Suggestions for Relationship Conflicts
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
Compiled by Heidi Burgess, Co-Director, University of Colorado Conflict Research Consortium
We often get calls and emails from people in relationship conflicts — in
families, conflicts between husbands and wives, boyfriends and girlfriends,
parents and children, and in the workplace, between co-workers, or between
employees and supervisors. There are a few fairly simple rules and
guidelines that are often helpful. These are listed below, along with
links to additional information on each. And if these guides don't work,
information about where to find more help is also provided.
What to do when you are in a relationship conflict:
1) Slow down, step back, and try to figure out what is going
on.
In his book, Getting Past No,
William Ury talks about "going to the balcony." The idea here is
to step away to a point where you can look down on the conflict from
above — where you can see more clearly what is going on. For more
information read:
- Article: Cooling
Off Periods
Escalation can sometimes be slowed or stopped by calling for a short-term
"cooling-off" period during which time all the parties stop engaging
and step back to look at the situation and how they might be able to proceed
more constructively.
Things you want to figure out as you "cool off on the balcony"
are:
a) What are you arguing about? Is that the real
problem?
It is important to distinguish between each person's position
and his or her interests. Positions are
what people SAY they want, and why they want it. For example, a
husband might want to go to Mexico for vacation, while the wife wants to go to
Vail. They get into a big argument. But if they ask WHY each person wants to go to a particular destination, they'll discover that the husband
wants to go to Mexico because it's somewhere he's never
been before, and they've gone to Vail several times. The wife just wants
to ski a top-flight ski area. Whistler-Blackcomb in Canada would meet both
her interests and her husband's interests. By asking WHY each person
wants something, the problem can be solved. For more information, read:
- Book Summary: Getting
to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In
by Roger Fisher, William Ury,
and Bruce Patton
- Article: Interests,
Positions, Needs and Values
Interests are people's desires, concerns, and fears. Almost all adversaries
have negotiable interests, it is only when the conflict becomes about rights,
values, or power that it become intractable.
- Article: Integrative
or Interest-Based Bargaining
In integrative bargaining, the parties attempt to "enlarge the pie" or
allocate resources in a way that everyone gets what they want.
- Article: Distributive
Bargaining
In distributive bargaining the parties assume that there is not enough to go
around. Thus, the more one side gets, the less the other side gets.
- Article: Positional
Bargaining
This type of bargaining negotiates from positions, rather than interests. It is
more typical in situations where there is a "fixed pie" to be divided
up, or where both sides cannot possibly win, hence an integrative.
b) Are strong emotions (fear, anger, distrust) a
big part of the conflict?
If so, you need to address those emotions
first. Although strong emotions cannot be fixed quickly, acknowledging
they are there and listening empathically
to the other side explain their feelings can go a long way towards allowing them to transform
the conflict into one that can be successfully addressed. So can devising a
way for the other side to "save face," to
give in or at least meet you halfway without overtly having to admit they were
wrong. For more information, see:
- Article: Emotions
Negotiation theory often assumes that people in conflict behave rationally, but
emotional factors also play a large role in people's attitudes and behaviors.
This essay examines the importance of these emotional factors in both conflict
assessment and response.
- Article: Anger
Anger can be constructive, but is more often destructive. This essay examines
the interplay between anger and conflict and discusses when and how anger should
be managed.
- Article: Fear
Fear is both a cause and a consequence of violent and some nonviolent conflicts.
It certainly makes conflict resolution more difficult.
- Article: Guilt
and Shame
We feel guilty for what we do. We feel shame for what we are. Both lead to and
are caused by conflict.
- Article: Face
From the correspondence between Kennedy and Khrushchev during the Cuban missile
crisis, it is clear that they were trying to end the conflict while retaining
their honor or "saving face." Understanding the concept of face is
vital to resolving intractable conflict.
- Article: Conflict
Transformation
Many people believe that conflict happens for a reason and that it brings
much-needed change. Therefore, to eliminate conflict would also be to eliminate
conflict's dynamic power. In transformation, a conflict is changed into
something constructive, rather being eliminated altogether.
c) Is there some way to solve this that will meet both
people's interests and needs?
Not all disputes have win-win
solutions, but many do, especially if one examines the interests that underlie
the positions. Keep in mind that interests may not be material, but rather
psychological. Sometimes people just feel hurt or disrespected.
Hearing their side and apologizing might
be all that is needed to make amends. For more information, read:
- Article: Win-Win
/ Win-Lose / Lose-Lose Situations
The terms, "Win-Win," "Win-Lose," and "Lose-Lose"
are basic concepts in dispute resolution. They are game theory terms that refer
to the possible outcomes of a game or dispute involving two sides, and more
importantly, what the implications of those outcomes are.
- Article: Respect
Treating people with respect is key to conflict transformation. When they are
denied respect, people tend to react negatively, creating conflicts or
escalating existing ones.
- Article: Apology
and Forgiveness
These are two sides of the mutli-faceted "diamond" of reconciliation.
Both are necessary for true reconciliation to take place.
2) When you come back together, even if you think you have the
answer, focus on carefully listening.
It is important to listen to the other person before you do much talking. Make sure you
understand the other person's feelings as well as their interests by saying
something such as "it sounds to me as if you think that...which is making
you very frustrated" or, "it sounds to me as if you want
..." If your understanding is not true, the person can then clarify
how they feel and what they want so you have a better understanding of the
nature of the problem.
It is also important to be willing to patiently explain your feelings and interests to the
other person. Without being hostile, you need to correct any misunderstandings that they
might have. Such misunderstandings are often a big part of the problem. For more information, see:
- Article: Empathic
Listening
Richard Salem writes, "I spent long hours learning to read and write and
even had classroom training in public speaking, but I never had a lesson in
listening or thought of listening as a learnable skill until I entered the world
of mediation as an adult."
3) When you do talk, try to do so in the least
confrontational way possible.
The reason is that you want to avoid
conflict escalation as much as possible. Escalation is extremely
dangerous — it makes people say things that they wish they didn't say, do things
that they wish they didn't do. Usually escalation makes the situation
worse for both people. To avoid it, try using "I-messages"
instead of "you-messages," and language that calms down the other
person, rather than making him more angry (we call this "escalation-limiting
language").
For more information, see the articles on:
- Article: Destructive
Escalation
Escalation is an increase in the intensity of a conflict. The number of parties
and issues tends to increase, tactics become heavier, malevolence increases, and
overall destructiveness generally increases as well.
- Article: I-Messages
and You-Messages
I-messages can be a useful tool for defusing interpersonal conflict. This essay
describes how they can be used, their benefits, and their problems.
- Article: Escalation-Limiting
Language
A wrong word or misunderstanding during a conflict is like gasoline on a fire.
De-escalating arguments requires awareness and self-control.
- Article: Limiting
Escalation / De-escalation
De-escalation tends to proceed slowly and requires a lot of effort. This essay
describes some key strategies available for slowing escalation and then
de-escalating a conflict.
4) Instead of arguing, negotiate.
But use
interest-based bargaining, not positional
bargaining. Try to think of the problem as a joint problem to be solved and
working on finding a solution together. As you do this, look for your
"zone of possible agreement," and be sure
you know your alternatives, should negotiation fail. (This is often called your
"BATNA" — best alternative to a negotiated
agreement.) For more information, see:
- Article: Negotiation
Negotiation is bargaining — it is the process of discussion and give-and-take
between two or more disputants, who seek to find a solution to a common problem.
This overview essay discusses basic strategies and tactics of negotiation
- Article: Integrative
or Interest-Based Bargaining
In integrative bargaining, the parties attempt to "enlarge the pie" or
allocate resources in a way that everyone gets what they want.
- Article: Positional
Bargaining
This type of bargaining negotiates from positions, rather than interests. It is
more typical in situations where there is a "fixed pie" to be divided
up, or where both sides cannot possibly win, hence an integrative.
- Article: Zone of
Possible Agreement (ZOPA)
The ZOPA is the common ground between two disputing parties. The ZOPA is
critical to the successful outcome of negotiation, but it may take some time to
determine whether a ZOPA exists.
- Article: Best
Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)
BATNA is a term invented by Roger Fisher and William Ury which stands for
"best alternative to a negotiated agreement." Any negotiator should
determine his or her BATNA before agreeing to any negotiated settlement.
5) If this doesn't work, take a break, and then try again, or try to
get someone else to try to help you figure out a solution.
Sometimes a
friend or colleague can help you frame the situation
in a new way and/or think of a creative solution.
Or you might want to try mediation, in which
case an outside third party will help guide your discussion to make it more
constructive and fruitful. By giving you a process to work with, a mediator
can often help parties reach a solution that they couldn't figure out on their
own. Keep in mind though, mediators do not make decisions for you, nor do
they say who is right and who is wrong. Rather, they help you communicate and negotiate with the other
person more effectively, both to solve the immediate problem, and to learn to
avoid having similar problems in the future. For more information, see:
- Article: Frames,
Framing, and Reframing
Frames are the way we see things and define what we see. Similar to the way a
new frame can entirely change the way we view a photograph, reframing can change
the way disputing parties understand and pursue their conflict.
- Article: Reframing
Bernard Mayer wrote, "The art of reframing is to maintain the conflict in
all its richness but to help people look at it in a more open-minded and hopeful
way."
- Article: Mediation
Mediation is a conflict resolution process in which a third party assists the
disputants to communicate better, analyze their conflicts and their options and
to develop a mutually satisfactory solution.
CRInfo Comprehensive Resource Listings
Recommended Readings from CRInfo Editors
Dawn Gresham
Alberto Barrueco and Heather Meyers
Additional Articles from CRInfo
|
