How do you handle a communication conflict or misunderstanding?

I can put my expectations on anyone or any situation. I own my part and accept it. If the other person is willing to discuss the issue then a solution may be found. If they are unwilling, you can leave the discussion until they choose to acknowledge you.

This is the hardest one. You need 1) Self-awareness, 2) Courage to admit your mistakes (that's part of the miscommunication), and 3) Wisdom to recognize is you should do #2 based on how rewarding or punishing the environment is towards honesty. Humans are wired to be defensive and it's hard to acknowledge, or even see, our mistakes and blind spots. I tend to follow Ray Dalio's philosophy on Radical Transparency and Communication which can be really hard on the ego. The ability to openly discuss each other's mistakes and blind spots is a marker of an evolved team culture. It's really hard to create that culture as the people in power are often the ones with the most fragile egos and have the hardest time admitting they're wrong.

Finding out the reason behind any problem is the best way to resolve any problem. I follow the same rule in all aspects. When some communication gap happens, I figure out all possible reasons. After knowing it, I make a list to figure out the exact one. Analysis of every reason helps me to overcome any communication gap.

I support this. I’ve found that very intentional active listening is key to resolving communication hiccups. By listening closely to what I hear, their emotion, the subject, and their need, and reflecting these 3 back as simply as I can, clarifies my own understanding and more importantly, the speaker feels acknowledged. Usually in this process, I can discern the issue and begin to find resolution with them. It may take several rounds of active listening, but worth the effort.

I listen in order to understand. I take time to process what I'm hearing and make sure that the intended message is clear to me. I practice responding by saying, "What I'm hearing you say is..." to affirm that it's my intention to fully understand what someone is telling me. In a workplace setting, it's paramount to evaluate what you can do better next time to curb a misunderstanding or conflict.

Not only does showing empathy, paying attention, paraphrasing, and asking open-ended questions show that you are paying attention and care. It also builds rapport, trust, and confidence with the other participants. These same practices are used in talk therapy, crisis, and distress helplines, which speaks to its beneficial uses. When paraphrasing, much like in writing, all that's needed is the main points, and a finishing question, such as, "Am I understanding properly?", "Am I missing or misunderstanding anything?". By asking these questions at the end of your paraphrasing, it shows the other that you truly care and want to understand how they feel and what they're thinking to a deeper level.

Yes. I agree on this point about responding. In my experience, when we're trying to resolve a conflict, it's important to avoid using "you" statements. These types of statements can make the other person feel attacked and defensive. Instead, focus on using "I" statements, which will help us express our feelings without blaming the other person.

One thing I have found helpful is that if the main method of communication is via email sometimes picking up the phone or arranging a face to face conversation and actually talking things through can mean that what you’re saying is less likely to be misinterpreted. You could always send a follow up email confirming what was discussed and referring to the conversation you had.

Whole this is true, it isn't always suitable for people with certain disabilities. I experience this personally throughout my career.

You need to define what "clear communication" is and to whom. You may think you're communicating clearly, but if you're speaking Mandarin to a non-Chinese audience, they won't perceive your communication as clear. It doesn't really matter what you think or say. The only thing that matters is what your audience hears. To do that effectively, you need to understand the different communication styles and adjust your communication style to match the audience. Does the person get excited by big ideas? You need to use engaging stories, humor, and an animated style. Talking to the quiet data scientist? Give them plenty of data about the conflict and let them digest and analyze it.

One thing I found helpful to re-center a conflict back into collaboration is to gently remind us both what the goal or mission is that we are aiming for. By refreshing the nature of our conversation, we take a breath, step out of detail for the moment, and reconnect with empathy on our shared goal. When I do this it reduces my own tension, frees up my brain and creates more space for creative possibility. It often has the same catalytic effect on the other person!

This right here is the key to conflict resolution. Adam Grant talks about the distinction between task conflict (very healthy for teams) and personality conflict (toxic to teams). In task conflict, you're separating your personal relationship from the idea debate. And in the personality conflict, you make it about the person, and not the idea, which is experienced as an attack. The key is to avoid attacking, criticizing or labeling the person (stupid, idiot, etc). Also, actively reinforce the personal relationship by 1) leading with affirming the respect you have for the other person before the task conflict, and 2) afterwards, change the environment to do some personal bonding (like going to the pub to grab a beer and catch up).

I don't think that follow up is always needed. If the decision or agreement was a one-off thing, then all you need to do is reinforce the personal respect and relationship for each other by working on that relationship vs. constantly nagging the person if they did their part of the follow-up task. Also, ideally the solution or agreement included some sort of principle or systems change that will improve an existing system or process and doesn't need follow-up. If a follow-up is required, then I would argue, the agreement reached was not really an agreement. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a delay in executing the decision.

The book "Never split the difference" is a great manual about how to be a ninja negotiator in an apparently impossible conflict. It all boils down to 1) never assume, 2) slow down, and 3) seek to understand rather than be understood

While understanding conflicts or different opinions , let's take an example of 6 and 9. From my side this can be 6 and from your side this can be 9. Being as a people manager I would be neutral while understanding the opinion and when understood can surely be in a better position to assist or resolve the conflict. Few points to be considered in the process. Do not assume anything. Always probe and try to be in other shoes. Focus on the problem statement and try to find a solution which can assist in complete solutions rather than timely solutions.

In such times, what I have seen is :- 1. The reaction of the other person depends on your own approach Ex:- in most cases, I am the first one to address, and I speak softly, don't use words that comes around as it's their mistake. Even if in response, the person sounds rude...i try to maintain my calm and! The 3rd time the person speaks, the ball is in your court. What I've noticed is the other person mirrors your behavior. If you shout, he would shout back. You won't see someone apologising and the other person shouting at him. You take the charge, you be calm, everything else would follow