Sex, lies and conflict

Sex, lies and conflict

Introduction

Now that I have your attention let me ask the obvious question: what do these typical human behaviours have in common?

To begin with, conflict is something we have all experienced yet it is also a topic we often internalize and don’t talk about, at least not directly to person or people we should be talking to in the first place. They are often the last to know that there is a problem - in the work environment this usually means that a conflict is converted to office politics and scandal. Another similarity is that, because of our general aversion to and fear of conflict, we completely deny that a problem exists between ourselves and others, while the issue actually keeps us awake at night, or fills us with a sense of hurt, disappointment or anger. This is not honest, neither to the person we have a conflict with, nor to ourselves.

Stone Age minds

Where does this fear of conflict and the reluctance to address it come from? Some argue that it is a matter of the brain’s hard wiring: conflict is an unpleasant experience so the natural response would be for our brains to flip to auto pilot mode and respond in its natural fight-flight manner. As the London Business School’s Prof. Nigel Nicholson states in his 2000 book, Managing the Human Animal, we did well to get ourselves out of the Stone Age, yet the Stone Age hasn’t left us.

Others believe it is because conflict is always presented in the media and elsewhere as something negative – in other words, we are socialized to think of it as something bad not realizing that we experience or see is mostly not the conflict itself but how it has shown or manifested itself.

The truth probably lies somewhere between these two points of view, yet be that as it may they both represent a pretty negative view of the phenomenon of conflict and our typical reactions to it. Who, after all, wants to engage constructively with something that is perceived to be or portrayed as bad or negative?

Adopting a different mindset

Fortunately, we also have an ability to reflect rationally about our experiences (although, if Prof. Daniel Kahneman is to be believed, even this could be a challenge for us, especially when high emotions are involved).[1] This includes an ability to ‘change the frame’, i.e., to develop a different way of looking at things. In the words of Anais Nin, we don’t see things the way they are, we see them the way we are.[2] And herein, I believe, lies the key to a better, more productive way to engage with conflict.

We know from research that if we change our frame (mindset, mental model or worldview) about something, this inevitably affects the way we approach it (our strategy) as well as our behaviours. For example, if I believe that conflict is a bad thing my tendency probably will be towards a fight or flee response whenever it arises. On the other hand, if I believed that conflict could be beneficial if managed carefully and wisely, my approach towards it is likely to be more cautious, conscious and possibly more aimed at finding resolution rather than avoiding it or engaging in a verbal slanging match, or worse. My behaviours are also likely to be different: instead of walking away, arguing, shouting, threatening, etc., I’ll most probably be more inclined to reflect first before responding; listen better; enquire more about the other person's concerns and not only be focused on my own. Our mindset ultimately determines what outcomes we achieve.

Mindset not only relates to the way we see conflict but also to the core dimensions of the conflict, i.e., the problem, process and people dimensions. For example, if I perceive the other person to be the devil in disguise, my approach and behaviours towards her or him are likely to be anything but aimed at achieving resolution. Similarly, if my perception of the process of conflict engagement is that ‘for one to win, the other must lose’, the engagement is likely to be competitive and adversarial and my behaviours as well. Also, if you and I framed our differences in a binary (either-or instead of and-and) way, a competing strategy accompanied by competing behaviours are likely to follow. In the end, even if there is some kind of resolution, the damage done to relationships between the protagonists may be hard to rebuild, if at all.  

Changing the frame

How can one change the frame? An exercise I often use when teaching or training groups to become more ‘conflict wise’, is to challenge them to write down their very own one, brief definition of conflict that is entirely positive. For example, ‘conflict is an opportunity to gain a better understanding of the real issues’. I then ask them to make this definition visible to themselves, e.g., in the form of a screen saver or small poster on a notice board or on a desk where it catches the eye as often as possible. Seeing is believing, as they say. The more one sees the positive potential of conflict the more our brains strengthen the new neural pathways that tend to develop around the new conflict frame. Remember that oysters and conflict have one thing in common: a little irritation can produce a thing of beauty. Or that it's friction that cause your shoes to shine.

A simple acronym

What about the skills we need to improve our ability to deal with conflict constructively? Without a more positive frame about conflict it will always be difficult to learn and retain critical skills such as active listening, being curious about the other person’s point of view or managing our emotions in the heat of the moment. A positive frame has the opposite effect – learning and embedding those key skills should become easier with some practice. At the risk of oversimplification, here’s an acronym that I believe captures the key skills we need: S.L.O.W. which stands for Stop, Listen, Observe and choose a Wise response.

Stop: There is a crucial moment in any conflict situation where we have a split second choice between acting first and then stopping to reflect about what we just did or said (usually too late by then); or to first reflect before responding. It’s a choice between wisely choosing our response (a so-called System 2 response) or allowing our primitive instincts to do so for us a System 1 or reflexive response). Simply taking a deep breath when ‘conflict arousal’ occurs, counting to 10, taking a break or biting one’s tongue will in many instances allow for sufficient time for System 1 to be subdued.  

Listen: Listening is not merely waiting for your turn to speak. It is about listening actively, i.e., with our attention fully focused on the person in front of us; with an open mind (not judging) and an open heart (empathising); asking relevant questions to get behind what is being said to why it is being said (underlying needs, interests or concerns); and checking our understanding of what is meant before choosing how to respond ourselves. This, for most people, is a difficult thing to do especially in the heat of a conflict. A useful acronym here is W.A.I.T.: ‘Why Am I Talking’ (i.e., when I should be listening)? Also keep in mind that we are all equipped with ‘BSDs’, so-called bullshit detectors: if our words say one thing (e.g., I am interested in what you to say) yet our body language says something different (distraction, lack of eye contact, etc.) the other person is more than likely to pick this up and conclude that we are not being authentic.  

Observe: People’s body language often speak a greater truth than the words they use. So, try to pick up on the signals they send, whether it is a raised or angry voice, inability to make eye contact, gestures, etc. and try to get to the reasons behind it. The best way is to articulate what you observe, e.g., ‘I can see you feel very strongly about this’; ‘this is clearly of great concern to you’; ‘why don’t want to look at me?’, etc. There’s always a chance that we might misinterpret the other’s body language and jump to the wrong conclusions if you didn’t do this.

However, the way in which one does this is equally important. To paraphrase the title of a 1980 book[3] I once read as a young parent about communicating with children: talk to others in a way that will make them listen to you, i.e., respectfully, actively and with empathy; listen to them in a way that will encourage them to talk – that’s how we gain relevant information. If I did this to you, reciprocity dictates that you would owe me the same treatment – I earn communication credits for myself, in other words. But if I talked over you, disrespected you or otherwise failed to hear you I am actually giving you permission to do the same to me.

Choose a Wise response: Research by John Gottman and Nancy Silver[4] suggests that in the vast majority of cases the way a conversation ends is determined within the first three minutes of that conversation. Whatever we do, whether in words, deeds or though our body language, we continuously send signals to others about our intentions. Those are automatically translated in the other person’s mind as a threat or reward signal which will trigger an instinctive response from the other person, i.e., we’ll mentally be drawn towards them or pushed away from them (a fight or flee response). In interpersonal conflict situations it does not benefit us if the other person is pushed away: we lose control over the situation and our ability to influence them to work with us towards a resolution is greatly diminished, or even lost completely.

The aim therefore should be a ‘soft start’ to a potentially difficult conversation: think about the outcome you want – hopefully a constructive one.  And remember, if you speak in anger you’ll make the best speech you’ll ever regret.[5]

Post-conflict care

We can learn a lot from primates about how to resolve conflicts better (see e.g. Aureli and De Waal’s 2000 book, Natural Conflict Resolution). One major lesson for me from my practice as mediator has been that, while we can often help people resolve their current conflict or dispute, not enough attention is paid to the fact that the resolution of the issue does not mean that the underlying conflict has been resolved. A simple post conflict ritual, e.g., sharing a meal (‘breaking bread’) together and talking about what had happened and how to avoid this from happening again can help to restore the relationship and rebuild trust. And remember, while ‘forgiveness does not change the past, it does enlarge the future’.[6]

Conclusion

We have the ability to resolve our differences amicably and constructively. Yet we are hamstrung, first and foremost, by the hard wiring of the more primitive parts of our brains and our socialisation to respond instinctively to situations involving threats, which is exactly what the brain experiences conflict as. If we could train ourselves to truly believe that conflicts also could be beneficial if handled properly, while learning to respond in a ‘SLOW’ manner, we should already be able to manage some of the worst interpersonal conflicts we sometimes find ourselves in better.

[1] Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking Fast and Slow.

[2] Nin, A. (2016). Seduction of the Minotaur.  

[3] Faber A. & Mazlish, E. (1980). How to Talk So Kids Will Listen & Listen So Kids Will Talk.

[4] (2000.) The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work.

[5] This statement has been attributed to several people, from Groucho Marx to Ambrose Bierce: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/05/17/angry-speech/

[6] Attributed to Paul Boese.