People Skills_How to Assert Yourself, Listen to Others, and Resolve Conflicts

by Robert Bolton PhD

  Descriptive Recognitions

  Relationship Assertions

  Selective Inattention

  Withdrawal

  The Spectrum Response

  Options

  Natural and Logical Consequences

  Stop the Action, Accept the Feelings

  Say “No!”

  Modify the Environment

  Life is easier for everyone involved if the person learning assertion methods does not overuse them and provides some “loving allowances” for those with whom he interacts. In time, one’s increased assertiveness will demonstrate itself in an “aura of assertiveness” that enables a person to get many of his needs met without the conscious use of assertion methods.

  PART FOUR

  Conflict

  Management

  Skills

  In a world of finite men, conflict is inevitably associated with creativity. Without conflict there is no major personal change or social progress. On the other hand, runaway conflict (as in modern war) can destroy what men intended to save by it. Conflict management then becomes crucially important. This involves accepting or even encouraging such conflict as is necessary, but at the same time doing everything possible to keep it to the minimum essential to change, to confine it to the least destructive forms, and to resolve it as rapidly and constructively as possible.37

  —Harvey Seifert, social scientist, and Howard Clinebell, Jr., pastoral counselor

  CHAPTER TWELVE

  Conflict

  Prevention

  and Control

  One can distinguish between resolution and control as different goals of conflict management. The principals themselves or a third party may attempt to gain resolution, so that the original differences or feelings of opposition no longer exist, or they may attempt to merely control conflict, so that the negative consequences of the conflict are decreased, even though the opposing preferences and antagonisms persist.1

  —Richard Walton, organizational consultant

  CONFLICT IS UNAVOIDABLE

  To be human is to experience conflict. The other night my wife and I spent an evening recalling the conflicts we weathered in the past few years. Though our life style is rather quiet and peaceful, we were amazed at the amount and also at the intensity of the conflicts we encountered at work, at home, and in our small community of thirty-five hundred people.

  Then we thought about the conflicts in society. One-third of all marriages end in divorce. In many families there seems to be a wedge between parents and children called “the generation gap.” Teachers are out on strike, school budgets are voted down, local churches are torn by dissension.

  At 6:30 P.M., when we turn on our television sets, the conflicts of the world enter our household. News stories detail the struggles of labor against management, the city against the suburbs, whites against blacks, pro-abortionists against “right to life” groups, heterosexuals against homosexuals, environmentalists against nuclear power companies, and so on. The international coverage tells of coups, invasions, kidnappings, assassinations, economic sanctions, arms buildups, and breakdowns in negotiations—many of which have a direct or indirect effect on us.

  Though I am frequently surprised by the amount of conflict in my life and in our society, my experience should have led me to anticipate it. After all, differences in opinions, values, desires, needs, and habits are the stuff of daily living. Long before Karl Marx, James Madison said, “The most common and durable source of faction has been the various and unequal distribution of property.”2 That basic source of social friction is still very evident in our society.

  Perhaps even more causal in our everyday squabbles is the fact that we are human and not gods. It is impossible to rise completely above selfishness, betrayals, misrepresentations, anger, and other factors that strain and even break relationships. As Florence Allshorn said, “We can love for a time but then it breaks down.”3 The best we can hope for is to “establish the peace of a true kind at the other side of conflict.”4

  CONFLICT IS DISRUPTIVE

  AND/OR DESTRUCTIVE

  I hate conflict. I wish I could find a healthy way to avoid it or transcend it. But there is no such path.

  I detest conflict because at best it is disruptive, and at its worst it is destructive. Once it erupts, conflict is difficult to control. Destructive controversy has a tendency to expand. Often it becomes detached from its initial causes and may continue after these have become irrelevant or have long been forgotten. Conflict frequently escalates until it consumes all the things and people it touches.

  THE BENEFITS OF CONFLICT

  Conflict is a dangerous opportunity On an emotional level at least, many of us are more aware of its perils than of its possibilities. It is not without important benefits, however.

  Social scientists have discovered that love only endures when dissension is faced openly. In his book Love and Conflict, sociologist Gibson Winter writes, “Most families today need more honest conflict and less suppression of feeling…. There are obviously proper times and occasions for conflict. No one benefits from the random expression of hostile feelings. There are, however, occasions when these need to emerge…. We cannot find personal intimacy without conflict…. Love and conflict are inseparable.”5

  Some fascinating experiments document this thesis. In one noted series, the University of Wisconsin’s Dr. Harry Harlow reared several generations of monkeys and showed that those which were raised by nonfighting monkey mothers would not make love.6 Another well-known researcher, Konrad Lorenz, found that birds and animals that did not hold back their aggression became “the staunchest friends.”7 Likewise, students of human relationships like Harvard’s Erik Erikson blame the failure to achieve intimacy on “the inability to engage in controversy and useful combat.”

  Then, too, Stanley Coopersmith’s research suggests that some kinds of dissension in the home is healthy for children. He found that families that tend to express open dissent and disagreement tend to raise children who have that priceless quality—high self-esteem.8

  Another value of conflict is that it can prevent stagnation, stimulate interest and curiosity, and foster creativity. Philosopher John Dewey wrote, “Conflict is the gadfly of thought. It stirs us to observation and memory. It instigates to invention. It shocks us out of sheeplike passivity, and sets us at noting and contriving…. Conflict is a sine qua non of reflection and ingenuity.”9

  Economic historians have noted that much technological improvement has resulted from the conflict activity of unions which resulted in the increase of wage levels. A rise in wages often led to a substitution of capital investment for labor.10 The high level of mechanization of the American coalmining industry in the 1930s and early ’40s has been partly explained by the vigorous unionism in our coalfields during that period.11

  Many of our institutions, including the Christian church and the United States of America, were forged in the heat of conflict. Then, too, confrontation is a necessary ingredient of organizational renewal. Professor Richard Walton of Harvard University’s Graduate School of Business noted the positive impact that conflict can have on business and other organizations. According to Walton,

  a moderate level of interpersonal conflict may have the following constructive consequences: First, it may increase the motivation and energy available to do tasks required by the social system. Second, conflict may increase the innovativeness of individuals and the system because of the greater diversity of the viewpoints and a heightened sense of necessity. Third, each person may develop increased understanding of his own position, because the conflict forces him to articulate his views and to bring forth all supporting arguments. Fourth, each party may achieve greater awareness of his own identity. Fifth, interpersonal conflict may be a means for managing the participants’ own internal conflicts.12

  We have seen that conflict is unavoidable. At its best, it is disruptive, at its worst it is incredibly destructive. Conflict, however, can bring important be
nefits—especially when it is handled skillfully. It can foster intimacy, aid the development of children, encourage personal and intellectual growths, spur technological development, and help create and renew our social, religious, political, and business organizations.

  Thus the question faced by this chapter and by Chapters 13 and 14 is how can we manage conflict in such a way as to minimize the risks and maximize the benefits?

  REALISTIC

  AND NONREALISTIC CONFLICT

  Several well-adjusted middle-class American boys who were eleven or twelve years old attended a two-week-long experimental camp in the summer of 1954. They participated in activities that seemed natural to them and were not aware that their behavior was under observation by behavioral scientists.

  The experiment was conducted in three stages. The first, which lasted about a week, was designed to produce a sense of togetherness in each of two groups. Each group came to the camp in a separate bus, and besides living in the same cabin, the youngsters in each group engaged in numerous cooperative activities. They cooked, improved swimming places, camped out, and so forth. As a result, each group developed a “we feeling”—a sense of cohesiveness.

  In the second stage of the experiment, conflict was produced between the two groups by creating a series of competitive situations in which one group could achieve its goal only at the expense of the other group. A tournament of competitive events was set up with desirable prizes only for the victorious group. As they competed in baseball, touch football, tug-of-war, and other events, good sportsmanship eroded and hostility began to develop. Name-calling, threats, physical conflict, and raids on each other’s cabins took place in the second period of their stay.

  In the third stage, some strategies were developed for reducing the level of conflict and preventing the further development of unnecessary strife.

  Mere social contact at pleasurable events did not reduce the conflict. The two groups were brought together for movies, eating in the dining room, shooting off fireworks, and so on, but these experiences, far from diminishing the conflict, provided opportunities for the rival groups to berate and attack each other.

  The conflict was finally resolved when the two groups committed themselves to superordinate goals (goals that could not be achieved without the cooperation of both groups). Water came to the camp in pipes from a tank about a mile away. The behavioral scientists arranged to have the water system break down. The two groups cooperated in searching for and correcting the trouble. On another occasion they jointly raised funds to go to a highly desired movie. The camp truck broke down away from camp one time and both groups combined to pull it. The campers, of course, were not aware that these situations had been purposely manufactured by the researchers.

  While the mutual hostility did not disappear immediately, there was a gradual decrease in conflict which led in time to pleasant interaction. The two groups began planning activities together, and friendships were formed across group lines. Members of both groups requested that they go home together on the same bus rather than on the separate buses in which they had arrived. At a rest stop on the way home, one group invited their former enemies to be their guests for malted milks.13

  This experiment by Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues at the University of Oklahoma was followed by experiments by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton with more than 150 nearly identical groups of adults drawn from industrial organizations. These experiments with adults showed that certain conditions stimulated needless and counterproductive conflict, while other conditions tended to mitigate or prevent conflict.14

  Anthropologist Ruth Benedict noted that some societies are characterized by more conflict than others. In a series of lectures at Bryn Mawr College in 1941, she spelled out specific characteristics of cultures that she believed caused high levels of conflict and those characteristics which she thought tended to prevent or control conflict.15

  Where two or more people are together for any length of time, some conflict will be generated. That is inevitable. The experiments of Sherif, Blake and Mouton, and others and the analyses of scholars like Ruth Benedict and Abraham Maslow suggest, however, that certain conditions, behaviors, and organizational climates tend to produce needless conflict, while other climates and conditions do not tend to generate unnecessary disputes. Social scientists now make an important distinction between realistic conflict and nonrealistic conflict. In realistic conflict there are opposed needs, goals, means, values, or interests. Nonrealistic conflict, however, stems from ignorance, error, historical tradition and prejudice, dysfunctional organizational structure, win/lose types of competition, hostility, or the need for tension release.

  Realistic conflict can be faced and resolved using methods like those described in the next two chapters. Unrealistic conflict, however, creates unwarranted tension between people and can cause much unnecessary destruction. Unrealistic conflict should and—to a significant degree—can be prevented or controlled. There are important actions that individuals can do, and significant steps that groups and organizations can take, to prevent the development of needless conflict.

  PERSONAL CONFLICT

  PREVENTION

  AND CONTROL METHODS

  Though it is impossible to totally eradicate conflict, much needless strife can be averted by personal conflict prevention and control methods.

  One way of diminishing the amount of conflict you experience is to use fewer roadblocks, especially when one or more person in the interaction has a strong need. Ordering (dominating), threatening, judging, name-calling, and other roadblocks are conflict-promoting interactions.

  Reflective listening to another person when she has a strong need or a problem can do wonders. It helps the other dissipate “negative” emotions and/or may help the other solve a problem, which, if unresolved, could develop into a major conflict.

  Assertion skills enable a person to get her needs met with minimal strife. By asserting when needs arise, one can prevent the buildup of emotions that so often causes conflict. Potential problems can be avoided by preventive assertion messages such as, “I’m going to be writing a chapter of the book today, so I will appreciate it if you are fairly quiet around the house.” Both the assertion and listening skills help to clear up two major sources of conflict—errors and lack of information.

  Awareness of which behaviors are likely to start a needless conflict between you and others can help you eliminate many confrontations. Certain words, looks, or actions tend to “trigger” specific people into conflict. Often these triggering behaviors have little or nothing to do with present relationships. They may be rooted in early childhood experiences.

  Observant people can “read” storm warnings in the sky. Just so, the aware person can look for the signs and patterns in her conduct and the conduct of her associates which indicate that a storm is brewing. Though there is little that can be done about the weather, these early warning signals in interpersonal relationships can provide both the time and the insights to take effective preventive action.

  “Dumping one’s bucket” of tension without filling the other’s bucket is another important conflict prevention and control method. Often, in the normal course of life, tensions build. These can be released in ways that build tension in other people. If I swear and shout at you, I release my tension—but probably increase yours at the same time. However, I can shout in my room alone or spout off to a neutral third party who agrees to hear me vent my feelings. Strenuous exercise, competitive athletics, and sexual activities also can drain off one’s tensions without adding to other people’s stress. I am more and more convinced of the importance of this conflict-reducing method.

  Increased emotional support from family and friends can decrease one’s proneness to unnecessary conflict. Each of us knows ways to activate more caring and warmth in our interpersonal environment. By and large, the more we are loved and cared for, the less we need to fight.

  Heightened tolerance and acceptance of others also tends t
o diminish unrealistic conflict. To some degree our levels of tolerance and acceptance are conditioned by our upbringing and possibly even by genetic factors. But each of us can become more tolerant and accepting than we now are. Greater assertiveness, increased emotional support in our lives, effective courses in communication skills, and incorporating some of the wisdom of Rational Emotive Therapy16 are some ways of increasing one’s tolerance and acceptance.

  “Issues control” is another important way of managing conflicts. In his book International Conflict and Behavioral Sciences, Roger Fisher points out that “issues control” may be as important as “arms control” in creating world peace.17 This guideline is as valuable in controlling the conflicts between individuals as it is in regulating strife between nations. Factors in issues control include the following:

  It is often preferable to begin by establishing procedures for handling disputes rather than dealing immediately with substantive issues.

  It is often preferable to deal with one issue at a time.

  It is often preferable to break issues down into smaller units rather than deal with enormous problems with many parts.

  It is often preferable to start with issues that you believe can be most easily resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.

  It is important to eventually get down to the basic issues. When there is one fight after another, George Bach says, someone should have the sense to take the needle off the broken record and demand, “Will the real problem please stand up?”

  It is usually preferable to define the dispute in terms that do not pit the principles of one person against the principles of another. When possible, define the dispute in nonideological terms. Try to find out how your needs and the other’s needs can be satisfied. To the extent that values issues are involved, Roger Fisher points out, it is wise to say that “the solution we seek is not only consistent with our principles but is also consistent with those of our adversary—at least if properly construed and applied. By insisting that our adversary can come along without abandoning his principles, we make it easier for him to do so.”18