Untangling Conflict with 3 questions

3 simple eye-opening questions that can untangle conflict.

By Tammy Lenski

http://conflictzen.com/

One of those characteristics is clarity…what it’s really about and what most needs to be discussed to clear the air and get back on track. I want to offer up three eye-opening questions that can unlock even the most complicated conflicts.

Clarity Question 1. What is this really about for me?

It may be tempting to answer this one quickly, making it all about them. Don’t do it! Examples of throw-away, trap-ridden answers in workplace conflict include,

1. How sick I am of his passive-aggressive attitude.
2. Her disrespectful treatment of me in front of others.
3. The way she passes off all responsibility for problems and puts the blame on my shoulders.

The hint that you’ve taken the easy way out is when your answer is essentially a restatement of your diagnosis of the other person and their behavior. The problems with diagnosing outwardly instead of gaining inner clarity are:

• You may be right. You also have a reasonable chance of being wrong. Every person you have conflict with has others who think they’re terrific.
• Even if you are right, is it likely that your repeated diagnosis is going to lead to their changing that part of themselves? When you make it all about them you give up all your negotiating power to their discretion.
• You assume the problem behavior is a state of being for them, when it could just as easily be a reasonable reaction to something they see from you.
• You’ve missed the real key to unlocking the conflict: Your own actionable clarity.

Don’t take the easy way out.

Ask yourself the question again, with the emphasis on the last two words: What is this really about for me?

Building off the examples above, here are more meaningful answers that give you clarity about how to proceed:

1. Wanting to know that when he and I agree on something, he’s fully agreeing and will act on that agreement.
2. Wanting to be seen as the competent manager I am.
3. Willingness to assume responsibility to the degree I should, but not take on blame for someone else’s actions.

The first type of answer gets you trapped, the second opens up meaningful dialogue

See the difference?

Tempting answer 1: How sick I am of his passive-aggressive attitude.

Makes the conversation about: Whether or not he’s passive aggressive (he’ll no doubt say he’s not), how it’s got to stop, and how wrong you are.

Better answer 1: Wanting to know that when he and I agree on something, he’s fully agreeing and will act on that agreement.

Makes the conversation about: How to ensure you’re getting genuine agreement instead of an avoidant response. This offers fertile ground for change. Maybe he’s afraid to disagree with you. Maybe when he tries to disagree he feels ignored, so he’s given up and just nods to get the conversation over with. Maybe he feels pressed for time and isn’t aware that taking time to sort out a truly effective agreement is worth it to you. Maybe something else worth discovering.

When you get clarity on what it’s about for you, you open up the possibility of discovery. And effective conflict resolution is all about discovery.

Clarity Question 2: What do I need them most to understand?

This question has the greatest potential for insight if you answer what’s often the hidden second portion of your reply. First-blush answers, for instance, might be:

1. That I can’t trust him when he acts passive-aggressively.
2. That I won’t tolerate being disrespected in front of other members of my team.
3. That she needs to learn how to accept responsibility for her own actions.

The problem with those kinds of responses is that you’re making it about the other person and relying on them to change in order get what you need. When they hear those responses, their reaction is likely to be a defensive one, and the conversation will no longer be about what you need them to understand.

Instead, find what you most want them to understand by adding a short phrase to your knee-jerk reply, like this:

1. That I can’t trust him when he acts passive-aggressively and the impact on me is never feeling like a decision is firm and then I have to monitor what happens, taking time and energy I need for other projects.
2. That I won’t tolerate being disrespected in front of others and the impact on me is that my authority is repeatedly undermined.
3. That she needs to learn how to accept responsibility for her own actions because when doesn’t, the impact on me is that that I feel like I’m not part of a healthy team.

Aha! Now you’re getting somewhere. In my examples, what you most want them to understand is:

1. I want us to make decisions that will really work for us and don’t require us to keep re-visiting them.
2. I’m worthy of your respect even when I do something you don’t agree with.
3. I want us to create a healthy team where we can make occasional mistakes and not feel like we have to push the blame elsewhere.

See how it works? The first set of answers don’t change the conversation much. But the last set of responses drill down to what’s really meaningful. And once again, you’ve invited possibility to the table.

Clarity Question 3: What do I need to understand about or learn from them?

In disagreements at home and work, most people spend the bulk of their energy trying to be heard, trying to be understood, and trying to get the other person to support their solution to the problem. It’s a version of the old 80/20 rule — 80% of your time on you and 20% on them.

Mediators and conflict coaches know to help you flip the 80/20 rule — 20% of your energy on your own story and perspective and 80% on theirs. Why? Because 20% is enough — you know your story and perspective well enough already. Spend your energy where it will make a difference.

And once you’ve helped the other one be heard and made a genuine attempt to understand them, the likelihood of their doing the same for you is multiplied.

What do I need to understand about or learn from them changes the 80/20 rule into the better 20/80 habit.

Conflict Zen by Tammy Lenski is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Based on a work at ConflictZen.com.