How to Conflict
As I mentioned in my previous post, conflict has both destructive and constructive potential. Which potential actually manifests largely depends on what strategies we choose to handle it.
1. The Choice
To give you an idea of how people usually choose to show up in conflict, here are some well-known classifications (see links for more info):
Chris Voss sees three negotiating styles: assertive, analyst, and accommodator (aka fight, flight, or befriend).
Roger Fisher and William Ury distinguish between positional and principlednegotiations.
Ken Cloke recognizes three dispute resolution methods: power-based, rights-based, and interest-based.
The Thomas-Kilmann Instrument identifies five categories of conflict management style: avoiding, accommodating, compromizing, competing, and collaborating.
What do these classifications have in common? They’re incomplete and lack complexity, just like any other overgeneralization. If nothing is a pure example of one style, then why am I even mentioning categories? Wouldn’t it be better to just talk about strategies for specific real-life situations?
For me, it helps with the big picture: it shows overarching principles behind human complexity. It is the foundation I use to build my own style on and to understand others’ styles.
The goal is not to show you what styles exist. The goal is to show you that styles exist. And to save you from a fool’s choice - the choice that most of us imagine when faced with conflict - aggressively address it head-on and risk being a jerk, or suffer in silence for the other person’s sake.
Let’s call it ‘Hard Approach’ and ‘Soft Approach’.
Hard Approach is about standing up for yourself and going after what you want, regardless of consequences for other people and the means to get to the desired result.
Pros:
makes you feel confident, decisive, and powerful in the process
you always protect your interests
makes the decision-making process quick
you’re able to pursue your goals without distractions
Cons:
your reputation precedes you: people start expecting that you’ll use, undercut, or lie to them and prepare for it as inevitable
intense focus on self-interest alienates people around you
lack of collaboration makes your decisions unpopular
you sacrifice future opportunities for immediate victories, burning bridges before they’re built
Soft Approach is about avoiding confrontation at all costs and being nice to others, even if it goes against your views. What you lack in assertiveness, you make up for in abundance of care for others.
Pros:
makes you feel like a good person
people appreciate your willingness to help
you maintain a peaceful atmosphere by caring for other’s needs
people feel safe confiding in or working with you
Cons:
as time goes by, altruism becomes self-neglect
bearing other people’s problems at your own expense builds resentment, which usually turns into perpetual stress or boils over into a full-blown violent conflict
people might see you as a pushover and undervalue your work
issues you ignore don’t disappear, they stack up and multiply, and the more you wait, the harder they are to untangle
2. Another approach
Another option is one that’s both assertive and cooperative - Interest-Based Approach.
Interest-Based Approach, unlike Hard and Soft, is all about problem-solving. Those who use it extensively are able to both stand up for what they want and connect with people.
Interest vs Position
It focuses on interests instead of positions - on what people really want, not on what they first said they wanted.
“Keep it quiet after 10 pm” is a position; “I need my home to be a place where I can rest” - this is an interest. “I want a raise” is a position; “I need to feel safe in an unstable financial environment” is an interest. “You never put dishes away” is a position; “I want the house to be clean in the morning so I can drink my coffee in peace” is an interest.
Whether an approach focuses on positions or interests is important because:
interest is easier to understand and relate to (between the pairs of statements above, which one is more likely to be met with hostility?)
interests can be satisfied in multiple different ways, so starting with a position limits your view of possibilities
once you put forward a position and insist on it, it becomes entangled with your reputation, making it increasingly difficult to change your stance later
a solution built on interests is more likely to last
Problem vs People
Another thing this approach does differently is how it views other people. In Hard and Soft Approach, people are part of the substantive problem: they are either an obstacle, or the whole problem.
For problem-solvers, people are completely separate from the substance. This is because we, people in conflict, are humans who deal with other humans. We are social, we are emotional, we depend on automatic processes happening in our minds and bodies, we are imperfect and complex. Fisher and Ury put this principle brilliantly: ‘Be soft on the people, hard on the problem.’
The same principle also allows you to remove trust from the equation (especially useful when it could potentially become a separate issue). Since the substance is separate from the people, you can create a solution that doesn’t depend on strength of your relationship and relies on checks and balances instead.
Solutions
Interest-Based Approach focuses on putting all conflict participants on the same team, as collaborators, allowing their views to diverge without being sucked into the controversy, and to converge back to create actionable solutions that work for all. Since they’re free from ‘us vs them’ mindset, people to get curious instead of defensive, they ask questions and listen, their thinking broadens, and they brainstorm their way to a solution they can not only live with, but get behind and execute enthusiastically.
Cons
If it sounds too good to be true, it’s because it is. Let’s explore some challenges of this approach:
it can be time-consuming, especially if large groups of people are involved
it requires practice and skill, mostly critical thinking and emotional intelligence
some people thrive on drama and are not interested in collaboration no matter how beneficial it is for them
protecting yourself from being manipulated by wolves in sheep’s clothing is not foolproof [, especially given that some skill and practice is required]
it may be punishable by the overarching system you’re using it in (ie highly competitive mistrustful environments)
power imbalances can be mitigated using this approach, but can’t be completely eliminated
How the three approaches compare: a summary table.
3. So which is better?
My goal here is not to point at one style and say it’s unequivocally better for all situations. For example, I use accommodating style when I only care about the relationship and couldn’t care less about the outcome. I can use positional negotiation tactics to haggle over a small trinket with a seller I’ve never met before and will never meet again. I avoid conflict in its entirety when a crazy person yells at me on the street.
My personal opinion: interest-based style fits better with my overall goals, but I don’t shy away from learning from other techniques when they are more efficient at helping me deal with a particular set of circumstances.
The goal is not to figure out which is an overall better approach, it is to build your own framework. Something that works with (not against) your limitations and builds on your strengths. Something that will help you achieve success, whatever meaning you attribute to this word.
Here’s what you need to figure out for yourself to start:
How you act and react under stress. Notice when you’re distracted, triggered, emotional, about to throw a tantrum, unreasonably stubborn, unreasonably cruel, defensive, etc. It will show you your blind spots, biases, weaknesses, and limitations that you can work on or temporarily outsource (to a lawyer or a mediator, for example). These are your areas of improvement.
What you want: for yourself, for your relationships, and for others who may be affected. These are your interests. Spend time on them and reevaluate as new info comes in. They are your underlying motivation and foundation that will keep you on track whenever you’re confused or tired and ready to give up.
What they want. I prefer to ask directly. This might not matter to you much when buying a trinket from the market, but it probably should if you’re signing a high-stakes long-term contract.
The key is to take a real, honest look at yourself, and adjust your framework’s strategies accordingly. If you place yourself in the Soft category, being taken advantage of is a serious risk, so your framework should include extensive self-protection strategies. If your style is that of an electric eel, you might want to look into grounding techniques (no pun intended). If you tend to blissfully miss all red flags that you’re in conflict with another person, try practicing empathy from he Soft side.
The wisdom is in knowing which strategy to use when.
