What do you feel
when you hear the word conflict? Does it
bring a sense of angst? Exhilaration? Do you think about winners and losers, with
one clothed in glory and the other crawling away to lick their wounds, or worse? Do you envision the Battle of Iwo Jima? Jeanne d’Arc at Orleans? Batman and the Joker?
I was recently
working towards a certificate in mediation, and during the initial phases of
the course, the instructor initiated a discussion on the basis and context of
conflict. When question came up
regarding the nature of conflict, it was asked whether conflict is negative or
positive. Most of the participants in
the course identified the concept of conflict as a negative. I was virtually alone among my classmates;
there may have been one other hand up along side mine in our group of 10, in my
belief that conflict had no nature other than its own existence. I have always seen conflict as emotionless;
it is neither detrimental nor beneficial, like heat or cold. It just is. I’ve been wrong.
I have grown
into the opinion that absolutely nothing of any value comes without some level of
conflict. Conflict is the anvil of
progress where ideas are honed and tempered.
It is the inspiration for every great piece of art. It is the start of every great commercial
advance. Without conflict, we would
never be filtered. We would be consistently
acting on horrible ideas, or worse, be unmotivated to perform any function at
all.
In my
experience, most individuals perceive conflict as something to be avoided with
all available resources, like an illness. We refer to this as conflict
aversion. But, conflict is normal. It is a facet of being part of a group of
individuals. Conflict occurs based upon
relationships, whether it is among family, lovers, neighbors, colleagues, or
constituents. Many people associate
conflict with combat, not with a rational discourse on positions and ideas. I
believe that to be a conditioned response based upon a number of factors,
possibly because authority figures, most usually their parents, never learned
how to deal with conflict effectively and when it arose, conversations became
heated, argumentative, and possibly violent.
These are difficult conditionings
to overcome.
Through my
readings and experience, I would submit that most interpersonal conflict is
based on eight things:
1. Perceptions. Perceptions are beliefs that may
or may not be correct, often regarding sex, race, religion, or political
affiliation. Conflict surrounding
perceptions can often be verbalized with statements such as “I have a problem with you because you’re a
dirty communist!” or “People like you are all alike.” They tend to be based on a preconceived
notion held by one of the parties that prohibits cooperation or communication
and often leads to animosity. This type
of conflict is always unhelpful and unproductive. It is however, often times, one of the
easiest to overcome as it tends to be based on false stereotypes that can be
talked through.
2. Expectations. Individuals who are involved in a
relationship often expect certain things from others in the relationship and
conflict can arise when those expectations are unmet, or believed to be
unreasonable. The distinction can is
based upon your role in the relationship.
As a student, you might turn in an assignment that did not meet the
expectations of the instructor. As a
manager, you might set goals that one of your direct reports might see as
unattainable or out of line with their job description. These
types of catalysts often stem from poor, or no, communication, or can be caused
by an unwillingness to ask questions.
3. Behavioral differences. These differences can be based on
communications style, process orientation (how the parties like to perform tasks),
problem solving style, and general behavior.
Basically, we are talking about how you do what you do, including
communicate and act. Conflict of this style can often be
one-sided, as a simple behavior can be seen as offensive, rude, or antagonistic
to someone who is predisposed to reacting to it. Something as simple as not acknowledging
someone as you walk past, or not holding the door can incentivize someone to
hold a negative opinion, but also these could refer to more overt behaviors
such as being untidy or being inconsiderate of others.
4.
Personal differences. These are frictions based upon personal
values and interests, religious affiliation and belief structure, social
leanings or political affiliation belief structure, or general attitudes. These are the things that make
you what you are, and can be the most deeply rooted source of conflict, often
informing or creating the rationale for other types of conflict. It is
easy, far too easy in fact, to glom on to some difference, whether it is
religion or politics, and utilize it as a rationale, or crutch, to justify
negative attitudes towards another.
5.
Interference. Conflict can be based upon a perceived
hindrance on you obtaining your goals, or something that you have done
hindering someone else attaining theirs.
In a highly competitive environment, like school or business, this is
almost impossible to avoid, as we tend to work towards often competing
results.
6.
Power and status differences. These rudiments of conflict are wealth,
professional position, social status, or influence. We can
often bear animosity towards others, and conflict can take hold, because we
perceive that they have an advantage over us.
This advantage can take the form of interference, whether real or not,
or jealousy, depending upon your perceived position in the relationship. Ask anyone in a position of responsibility
whether their success has increased or decreased the amount of conflict that
they have encountered.
7.
Lack of cooperation. Sometimes, we are not inclined to cooperate with others,
even if we know we should. If we see
that cooperation may create an unequal advantage to someone else, we will
sometimes decline the opportunity. How many times have we seen collaborative
projects go unfinished because we or someone else has deemed their time or
energy spent better elsewhere?
8. Competition. We operate in an economy based on
scarcity. We are groomed to compete in
order to gain what we need to survive and thrive. When resources or opportunities
are scarce, we will often put our best interests in front of the best interests
in others. This is not a bad thing! Conflict emerges when someone else positions
themselves gain the same scarce benefit that we are working for, whether it be money,
a piece of property, a position at work, recognition, or, romantically, the
attention and affection of someone we love, to name a few things.
Personal style
can have an affect on conflict, whether it is how a person communicates or how
they manage their environment. For
instance, I am not very comfortable talking about my emotions. If I say something to you, I want something
from you in return; a suggestion for resolution or an offer to help. It’s very transactional. Others approach this differently; sometimes my
wife only needs to be heard. Talking
about her emotions can be cathartic. The
conflict comes into play because I am, by nature, a fixer. When Nicole comes to me with something, my
first reaction is to break whatever it is down to its base components and
address them. That is not what she
wants. She just wants me to listen to
her and let her know that I have heard her.
Your personal
style, and the style of the person or persons that you are in conflict with can
also have an effect on the conflict itself, including its intensity, longevity,
and potential resolution. When dealing
with conflict, people tend to fall into one of three categories: Competitor /
Collaborator / Avoider.
1. The Competitor. This person tends to look at the
conflict as a contest up for the winning.
They can be energized by the conflict and even quick to create it. The competitor can sometimes, but not always take
the conflict personally and will often be very assertive in trying to “win” the
conflict. They will not always look for
mutual benefit…at least if they believe that they are not getting the favorable
side of the compromise. I am afraid
that I live in this world occasionally. When in conflict with a competitor, it is
necessary to understand that although they do not always hate conflict, they
probably hate losing. You may need to
appeal to this aspect of their personality in order to resolve the issue. Show them what they stand to walk away with,
or what they stand to lose. Help them
see the “win” in a mutually beneficial solution. You might not always be able to sway them to
your perspective as sometimes the competitor believes “being right” and
“losing” is better than conceding to your competition.
2. The Collaborator. If you are a collaborator, you will
look to see if there is a win/win scenario available and will try to be an open
communicator with the other people in the conflict. You will try to work for an agreeable
solution. Sometimes, however, the
collaborator is too willing to give up personal benefit in order to see the
conflict resolved. Although being a
collaborator is a great position to start from when dealing with conflict, it
can get messy as well. Collaborators can
often be so engaged with coming to a resolution that they might not work for
their own best interest, and as such not reach an ultimately satisfactory
conclusion for themselves, which in turn could lead to additional conflict in
time.
3. The Avoider. Avoiders are those folks, like I
mentioned above, who would rather have a molar extracted than find themselves
in a conflict. An avoider will sometimes
ignore the issues, or just concede the point in order to not have to engage
another person in what they often see as a negative or harmful
interaction. They see conflict as
stressful. Very stressful. Pull your hair out, can’t sleep
stressful. It is important when in conflict with an
avoider that you do not consider their reticence to engage as a
concession. This will not resolve the
situation at hand, only kick it down the road.
If you are in conflict with an avoider, and want to get it resolved, you
will need to make sure that the avoider does not feel threatened and that they
are being heard. Only then will the
avoider feel comfortable enough to engage in the resolution.
Conflict is not,
in and of itself, destructive. It’s how
we, as those in conflict, choose to acquit ourselves that defines it. I read an article recently, where the author
used the phrase, “When the wheels spin, on the edges is where the sparks fly.” I thought this was a great analogy for conflict. When you visualize the wheels as us, and the
grinding of the wheels as conflict, it becomes easy to see the sparks as the
results of that conflict. You can take
that analogy further by thinking of the sparks as catalysts for an infinite
number of ideas and opportunities. How
we address and participate in the conflict is what makes the concept
constructive or destructive. If you see
these sparks as setting a fire that will consume and destroy our relationships
that will create a real reticence and fear of conflict. If you approach it from the perspective of
those sparks being the impetus for personal, emotional, or professional enrichment,
the ignition of new and revolutionary ideas, you can begin to have a healthy
respect for the idea of conflict. When you recognize conflict for what it is,
generally a disagreement between two individuals who care about something specific,
there is an opportunity afforded to both parties to address the issue and
communicate with each other, to improve and deepen your relationships, and to
potentially create new ideas and opportunities that will benefit both
parties.
Quotations via
brainyquote.com
