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

by Robert Bolton PhD

  For many of us, an act of willpower is needed to fight the gravitational pull into disrespect. The exertion of moral force is required to treat the other as a person of worth with whom we will enter into a dialogue as equals.

  Step 2: Listen Until You

  “Experience the Other Side”

  Under the best conditions, effective communication is difficult to achieve. During conflict, when feelings are strong, people are especially prone to misunderstanding one another. You have undoubtedly listened to heated discussions in which the people weren’t talking about the same thing but didn’t know it—or they may have been in basic agreement but didn’t realize it. Whatever goes on between people during conflict, it is rarely accurate communication.

  One of the best ways to communicate more accurately during disagreements and to resolve conflict is to institute Carl Roger’s rule: “Each person can speak up for himself only after he has first restated the ideas and feelings of the previous speaker accurately, and to that speaker’s satisfaction.”5

  A “Rap Manual” put out by Eugene Gendlin and some of his associates in a neighborhood center on Chicago’s South Side tells how to do this kind of listening:

  You … listen and say back the other person’s thing, step by step, just as that person seems to have it at that moment. You never mix into it any of your own things or ideas, never lay on the other person any thing that person didn’t express…. To show that you understand exactly, make a sentence or two which gets exactly at the personal meaning this person wanted to put across. This might be in your own words, usually, but use that person’s own words for the touchy main things.6

  The goal of listening is to understand the content of the other person’s ideas or proposals, the meaning it has for him, and the feelings he has about it. That means being able to step into the other person’s shoes and view from his point of view the things he is talking about.

  This kind of listening is different from merely being able to repeat back the other’s words or ideas. Dr. Richard Cabot said, “We do not understand an opposing idea until we have so exposed ourselves to it that we feel the pull of its persuasion, until we arrive at the point where we really see the power of whatever element of truth it contains.”7 This is what Martin Buber means when he speaks of “experiencing the other side.”

  It is very difficult to accurately understand and summarize another person’s point of view during disagreements. People often hear from their own point of view and reflect back a summary that is correct in many ways but that distorts the other’s message. For example, in an argument with her daughter Emily, Marsha Kirshenbaum said:

  Marsha: I’m angry that so often when I ask you to complete your household chores you say you can’t because you have to do your homework.

  Emily: (trying to summarize her mother’s statement): You want me to forget about my homework and do the chores.

  Emily’s reflection is seemingly correct but distorts the spirit of what her mother was saying. This is especially evident to a person who overheard the whole conversation to this point. Marsha was unhappy that her daughter put off both the chores and the homework until there was little option but to do one or the other. A more accurate reflection might have been:

  Emily: You’re upset because you think I use homework as an excuse for not doing my household chores.

  Emily does not have to believe that she is using the homework as an excuse when she makes this reflection. Her job is to understand, not necessarily to agree. She’ll soon have a chance to state her opinion.

  Concentrate especially on reflecting feelings. It is not enough to hear the other’s emotions—they need to be understood and accepted. Sometimes the diatribes of the other will seem like a deliberate attempt to hurt you. You will be tempted to strike back in rage. If you choose to resist that impulse and empathically reflect the other’s feeling, you will be amazed at how quickly the other’s feelings usually subside.

  Don’t say, “I know how you feel.” The other person will rarely believe it. Don’t offer explanations, apologies, or make any other statements at this point. Discipline yourself to understand the opinions and suggestions or feelings of the other person—from her point of view—and then reflect those thoughts and feelings back to the other in a succinct statement. Be silent to let the other think about what you said, indicate that it was essentially correct, and explain his point a bit further or correct any inaccuracies there may have been in his speaking or your listening. If the other person adds to what he said or corrects your reflection, summarize that to his satisfaction. When the other person feels heard, you have earned the right to speak your point of view and express your feelings.

  Step 3: State Your Views,

  Needs, and Feelings

  After demonstrating respect for the other as a person and conveying your understanding of his feelings and point of view, it is your turn to communicate your meaning to the other. Five guidelines are useful at this step of the conflict resolution process.

  First, state your point of view briefly. Especially during conflict, you will usually communicate better if you keep your message short and to the point.

  Next, avoid loaded words. That can be difficult during tense times. A character in one of Philip Roth’s novels said with surprise, “My God! The English language is a form of communication! Conversation isn’t just crossfire where you shoot and get shot at! Where you’ve got to duck for your life and aim to kill! Words aren’t only bombs and bullets—no, they’re little gifts containing meanings!”8

  Third, say what you mean and mean what you say. Many times people withhold important information in tense times. Or they talk about one issue when their real concern centers on an entirely different matter. When in conflict people often make much more extreme statements than they really believe. While there may be some occasions when it is best to be guarded, it is often preferable to state the truth as it really is for you.

  Fourth, disclose your feelings. The other person may have accused you unjustly and may have stirred up some feelings of anger or resentment. Or you may have a lot of feelings about the subject under discussion. It is difficult to constructively express the alienation you feel toward the person who has offended you, but this normally needs to be done if the conflict is to be resolved. Some of the assertion skills learned earlier may help here. Until the emotional issues are resolved, the sutstantive issues probably can’t be settled. Whether you are talking or listening, the conflict resolution method concentrates especially on the feelings.

  Finally, there are some occasions when step 3 of the conflict resolution process (stating your own views, needs, and feelings) is unnecessary. Sometimes one person is upset and the other is not. When the angry person vents his feelings and is accepted and treated with respect, the conflict may end.

  Though avoiding step 3 may sometimes be appropriate, usually it is not. Some people misuse this method by listening to the other while refusing to disclose their feelings or point of view. When this happens repeatedly it undermines the relationship.

  THE CONFLICT RESOLUTION

  METHOD IN ACTION

  Because there are three steps involved in it, some people call the conflict resolution process the one-two-three process:

  Treat the other person with respect.

  Listen until you “experience the other side” and reflect content, feelings, and meanings.

  Briefly state your own views, needs, and feelings.

  Meg, a student in one of our communication skills courses, used this method for the first time in a discussion she was having with Don, her fiancé. They often got into verbal battles about religion. One day, when she saw a conflict brewing, she decided to try her newly learned skills. Later she wrote out the dialogue. (Note that in the first few interchanges, she was not using the conflict resolution method.)

  Don: You sure spend a lot of hours helping at your church. Wouldn’t you rather do other things?

  Meg: Our church is really great.
I do a lot for it because I get a lot out of it—and I get a good feeling from it

  Don: I’ll take my church anytime. In the Catholic Church, you don’t have to do anything and you still reap the benefits.

  Meg: Do you like anything else about the Catholic Church besides the lack of work?

  Don: Isn’t that enough? Look at your church—two hundred families are working their heads off and you’re still in the red! I’d never waste my time like that. Besides, the Protestant Church demands all that work and you’re forced to do something you really don’t want to spend time doing. (Talks at length about this.)

  Meg: Don, it sounds like we have a very different point of view here. I just took a communication-skills course that describes a healthy way to express your own opinions and still listen to understand the other person’s opinion. Here’s the method. While you make a statement I listen carefully; then restate your views. That way you know I fully understand what you’ve just said. Then we’ll switch—OK?

  Don: (laughing): You’re trying to slow me down! OK, go ahead.

  Meg: You think that spare time is important and you’d rather spend it doing something other than volunteer work for a church.

  Don: Right. Especially when …

  Meg: Wait—my turn. I think that if I enjoy doing something, even if it’s volunteer work for a church, I should be free to do it, especially when I think it is worthwhile service and not a waste of time.

  Don: You do it because you want to, not because the church makes you feel obligated.

  Meg: (Nods, meaning “yes.”)

  Don: The Catholic Church is better than the Protestant Church because you don’t have to pledge money or be accounted for all the time. Besides, the Catholic Church has made a lot of good changes recently—like you don’t have to eat fish on Friday anymore.

  Meg: You believe the Catholic Church is more desirable than the Protestant because of healthy changes and no demands.

  Don: (Nods affirmatively.)

  Meg: I prefer the Protestant Church because of close fellowship with friends working together and the church service which always includes excellent music and helpful sermons.

  Don: You like the music and the messages. I’ll admit they may be better than in the Catholic Church, but I wouldn’t listen to that anyway. I’d daydream. When I’m in my church I feel I’m worshipping God just by being there. That’s all I need.

  Meg: It sounds like you and I are happy in our own churches because we look for different things.

  This was Meg’s evaluation of the interaction:

  I feel so good about this conversation. When we talk about these kinds of things, it usually gets real bad. I think this is the first time Don listened to my side when we had a strong disagreement. It helped me, too. Without the skills, I’m sure I would have gotten preachy and holier-than-thou. By using the skills I avoided using the roadblocks. And though we’ve had talks on this topic before, this was the first time I understood where Don was coming from.

  People often think that the skills described in this book are very modern. Not so. Before the times of Socrates and Jesus individuals with exceptional ability at interpersonal communication were using similar methods of relating.

  For many centuries the essentials of conflict resolution have been known and practiced. Here is an example of the use of the conflict resolution method during a tense and dangerous time in a much earlier era.

  At the end of the sixteenth century William Shakespeare wrote the play Julius Caesar which dramatized the conflict and intrigue that surrounded Caesar’s death in 44 B.C. Brutus was among those who assassinated Caesar, then, with brilliant oratory, convinced the Roman populace that he had done what was best both for them and for the greater glory of Rome. He stirred up in the crowd a loathing of Caesar and of those, like Mark Anthony, who had remained loyal to Caesar.

  Moments later, Mark Anthony rose to address that same crowd. Before his first words were uttered a belligerent voice from the mob yelled, “T’were best he speaks no harm of Brutus here.” Another shrieked, “This Caesar was a tyrant.” Another howled, “We are blessed that Rome is rid of him.”

  Mark Anthony realized he would be lucky to live through the night. This speech was a life-or-death matter. Calling upon his knowledge of people, he did three things in that speech which make it one of the great pieces of oratory in the world.

  First, he treated the crowd with respect. “Friends, Romans, countrymen,” he said, “lend me your ears….”

  Next, having listened carefully, he demonstrated his understanding of the popular point of view and his acceptance of people’s right to their own opinions. He succinctly reflected back to them the parts of Brutus’ speech that had deeply affected them and at the same time demonstrated that he heard the jeers from the crowd. “The noble Brutus,” continued Mark Anthony, “hath told you Caesar was ambitious. If it was so, it was a grievous fault, and grievously hath Caesar answered it.” He continued in this vein, summarizing their concerns and opinions.

  When he thought the people in the crowd knew that he, Mark Anthony, understood the situation from their perspective, the Roman politician proceeded to step 3. He stated his own opinion in noninflammatory words and presented some important evidence. “He was my friend, faithful and just to me; but Brutus says he was ambitious and Brutus is an honorable man. He [Caesar] hath brought many captives to Rome, whose ransoms did the general coffers fill. Did this in Caesar seem ambitious? … You all did see that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition?” Mark Anthony then produced Caesar’s will, which left most of the dead ruler’s wealth to the citizens of Rome.

  The odds for Mark Anthony’s survival that day, March 15, 44 B.C., were slim indeed. He was saved by following the three steps of the conflict resolution method. Shakespeare probably never learned it as a “method,” but he knew that Anthony in such a crisis would have to treat the crowd and his opponents with respect and listen attentively and demonstrate his understanding. By doing this he could drain off the anger of the people standing before him. Only after Mark Anthony had dealt with their emotions would people be ready for the facts as he saw them. When the people were ready emotionally, he stated his case. By following these three steps he not only survived the day but lived to take over the reins of Rome.9

  FOUR WAYS TO USE

  THE CONFLICT RESOLUTION METHOD

  There are four ways of implementing the conflict resolution method. First, one can use this method even when the other person or persons are not using it. By listening to the other with respect and speaking briefly in noninflammatory ways, you can help the other person to simmer down and engage in a more productive discussion.

  When you are involved in a dispute or sense that a fight is brewing, a second approach is to explain the method briefly and ask the other person to join you in trying this way of relating.

  Bart, a teacher, had repeated conflicts with one of his students, Jim. After learning the conflict resolution method, he decided to try to use it with Jim when the next opportunity arose. He didn’t have long to wait. This is Bart’s account of what happened:

  Jim started a fight with a child in another class. During the slugfest some school equipment was broken. When Jim and I talked about this type of thing previously we seemed to get nowhere. This time I resolved to use the one-two-three method.

  I asked Jim to go to my room and wait for me while I took the rest of the class to the library. When I went to my room, Jim looked like he was ready to “fly off the handle” with me, as he had on so many previous occasions. I sat down next to him in silence for nearly a minute and then said, “Jim, before we begin talking let’s make a contract. Each of us will listen to what the other says and say it back before we speak. And when we talk we’ll keep it straight and simple.”

  I paused, leaving a long silence as before. Then, looking at him I said, “What do you say … is it a deal?” I extended my hand in the form of a
handshake. He took it and said, “It’s a deal.”

  The results? We both understand and like each other a lot better than before. And after we dealt with the feelings we did some problem solving which has licked the problem for over a month.

  A third way of introducing the conflict resolution method is to do it when things are calm and peaceful. In a family meeting, class session, or work gathering explain that conflict is inevitable in any group and that there is a way of successfully coping with the emotional elements of conflict so that people can discuss their differences more profitably and resolve them more constructively. Explain the method, perhaps role-play it, and possibly provide a handout that explains the method. Then discuss the desirability of using it in your family or organization when there are strongly felt differences. You may get more resistance to using the method than you expect. If that happens—you’ve probably guessed it—refrain from answering the objections right away. Instead, treat the other with respect, listen carefully to the objection, and demonstrate that you understand. Then you may make a brief statement. After doing a lot of listening, I usually say something like, “I haven’t been very happy with the way we’ve handled disagreements in the past. I don’t think it has been satisfying to you, either. I’d like to try this out for a time or two and see if it helps. If not, no point in continuing. Willing to give it a try …?”

  Lastly, you can use this method to help others resolve their conflicts. If the antagonists agree to your third-party role, your job is to remain neutral and make sure that the conflict resolution process is followed. In very delicate situations the third party may decide to reflect after each person speaks. Less distortion may occur when a neutral party summarizes a statement than when essentially the same words are spoken by an adversary.