn skills that will help you navigate these tricky situations as they are happening—which is the time when you most need to communicate well! Let’s talk about crucial conversations.

Speaker: 00:16:21

These kinds of talks combine three key features: 1. High stakes (i.e., there is a lot to lose on both sides) 2. Opposing viewpoints 3. Strong emotions Notice that in the list above, we have not mentioned the topic of conversation—people can and do get into conflict over “minor” or “unimportant” topics. The truth is that the topic is usually secondary. What’s primary is what is currently at risk, how both parties are differing in the way they are approaching that risk, and the (let’s face it, interfering) effect of strong emotions like fear and anger. Let’s all own up to it now: Most of us are simply not very good at crucial conversations. If something is important to us and we sense threat, strong emotions result ... and that usually sees calm rationality and control fly out the window. If the other person does the same, you have a spiral that carries you both down into conflict. Have you ever considered that every single act of physical aggression started out as a verbal disagreement, maybe even just a silly misunderstanding? In other words, the spiral can take you far, far away from where you want to be.

Speaker: 00:17:43

Returning to our metaphor of the ladder of inference, it’s clear how different beliefs, experiences, emotions, and perspectives create our "pool of meaning" and potentially lead to us clashing with someone who has done the same thing, only with a very different set of raw ingredients. Many would argue that it’s easy to be a good communicator when the stakes are low—everyone agrees and the feeling either way is pretty neutral. But you will really put your communication mastery to the test by seeing how well you can navigate, defuse, and resolve conflict as it unfolds in the moment. Whether your crucial conversation is to give negative feedback, to break up with someone, to apologize for a wrongdoing, to ask an embarrassing question, to set a difficult boundary, to clear up a confusing misunderstanding, to find a compromise between two opposing needs and rights, to smooth over hurt feelings, to restore trust, to solve a shared problem, or to cut off contact entirely, know that everyone finds these kinds of conversations difficult. Also know that in a very tricky conversation, there is seldom a way through that is completely easy and painless. So, keep that in mind as you read about the ways you can ease a conflict. No matter what happens or how badly things have already deteriorated, you can still do your best to move forward with respect, dignity, and a spirit of cooperation. How to Navigate a Crucial Conversation First and foremost, be as clear as possible from the outset exactly what the problem is.

Speaker: 00:19:28

What is the issue, concern, or conflict? It seems too obvious, but before you get engrossed talking to the other person, clarify in your own mind what you see as having gone wrong. Is it one event or a pattern? Try to locate the issue and be as concise as you can. This will help you understand the purpose for the conversation. The purpose should be, naturally, to address the problem you’ve identified. If you simply bring a grievance or a boatload of unhappy feelings to place at the other person’s feet, it will only be felt like an attack or a confrontation. Know why you are having this difficult discussion, i.e., what you hope to actually achieve when it’s done.

Speaker: 00:20:15

If we’re honest with ourselves, we may be tempted to start a conversation for the unconscious reason of hurting the other person somehow. Once you are clear on all this, you can plan ahead and choose a time and place to have the discussion. Don’t spring it on the other person or just launch into it without enough time to prepare mentally (granted, this is not always possible, but if you can, try to slow things down so you are in control and not merely reacting). Make sure you have a moment where you won’t be distracted or interrupted, and avoid times where you know you or the other person will be tense or busy with something else. Try to make the environment as supportive as possible. It might be a push to remain “positive,” but you can do a lot to keep things calm, safe, private, and comfortable. It’s far easier to deal with any difficult feelings or ideas when you feel like you’re in a supportive “shelter” in which dialogue can unfold. Once the groundwork is laid, the next part is probably one of the most difficult things any of us will be called to do in life: be genuinely compassionate.

Speaker: 00:21:30

You will naturally feel some inner resistance to the other person—that always happens if the stakes are high—but the good news is that you don’t have to agree with the other person or fake your feelings or allow them to mistreat you. You only have to maintain an empathetic awareness of the fact that they are also finding the situation difficult, just like you. That’s all. So, that’s how you lay the emotional groundwork and approach the conversational space with an intention to listen, to cooperate, to resolve. Never underestimate the power of holding this attitude—you might not say or do anything differently, but your stance will be perceived. The next thing to do is lay the theoretical groundwork, and this means to carefully separate evidence from interpretation, fact from opinion. Usually, this is exactly where the conflict itself lies—each of you believes you are in possession of a fact, when really you are both arguing over different interpretations of that same fact. Carefully teasing out what is true and what is merely a perception of or response to the truth can often make up the bulk of a difficult conversation.

Speaker: 00:22:48

On the other hand, you might discover that you are both actually operating from a slightly different set of equally true facts—uncovering the assumptions on both sides can do a lot to lessen the size of the dispute, lowering those strong emotions. As you talk, try to remember to “question the question." What this means is to dig a little deeper than the face value challenges, concerns, questions, or issues that are raised. This will help you move past knee-jerk reactions and overly emotional defensiveness and see to the real causes beneath. Ask yourself (or them!) what someone is really communicating when they say what they say. But don’t stop there—examine your own statements and questions in the same way and see if you can use “clean communication” to say what you really think, feel, and want. Finally, the key to managing difficult conversations is to take responsibility for managing your emotions.

Speaker: 00:23:52

Yes, you probably want the other person to do it as well, but you cannot do this for them! Stay calm and in control, and the best you can hope for is that it inspires the same of the other person. You are not required to lie, to be fake or overly stiff, or to assign yourself the role of “emotions policeman”—simply acknowledge and express your emotions but without letting them dominate or steer the conversation. And that wraps up our exploration of navigating conflict with grace and understanding. Remember, communication is key, so listen actively, embrace empathy, and don't shy away from seeking support when needed. For further insights and resources, be sure to check out Patrick King's How to Speak Effectively on his website at bit.ly.pkconsulting, also available, of course, on Audible, Amazon and iTunes. Those links, as well as a few others, are in the show notes, so please check those out. Thanks for joining us, and we'll see you next week.