On Interpersonal Conflict

Difficulties are meant to rouse, not discourage. The human spirit is to grow strong by conflict.William Ellery Channing

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. 

The last of human freedoms - the ability to chose one's attitude in a given set of circumstances. Viktor E. Frankl 

Quotations via brainyquote.com