HOW DO PERCEPTIONS AND PERSPECTIVES ESCALATE CONFLICT?

“I do not see life as it is, I see life as I am” Byron Katie

When our wounds and fears determine our perspectives, and our perceptions perpetuate our wounds, we are caught in a vicious cycle. This cycle escalates conflict, both within us and with others.

One’s thinking and feeling-filters determine how we perceive situations, ourselves and those around us; they inform our judgements and response.  When one’s filters are clogged with old assumptions and wounds, past beliefs are projected on present situations; communication becomes unclear, dynamics are created and patterns are perpetuated.

In other words, our thoughts create our reality; they become self-fulfilling prophecies.

The Backpack:

A friend of mine once said that whenever a new relationship was in its budding stages, he would symbolically and automatically pick up the emotional backpack he had previously stored in the cupboard and put it on, ready for the dance to begin. It sounded somewhat familiar …!

There are some backpacks however, that we are unaware of carrying; we may even be so used to them that we don’t take them off at all and they become a part of us. Carrying this weight alters our posture; it becomes our walk and stance in life, our experience and our perspective.

However, awareness is the first step towards change. Becoming aware means asking oneself clarifying questions, for example:

• What am I carrying in relation to my family, partner, colleagues and life as whole?
• What is in my backpack – what memories and interpretations are inside?
• Where and when did I add them; how do they serve me now?
• Why am I hanging on to them; are there things I can let go of and forgive myself and others for?

Judgements and labels: the lenses that inform our behaviour

Also in our backpack are the judgements we make about those around us based on first impressions, or on how we feel in ourselves when around them. These judgements are labels – “Jim is a bully”, “Lucy is two-faced” and so on.

Understanding the nature of labels can help us change our approach. Labels are based on:

• Our assumptions, fears and insecurities
• Generalizations
• Challenging the person and not the behaviour

Labels become the lenses, hearing aids and nerve endings through which we perceive that person. A word, a look, or action becomes proof of our assumption about them.  Our behaviour will consequently mirror our perception. “John is a bully; he always belittles people. I need to show him that I can stand up to him as someone who is equal if not better than him.”

Judgements hook us into a dynamic of rigidity and blame with that person and we may find ourselves behaving differently with them. “I’m only like this with you/him/her …”

Blame, however, detracts us from exploring the wounds that person triggers in us and seeking to heal our old patterns.

Awareness of labels and judgements therefore opens our choice of response and changes dynamics.

Generalizations

Generalizations lead to exaggerations: “You always”, “You never”. These cause us to be blinkered to the bigger picture and carry the dynamic into the future.

One tends to generalise when they feel the need to defend and validate one’s position, but in so doing perspectives become tilted and fixed. Exploring generalisations can help break down assumptions and review our own perceptions and behaviour as well as those of another.

Doing so therefore helps us re-frame the situation from an Adult perspective; it moves us away from rigidity and blame, towards seeing the whole picture from the viewpoint of the present.

From where I’m standing:

A changed perspective can drastically alter our interpretation and experience of an image.

The Elephant: A group of blindfolded people describe an elephant through touch, without knowing what it is they are describing. Each one describes what they think they are touching, but what each describes is a perception based on their perspective. These people can then either cooperate to piece the puzzle together, or argue over the exclusivity of their personal truth. . .

Fixed perspectives and worldviews put our senses on alert; we convince ourselves that we are in danger of being hurt (again) which in turn leads us to adhere to our viewpoint even more. This keeps us stuck in a pattern of fear and reaction.

Wanting to be ‘right’, does not only relate to one’s perspective and the need for it to be heard, but also to one’s validity as a person.

The role of identity

If we over-identify with our beliefs and consider them to represent who we really are, then any attack on our worldview will feel like an attack on us as a person. This attitude can easily escalate a discussion into an argument as we seek to defend ourselves and protect our vulnerability. Blame can rapidly infiltrate the dynamic and result in fixed positions.

While it is true that personal values define us, we are not our beliefs; particularly those adopted in childhood from our environment and our own assumptions. Like the backpack, our beliefs benefit from being re-evaluated and for us to consider if what we are carrying still serves us.

Putting it bluntly, we need to sift the shit from the sugar from time to time!

Fact, interpretation, impact and intention

Sometimes facts are spiced with one’s interpretation of an event from the perspective of how it has impacted. Such cases can lead one to believe that the impact was intended.

However, this line of thinking has a four-fold effect, it:

• Escalates arguments
• Confuses the issues
• Attracts labels and generalizations
• Denies true feelings

For instance: John and I have a meeting scheduled at 1pm. That is the fact. When he doesn’t show up, I conclude that it’s because he is an arrogant bully who wants to ‘make me’ feel small, hurt and angry. I conclude that John never turns up to appointments because he is arrogant, and a bully who enjoys hurting others. I may or may not tell him how I feel so as not to show my vulnerability and may decide to have it out with him, avoid him or say nothing.

We cannot know what another intended without checking out the facts and exploring our own interpretation.

Asking questions

As an acronym the word ‘fear’ stands for: False Evidence Appearing Real. I love that!

It is therefore important to explore the evidence and why it appears as such to us. A reality-check of questions enables us to unpack our fears into bite-size chunks, through which we explore our perceptions, misperceptions and assumptions more easily.

Doing so can increase understanding and allows us to approach the situation from a different perspective.

Conclusion

In order to break patterns of behaviour we need to explore our perspective and the reasons behind it, including its relationship to our sense of self.

Truth may not change, but our perception of it can. Putting ourselves in another’s position can give us many insights and may alter our interpretation, decision, behaviour and ultimately outcome.

Exploring an alternative worldview requires us to shake up our own familiar ground. While fears may arise and leave us feeling vulnerable, it is exactly this sense of vulnerability that fosters true dialogue and understanding.

I recently came upon this quote from Lao Tzu that says:

Watch your thoughts; they become words.

Watch your words; they become actions.

Watch your actions; they become habits.

Watch your habits; they become your character.

Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.

We have a choice about whether or not we carry our backpack. The question is, how would we feel if we took it off forever?

HOW IS SILENCE USED IN CONFLICT: AS TIME-OUT OR AS A POSITION? WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO AND THEIR EFFECTS ON ITS RESOLUTION?

One’s relationship to silence is very personal. One may feel comfortable or uncomfortable with it. There are those who feel the need to fill the empty spaces with words and those who are happy for silence to fall naturally. Silence can bond or divide. It can be a pause, a breath one takes in a conversation or discussion, or an iron curtain drawn between people, groups and countries.

SO WHAT IS SILENCE?

Like conflict, silence is energy; it is neither good nor bad, it just is. It is both constructive and destructive. Its effect is determined by how it is used and how one relates to it.

Silence is a resource, a tool and a weapon. It may be used to keep secrets; for the good of all, or out of fear or to control.

For example, silence can be:

• Used to retain a new project or information under wraps (e.g. something awaiting a patent)
• A spiritual practice; used in magical traditions to retain the purity of teachings and strengthen the work undertaken
• Imposed upon, or adopted by, victims of any abuse and accompanies shame and fear
• A form of bullying and punishment

SILENCE AS A STAND IN CONFLICT

Everyone has the right to say ‘no’ to anything, including to talking, but how one relays that choice and uses the space needed, can affect interpersonal dynamics.

Depending on this, silence can:

• Prolong the situation without closure and understanding
• Increase resentment and power games
• Help de-escalate a situation and bring about resolution
• Foster learning and insight from a place of calm and grace

Silence can be used passively or passive-aggressively as a form of avoidance and control, or assertively to call time-out.

A passive stance may be:

• A sudden break in communication and rejection of requests to clarify the situation, or simply a denial of the existence of the problem
• Sulking and/or avoiding the person (even if it means foregoing an employment opportunity, social outing, or connection with a parent)
• Complaining to others, but denying that there is a problem when approached

Used in this way, silence is a punishment and contributes to a conflict’s escalation or perpetuation.  Indeed, this is what Arnold Mindell calls “the victim as terrorist” – holding people to ransom with their stance.

Conversely, the passive-aggressive attitude is more engaged. It uses silence more ambivalently in what could be termed a ‘yes-no-maybe’ communication style.  This manifests as the use of sarcasm to communicate resentment, without necessarily wanting to address the issue directly.

A passive-aggressive position may include:

• Using silence to intentionally ignore or exclude someone at work or socially
• Talking disparagingly about the person behind their back and/or spreading untruths while refusing to speak to them
• Shooting Arrows: making ambiguous  yet cutting remarks to hurt the other while refusing to communicate directly – this can be orally or via social media
• Blaming and taking no responsibility for equal contribution

In both these cases, when silence is used as a position in conflict, it creates a power game; it’s potentially bullying and can escalate the situation further or end it in resentment.

SILENCE AS TIME-OUT: THE ASSERTIVE APPROACH:

Children will often keep fighting until there is a clear winner or until an adult steps in to stop it. When grown-ups argue and old wounds are reignited, there are often little children at play who need an adult to intervene.

Applying the Parent-Adult- Child Model of Transactional Analysis to the use of silence helps to see it from a different perspective.

The Child will sulk and/or hit out; the Parent will punish and refuse to speak, while the Adult calls time-out in a respectful way.

Calling time-out as an Adult means:

• Challenging the behaviour or dynamic and not attacking the person. “This discussion is getting out hand”, not: “You are out of hand”
• Speaking from the “I”: “I need time-out/space right now”
• The assertive adult does not belittle, but relays their own need in a respectful manner and may also give an indication of the time frame needed

Asking for time-out in this way can create a constructive space for de-escalation, although what one does with that time will also determine the course the situation will take.

ESCALATING OR DE-ESCALATING THOUGHTS?

Imagine a boxing ring when the bell rings announcing the end of the round.  The coach jumps in and pep talks the boxer, getting them fired up to get back in and knock out the opponent.

When silence falls on an argument or a conflict, we are in that space between ‘rounds’.  The question is, what are our thoughts (and friends) coaching us to do – are they firing us up or calming us down? Are we using the space to gather ammunition that will discredit our opponent and knock them out cold?

Indeed,

• Are we in Parent, Adult or Child mode?
• Are we considering all viewpoints and alternatives or just our wounded perspective?

APPROACHING SILENCE FROM THE AND-PRINCIPLE:

One way to stop the cycle and de-escalate the situation is to look for the teaching that this interaction brings and consider alternative thinking, including our contribution.

Using the And-principle means disengaging from either-or thinking that validates our ‘rightness’ and assumptions, and instead consider the silence from a different standpoint.

For instance seeing it:

• As a rejection of the dynamic rather than of us as a person
• As a possibility that they are also hurting
• That they may be withdrawing to avoid saying or causing further hurt
• That they may need time-out to reflect

In so doing, we approach it as a space for reflection and healing; as a potential bereavement of a dynamic or relationship and/or as an examination of our attitudes and behaviour.

USING SILENCE CONSTRUCTIVELY

The majority of interpersonal conflicts have two sides and carry equal contribution.

Remembering this can help us consider:

• Our actions from their perspective
• Our needs and theirs – are there similarities?
• Can we relate to their needs, even if we don’t share them?

When the fiery energy of anger-driven hurts has expended itself, we can then consider the sadness and the fears. Silence can help us arrive at a place of grace and calm. What can we let go of? Can we forgive ourselves and the other for what has happened?

From that silent place, we can hear the compassionate voice of our true self rather, than the boisterous ego competing for the Olympic power-games!

We can hear our wisdom, truth, clarity, humility and vulnerability.  If we are the ones who have asked for silence, we may suggest communication and if we are not, we respect their need for space. Either way we have used silence to arrive at a place of peace, understanding and forgiveness.

 

CONCLUSION

Calling for silence need not be destructive or a temporary ceasefire until the next round! Silence can also be used as a conflict management tool that can help us move out of the drama, to an authentic place in which our true feelings inform us of our fears, needs, contribution and choices.

Asking for time-out in a respectful manner paves the way towards resolution.

When someone is not speaking to us, silence may feel like a weapon and perhaps also bereavement; an emotional journey towards letting go, accepting and ultimately, transformation. While we cannot force another to speak, we can use their silence to learn.

Silence brings all our emotions and wisdom to the surface – do we dare to truly listen?

 

 

 

 

 

FORGIVENESS RELEASES US FROM ANY RESENTMENT WE MAY STILL HOLD; BUT WHAT ARE THE COSTS AND GAINS OF FORGIVING ANOTHER?

“Forgiveness does not change the past but it does enlarge the future” Paul Boese

Forgiveness means letting go of resentment and retaliation by recognizing that perpetuating the conflict only hurts us more. While an authentic apology can be effective in restoring interpersonal relations, forgiveness goes one step further; it enables healing and allows each person to move forward in their lives without guilt, bitterness or power games that can reignite the conflict.

Forgiveness does not mean that we condone another’s action, but that we choose a different response and regard the situation as an opportunity for growth. But how easy is it to forgive?

Our willingness to forgive depends on how one relates to the factors in play when considering it:

• Empathy for self and other
• One’s worldview/assumptions: how we see ourselves, others and life
• One’s sense of identity and self-esteem
• One’s vulnerability, truth and congruence

Empathy:

How we treat ourselves when we make a mistake can reflect on how forgiving we are of others. Do we tell ourselves that we are ‘a bad person’, or that we made an error of judgement? Are we more lenient on ourselves than we are on others, or vice versa? Or are we equally kind to both?

If we are hard on ourselves, we may lack empathy and understanding for the part of us who was in pain when it acted out. We may then wish to ‘punish’ another rather than explore the reasons behind their action, their situation and worldview, how they perceive us and our behaviour.

While empathy is inclusive, blame is exclusive. Empathy enables compassion for each other’s humanness and facilitates personal insight. It helps us move away from blame and opens reflection from the ‘And-principle’.  For example: “This happened and it hurt me and they saw things from their perspective and I may have contributed and they were also in pain and we may both be hurting.” In other words we see the human in them and in ourselves.  Empathy does not minimize the act; it simply helps us detach from it.

Our Worldview and Assumptions

While we may justly feel hurt by another’s action, holding on to hurt and anger harms us more. Simply put, we remain frozen in the past; we twist the knife into an unhealed wound and this calcifies our assumptions.

We may consequently convince ourselves that it is true that:

• Others cannot be trusted and that not forgiving helps us remain vigilant to it reoccurring
• It’s not ok to make mistakes and that these require punishment and repentance
• Life is a struggle for power, which we must win in order to survive
• To forgive is a sign of weakness

Not forgiving keeps us stuck in blame and power-games, which, however unconsciously, perpetuate the conflict in order to validate our hurt position and justify our actions. As a result, we can become so used to living with the ‘story’ that we don’t remember who we are without it.

Our sense of identity and self-esteem

By considering forgiveness however, we embark on an inner journey of healing and learning that exposes our vulnerability. Through it, we explore how we regard ourselves in relation to others and the extent to which this is driving our attachment to the event.

• Do we regard our self-esteem as equal, or unequal to others?
• Do we err towards grandiosity or inferiority, or regard ourselves as ‘ok’ despite our creases?
• Who, what and how would we be without the story?

If we regard our identity from an ‘all-or-nothing’ perspective and a sense of competition, then forgiveness feels like a sign of weakness and a loss of validity. “If I forgive, it means that it’s ok for them to walk all over me.” One consequently hangs onto the story to make a point and enforce one’s self-esteem.

Conversely, if we regard ourselves as equal to others, we are able to forgive without our identity being affected. From this place, our response may be: “This hurt me and I can forgive, knowing that it doesn’t mean that I’m above or below them.”

Our self-esteem also drives our ability to forgive ourselves; can we be empathic with ourselves, or do we seek external absolution and approval?

Vulnerability, Truth and Congruence

By allowing our vulnerability, we reconnect to our true selves and not the wounded ego running the show through the defensive ‘acts’ of tough guy, victim, drama queen, superiority and so on.

From this authentic place we can consider:

• The impact of our actions on another and on ourselves
• The congruence of our behaviour with who we truly are

In so doing, our true feelings emerge beyond the ‘acts’ and we can hear our own “And and And”. We gain insight into the wounds that inform our actions and can heal and release ourselves from these.

This does not mean that we blame ourselves for the situation, but that we unhook ourselves from the story. Ultimately, we cannot change another or the past, but we can change our response to them and the situation.

Conclusion:

Forgiveness is a choice between conflict and pain, or calm and moving forward. Choosing to forgive takes greater courage and strength than perpetuating the story, because we are embracing our vulnerability and valuing ourselves and our well-being  Through it we are releasing ourselves from the toxicity that continued conflict brings: resentment, stress, ill-health . . . We free our mind to think about other things; to reconnect to ourselves, to our loved ones and our lives.

It is important that when we forgive we do not regard ourselves as superior, for this is not real forgiveness but a power game. Perhaps we may also need to forgive ourselves for choosing to forgive and reason with the part that sees it as a sign of weakness.

Forgiveness is possible whatever the crime. The Forgiveness Project narrates the journeys into forgiveness by victims of the most heinous crimes. The crime does not change, but one’s response to it can.

WHAT MAKES AN APOLOGY AUTHENTIC AND EFFECTIVE AS A RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT?

http://www.savagechickens.com/2009/03/apologize.html

An apology is often regarded as providing closure to a conflict situation. But how it’s done and the reasons for giving it can either bring about resolution or further resentment. So what constitutes an authentic apology and why? And how can it be delivered effectively?

One’s definition of an apology, like one’s attitude to conflict, influences how it is approached and its effectiveness for resolution.

An apology can be defined as: the acknowledgement of and responsibility for one’s part in a situation expressed with understanding and empathy.

To base an apology on understanding and empathy, removes power games from the equation and looks at long-term resolution. Conversely, if an apology is regarded as repentance for a wrong one has sustained, the power imbalance is perpetuated and may give rise future resentment, particularly if there is no absolution for the ‘sinner’. How one defines it, reflects what one seeks from it.

Our attitude to conflict also plays its part.

If one sees conflict as a fight to win, one may regard an apology as a loss or a prize. This can result in a tug of war in which both sides feel they deserve to win. This either leads to a stalemate, or to one party resentfully capitulating to the other’s demands. Conversely, if one fears conflict, they may be quick to apologise and claim full responsibility, even at the cost of voicing their true feelings and needs. In ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­both cases there is no understanding of the situation, of one’s behaviour or each other.

Here are some examples of both attitudes:

• A dismissive: “Ok, I’m sorry!” (A.k.a “Whatever…!”)
• A resentful: “Is it an apology you want? Fine – I’m sorry! Happy now?”
• A dramatic: “You’re right, it’s me; I’m such an awful person . . .”
• An appeasing: “I’m sorry, it’s all my fault – can we just put it behind us now please?”

Such apologies perpetuate power games and achieve nothing.

For an apology to be effective, conflict needs to be approached as an opportunity for understanding and growth. By regarding the situation rather than the other as the problem, one can explore one’s attitudes and actions with sincerity, and acknowledge how these have contributed to the difficulty. An authentic apology recognizes the other’s needs as being equally valid and worthy of being respected.

In so doing, an apology becomes a process from which there is much to gain.

An effective apology constitutes:  ­­­­­­­­­­­­­

• Acknowledgment
• Responsibility
• Understanding

Why?

Acknowledgement

As explained in the series What Happens When We Argue, respect and understanding of one another’s needs are eroded by the conflict cycle of blame and power games. Acknowledging the reasons for one’s actions and their impact shifts the focus from blame, to sincerity and empathy. Sincerity helps us explore the true reasons for our actions; while empathy helps to consider the other’s feelings and needs, as well as each other’s fallibility. Without acknowledgement there can be no responsibility.

Responsibility

When blame forms part of a conflict, responsibility can become the proverbial hot potato. Taking responsibility means focusing on understanding and resolution.

This is done by:

• Treating the situation and not the other as the problem
• Considering our assumptions about the situation and the other
• Exploring options to rectify the situation, whenever possible and applicable

Taking responsibility for one’s actions can deepen understanding of oneself and other; widen options of response in terms of how to apologise and how to address the situation.

Understanding

An apology is effective when one has learned and grown from the situation as well as from the interaction.

As we saw in the series “What Happens When We Argue”, our personal assumptions act like magnets that attract people and situations to us. So that the people we are experiencing a difficult situation with, are actually the mirrors of our hidden qualities and beliefs. No matter how we feel about them, they can actually be regarded as allies rather than foes. Exploring what they represent for us, brings about greater understanding about the dynamic and our behaviour.

So how can we apologise effectively?

What we have learned from the situation about ourselves and the other, informs the content of our apology, but is not its focus. For an apology to be effective, the centre of attention needs to be the receiver. His/her position and role is as an equal, rather than judge and absolver of our repentance, or the audience to our self-discovery speech!

In other words, we focus on the three principles, acknowledgment, responsibility and understanding so that the listener hears all three sincerely. For the apology to be effective, the receiver needs to feel that their needs have been acknowledged as valid and equal.

As such an effective apology might look like this:

“I’m sorry for going to our line manager before discussing the situation with you. I realize that me doing that meant that you had that difficult meeting with her, instead of asking you if we could make the time to discuss it together.”

While the focus is on the listener receiving an authentic acknowledgement of the situation, the speaker takes responsibility without inviting either blame or absolution. It is then up to the receiver whether they talk about the situation to explore future options or not. It is important to remember that one cannot force another to talk, nor to change!

Irrespective of the possibility of dialogue, an effective apology provides mutual gains:

• The receiver does not hear excuses or is blamed in self-defence, and
• The speaker has gained personal understanding and grown from the situation.

In the event of no further discussion, the speaker can draw on what they have understood about themselves in order to approach the dynamic differently in the future.

Conclusion

An authentic apology is a process of mutual gain, with acknowledgement, understanding and empathy as is its prize.

Like the causes of conflict, what triggers the demand for an apology is an unmet need for equality of validity as a person and the need to be treated with respect. In mediation, the need for an apology is often an influencing factor in determining the sum demanded by the aggrieved party. The money, like a demand for an apology, often reflects the need to be treated with respect.

Once an authentic and sincere apology comes, the sum lowers. Equally, in social relations an effective apology can improve the dynamic of the relationship.

To acknowledge one’s actions and their contribution to the situation is to allow the other to be valued and treated with respect and to open options for future responses.

WANT TO TALK? CHECK YOUR TIMING AND ULTIMATUMS – THE INTERNATIONAL ARENA IS AGOOD MIRROR OF INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT.

Two days ago, under the media’s spotlight, Argentinian President Cristina Kirchner handed David Cameron an envelope containing documents regarding the sovereignty of the Falklands/Malvinas. Cameron refused the document having been advised that it was a ‘media stunt’. His reaction has caused a political and diplomatic backlash of harsh words and ‘vigorous’ statements (Cameron’s word).

In a radio interview yesterday with BBC Radio Berkshire I was asked to comment on the situation from a conflict resolution perspective. Was the situation well handled, or has it escalated the conflict? And what of the personality clash, would it better for others to step in and dialogue instead of them?  http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/p00t36qm http:/

Cameron and Kirchner are currently showing us how easy it is for a conflict to escalate, especially  when one feels under pressure to perform the role of defender and advocate for others.

• Timing – time your request to speak, don’t stage a surprise attack

• Delivering a message – either/or ultimatums lead to doors slamming. Ask to speak before you say what you want to say; consider also how you say it.

• When it seems that one party doesn’t want to talk.  Avoidance can equally be a power game; there is nothing more frustrating than one party wanting to talk and the other refusing to or avoiding the situation.   Two powerful roles, the Victim and the Aloof: The victim will talk to everyone else except for the person(s) involved though still delivers messages via others (e.g. Cameron and the Media). The Aloof brandishes one’s power with apparent poise when all others are losing their cool and may walk away with a symbolic  statement of “Talk to the hand!”

• When ‘allies’ fan the flames of a conflict.  This is seen as much in politics as in interpersonal relations; fans will reinforce the notion of ‘right and wrong’ – quite simply, you’re right and the other party, wrong! With that force and pressure to act in a particular way behind you, you have little room to reconsider your actions and are potentially swept along the current they are generating.

• Let’s get personal.  When the can of worms has been opened and people involved feel under scrutiny or attack, then personality differences and difficulties get enmeshed with the arguments and detract from the issues at hand.  Kirchner’s and Cameron’s attacks on their nations colonialist stance are as much personal as political, if you consider what other other words they may use to describe each other off-stage!

HOW WOULD THIS BE RESOLVED?

One or other party would need to readdress the situation away from the public eye and suggest to speak directly at a more appropriate time.  Despite Cameron’s initial response, he and Kirchner have one thing in common, they both want to address the issue.

A de-escalating move would be for either Cameron or Kirchner, or both, to suggest that they speak at a later time in a different manner and both agree to avoid the topic with the media. This would reduce the blame of who started the media attention and create a sense of commonality of needing to address the issue.  Staying stuck in blame does nothing to de-escalate the situation; indeed, when a conflict escalates there is equal contribution and blame is not clearly attributed to one or other party.

Be it in international relations or interpersonal ones, people and emotions are always involved; depending on how it is handled, these either fuel or de-escalate conflict.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE ARGUE PART IV: SELF-ESTEEM AND CLEAR COMMUNICATION

Self-esteem is a determining factor in clear communication. Being true to oneself is based on remembering and knowing that we are equal to others and that we are able to be all that we can be. But this isn’t always that easy, particularly if we believe the assumptions we have made about ourselves, others and our relationship to the world around us. Believing these ‘magnets’ to be real, leads us astray and places us in competition and perceived inequality to others.

Our self-esteem levels can fluctuate many times a day based on:

• How we regard our abilities
• Our personal achievements, job situation and position
• Our physical appearance
• The feedback we receive from others

If we feel out of sorts, we may consciously or unconsciously engage in power games, comparison and approval-seeking in order to regain our equality, both in ourselves and in the eyes of the world.

Comparison is a false prophet; it may give us a short-lived ego boost, but ultimately it renders our sense of self-worth dependent on those around us. There will always be someone who is better or worse at something than us, thinner or fatter, richer or poorer and so on and depending next to whom we are standing our self-esteem either soars or nose-dives! Comparison also places us in a state of competition, and self-rejection, and eventually gives rise to envy and resentment.

The same can be said of approval. By seeking it outwardly we are enslaving ourselves to others for their judgement. Like comparison, approval seeking can also give rise to resentment; either because we don’t get it and/or it doesn’t meet our expectations of what we wanted to hear, or because we suddenly realize that in wanting it, we have placed another as our superior and resent them for it.

To regain our self-esteem and our equality, we may enter into power games, we may gossip and stereotype. The language we use may become so angry and embittered that our mouths end up shooting passive-aggressive ‘arrows’, aimed at maiming those we have placed in a position of power by our expectation of approval and comparison.

Arrows escalate conflict and create a vicious cycle of tit-for-tat. An example of an arrow is: “Ha! Is that the best you can do?”  Sarcasm, even if masked by humour, is an attack; and despite providing a temporary sense of superiority, it shows one’s insecurity.

But arrows are only one aspect of the language that can be used in conflict and much of what we say depends on our uniqueness and on how we feel about:

• Ourselves (in that moment)
• The other person – do we see ourselves as being stronger, weaker or as an equal?
• The strength of our argument and
• Speaking up (do we veer towards confronting or denying an issue and how do we tend to do this?)

Communication in conflict is both verbal and non-verbal and each can contribute to and escalate a disagreement in equal measure. It can be:

• Aggressive and/or arrogant and not allow another to have their say.
• Passive: avoiding, appeasing; we can say nothing or sulk, cry or tantrum. (Going into a ‘victim’ role is a powerful form of manipulation as we hold others to ransom with our silence and our tears in the hope that they will leave us alone or give in to our wants).
• Passive-aggressive; a mixture of the two and another form of manipulation. We may shoot arrows, deliver some previously unspoken ‘home truths’ or cut off relations with the other and refuse to talk.

All of these are power-games which result in no lasting resolution or sustainable gains; we may end up feeling that we ‘gave in too easily’ or even that we ‘stood up for ourselves’. But how assertive were we? And what does assertive actually mean?

Being assertive means:

• Taking responsibility for our actions and accepting our contribution (including our assumptions and behaviour – whether aggressive or withdrawing)
• Not seeking approval from others
• Allowing and acknowledging different perspectives without silencing the other

Once we have done our ‘homework’ we no longer feel the need to compete or blame and instead we set boundaries and still remain vigilant of our behaviour.

• We state our needs calmly, including how we wish to be treated
• We don’t engage in put downs or take them (including towards ourselves!)
• We handle criticism without tears or tantrums
• We speak up despite fear of conflict
• We are willing to take the consequences of expressing feelings and wants
• We treat ‘No’ as a complete sentence while acknowledging that it may be letting the other down (rather than making excuses for why not)

Being assertive is about ensuring that we look after ourselves while also taking responsibility for our part and being aware of others’ needs too.

In sum, clear communication and self-esteem go hand in hand. To engage in it, we need to move out of ‘either-or thinking’ about ourselves and move towards engaging in the ‘And- principle’.  Doing so means that we see ourselves as a complete being, insofar as one temporary short-coming or mistake does not render us a ‘failure’ and those around us ‘better’.

Remembering that we all have an equal right and need to be who we are, to express our needs, be heard and be treated respectfully, may help change the way we behave and communicate when we argue. While power games are a vicious cycle, clear communication is a virtuous one!

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE ARGUE PART III: WHAT ASSUMPTIONS ARE WE MAKING AND WHY?

Our minds can race faster than a Ferrari Testa Rossa!

Our assumptions are triggers in conflict. How we see life, ourselves and others can create, escalate or de-escalate a situation. A thought can take hold and before we know it, it’s overtaken our thinking. Such thoughts are often based on suppositions we take as ‘fact’. They can make us miserable, cloud our reasoning and create an Amygdala Hijack.

This anecdote shows how we do it.  🙂

Jim decides to ask his friend John if he can borrow his TV for an hour.

He puts on his coat and walks to John’s house. With each step he takes, his doubts about John’s response grow. He tells himself: “You know what John’s like, he can be tight with his things – remember what he said to Sally last time? Yeah, well, I’ll tell him it’s just for an hour – I don’t want it forever! And anyway, when was the last time I asked him for anything? What’s the big deal, it’s just for an hour?!”
The more he convinces himself that John is going to be a pain about it, the more irritated Jim gets. By the time he reaches John’s house, his blood is boiling.

He knocks on the door.
John opens it and smiling warmly, says:
“Jim! What a lovely surprise! Come in!”

Jim doesn’t move; his jaw tightens. Glaring at John, he says:
“You and your TV, F%*k off!”

Whether we go as far as Jim or not, we still do the ‘You and your TV act’ more often than we may care to admit.

We may or may not be conscious of our assumptions; we may make them because we are too shy to ask for clarification or because we have little time at work and we need to get on with the job at hand. However we are feeling, making them gets us in trouble and, as the saying goes, “Assumptions make an ass out of you and me”!

There are two specific types of assumptions that influence our thinking and behaviour:

1/ ‘Factual’ Assumptions: the assumptions we make about information and actions, which we regard to be ‘facts’, but are really only our interpretation of them. For example:

“I’m not sure what s/he means by that, but I assume it’s . . .”

Or, interpretations and diagnoses of others’ intentions based on the impact their actions have on us:

“I bet X said it on purpose just to show me up!”

2/ Personal Assumptions: those we make about life, others and ourselves based on past wounds, from which we now operate and experience the world

For instance:

•  “Life’s a struggle”
• “Others are unreliable /takers / lazy/mean”
• “I am not good enough”
• “I’m unlucky in love/ work/ life”

How they work:

These assumptions act like ‘magnets’ from which we unconsciously attract similar situations that prove us right and trigger our responses. They become self-fulfilling prophecies and are the origins of our self-sabotage. When we engage in them all alternative thoughts and actions disappear under the dark cloud of all-or-nothing thinking.

In Jim’s case, he assumes that John said ‘no’ to Sally because ‘he is tight with his things’. By assuming this, Jim eliminates the possibility that John’s refusal may have been circumstantial rather than simple selfishness on his part.

These two types are inter-related – we interpret ‘facts’ based on our personal assumptions.

For instance, Jim’s magnet may well be that “Life’s a struggle and others are mean”.  John’s refusal to Sally becomes a ‘fact’ to Jim and confirms his personal assumption. He then bases his subsequent thinking on these combined conclusions and suffers an Amygdala Hijack in which his belief about life and people is reconfirmed – albeit in his mind.

This is what my sister calls ‘fighting the invisible man’!

When these two types of assumptions take hold we:

• Assume the worst about life and others and we enter into either/or thinking
• Accuse rather than clarify them with those involved
• Lay ourselves open to an Amygdala Hijack and reconfirm our negative worldview

In no time at all, the world looks bleak and we feel hard-done by.

Seeing conflict as an opportunity for growth, both personally and inter-personally, can help us move from assumptions and confrontation to clarification and cooperation.

We can interrupt this vicious cycle and de-escalate our thoughts by:

• Reality checking. We ask ourselves how far this is actually a fact and check it out with the other person
• We take a moment to ask ourselves what assumption/magnet we are operating from – doing so helps us regain our power from any situation, review our future actions and stop an Amygdala Hijack
• We consider alternatives to our thinking – how else can we see this situation? What if this isn’t the case?

Another very simple and effective reality-checking tool is to remember Jim and John and tell yourself “You and your TV!” This quick reminder makes a bleak situation more humorous and helps us reconsider the situation from another perspective.  🙂

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE ARGUE PART II

THE BLAME-GAME: why and how it happens, its impact on our self-esteem and how to disengage.

When things go wrong at work, with someone in the service industry, socially or at home, we engage in a blame-game to defend our shaken self-esteem. As our instinctual reaction to defend ourselves kicks in, we remain locked in a battle to regain our power and position. So are we afraid of making mistakes and resort to blaming in order to defend ourselves?

There are four main reasons why we engage in blame:

1. Our dualistic social system of right or wrong leads us to develop an unconscious fear of rejection, based on social exclusion.
2. From an early age we learn to lie and blame rather than take responsibility. Later in life we are not always clear in our communication: we make assumptions, have expectations and guilt and don’t always divulge all the facts for fear of disappointing, incriminating ourselves, or even to win. Each of these gives rise to blame and resentment.
3. We base our self-esteem on ‘getting it right’ and seek to regain our equality through power games.
4. We have suffered an “Amygdala Hijack”. In times of strong emotions or stress, the sensory part of our brain bypasses the thinking part and sends a message to the Amygdala, which governs our emotional response, and tells it we are under threat. This then triggers a fight, flight, freeze response; we are not thinking straight, we have exaggerated the situation and we say things we don’t mean.

So how do we react to all this? We instinctually attack, deny and deflect, or absorb all the blame. Before we know it we have entered into a familiar game of “you started it” and act like children in adult’s clothing!

Here are some examples:

• Attack:   “If it hadn’t been for you, this wouldn’t have happened!”  (a.k.a. “You started it!”)
• Deny:     “I didn’t see the memo / get your SMS / email / call, it must have got lost in cyberspace!”  (a.k.a. “I was mugged on the way to school, Miss, and they stole my homework!”)
• Deflect:
  •  “It’s not my fault; I told Bob you were waiting for a reply.”    Or
  • “Why is it always my fault?”
  • Absorb:   “I am sorry, it’s all my fault; it won’t happen again.”

Whatever our chosen response we have entered into a power-game. We judge one another, or go into victim role; or we rescue one another and so on. As we do so, we move through each role fluidly without risking showing our underlying emotions. All of this keeps us stuck in a competition to ‘belong’ and removes compassion from the equation.

So how do we stop this?

By recognizing a common need for inclusion, we allow each other (and ourselves) the possibility of making mistakes. We also consider that two opposing aspects can both be true at once and that two (or more) of us have contributed to a situation through our reactions.  We can accept that we have made a mistake and that that doesn’t make us a bad person and that Bob contributed to the situation by not responding and that we could have chased it up and that our accuser could have done the same. In so doing we have included all contributions and reduced the fear of rejection.

We therefore reframe the situation with compassion and look for similarities by:

• We treat the situation and the not the person (or ourselves) as the ‘problem’
• We consider how we jointly contributed to the situation and explore each other’s perspectives of the issue
• We problem-solve together to see how we can avoid this from happening in the future

The reasons for blame are not irreversible and even our hijacked Amygdala can be retrained to steer us out of knee-jerk reactions and say things we don’t mean!

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE ARGUE (series)

WE HAVE A LOT MORE IN COMMON THAN WE THINK, EVEN WHEN WE ARGUE

 

Even with the best intentions, certain issues can lead to arguments. When this happens we can become impatient and defensive, we feel not heard and believe that we are worlds apart from agreeing. Even in the most difficult of conflicts, there are similarities we can draw on, but we don’t always see them, why?

When an issue is close to our heart, be it at work or in our personal lives, we tend to over-identify with it and see it as an extension of ourselves, especially if we have been advocating it for some time. We then raise it, consciously or not, driven by a need to deliver a message or convince the other person and we therefore approach the conversation from a place of competition rather than cooperation.

This over-identification leads us to defend our respective positions with varying degrees of tenacity; any contention is seen as a personal attack on our values and identity, and interruptions become rife. However well the conversation had started and was meant to go, it is now careering towards a brick wall as we continue to make our points ever more loudly and forcefully, to no avail.  I have witnessed various cases in which two people are saying the same thing from different perspectives without realizing it; or are talking at cross purposes because they are so intent on winning, that they are not listening to what each other is actually saying.

In those moments, it is useful to remember that we have a lot in common and ultimately share some basic needs.

Namely the need to be:

• Heard
• Respected (including how we are spoken to and for our views to be acknowledged)
• Understood

This is why so often in discussions and arguments, we say “You’re not hearing me”, “That’s not what I said!” and so on.

Starting any discussion from this premise can also lead us to understand our tangible needs. For example, we may need our colleagues’ support and cooperation for our project to work, or we may need our spouse or child to do their share of the housework and so on.

Understanding tangible needs requires focused listening, rather than storing a retort in our heads or interrupting to say it. Being focused means asking questions that provide us with more clarification about what is actually being said and lead us to joint problem-solving.

Imagine two people arguing over an orange. Both people are staking claims on the fruit. To resolve this one might suggest simply cutting it in half, the other may suggest that the person who first lays claim on it gets it. Or one may ask the question, “Why?”.  By asking ‘why’, one person explains that they need the orange for its zest and the other says that they need it for the juice. The initial solution of cutting it in half is thus no longer feasible.

In the case of our work proposal, by explaining to our colleagues why and how we need their support, would open the communication in a way that would incorporate a joint exploration of how this would occur, rather than simply focusing on making a convincing pitch of our project.  The same can be said for asking our spouse and/or family for more contribution around the house; explaining why, would open communication and mutual problem-solving much more so than dictates.

If a conversation is going wrong and getting heated, suggest taking a break and returning with a mutual wish to hear and understand one another in a respectful manner. Once that’s established, focus on asking the questions that bring you closer to understanding.

Such as:

•  “Why are you saying this?”
• “What do you need?”
• “How do you propose we could do this?”

Establishing needs helps us understand how to approach the problem, together. We no longer have to agree, nor to be right, we just need to find a way that best suits most of our needs (be prepared to let go of some of these and be willing to meet some yourself). Done in this way, we no longer have to convince one another of something, or to start off seeing the conversation as an impending struggle and we thus shift from conflict to cooperation.

 

WHAT IS MEDIATION?

Essentially mediation is nothing more than a meeting in which the parties seek to resolve their differences with the help of an intermediary.

Mediation is a voluntary, informal and confidential process and widely used as an alternative to litigation.

While the greatest appeal of mediation is that it is cheaper and quicker than going to court, there are also other favourable benefits.

Mediation is voluntary

Unlike litigation, no one can be forced to participate. Although any side to a dispute can suggest mediation, all parties need to first agree to it by signing a pre-Mediation Agreement.

Parties are also free to choose to:

• Go with a lawyer, a friend or relative
• Speak directly to each other; opt to only talk to the mediator in private session, or both
• Sign the final agreement
• Leave the mediation at any stage

Mediation is informal

• It takes place in a neutral space and at a time that most suits everyone
• The setting can be an office, someone’s house or a hired venue
• Parties are encouraged to speak for themselves, even if a lawyer is present
• Anyone accompanying the parties is free to speak at any time and attends the whole mediation as it unfolds

Although agreements are not binding, they can be made so by a court. For the most part however, agreements are adhered to given that they have been jointly formulated by the parties and therefore meet most of their needs.

Mediation is confidential

What is said in mediation cannot be used in court or disclosed beyond the walls of the mediation itself.

Its confidential nature also means that:

• Identity and privacy are protected
• Commercial cases are kept out of the public eye and safeguard both personal and professional reputations
• In workplace disputes, the matter is kept in-house 

What happens in Mediation?

Through a series of private and/or joint meetings, the mediator assists the parties to clarify their own needs and positions and to understand each other’s, in order to facilitate dialogue and a solution.

• Mediation generally lasts between half a day and a day, though some cases may require more time
• The parties needs and wishes dictate whether discussions occur in joint or private sessions
• All participants speak without interruption and name-calling
• All parties have equal time with the mediator

What is the mediator’s role?

The mediator is neutral and as such is not there to advise, pressure either side or impose an agreement.

The mediator is impartial; for the most part he or she is unacquainted to either side and does not have a conflict of interests.  Were there to be one however, it would need to be disclosed prior to mediation.  

His or her role is to help the parties to:

• Explore issues and options  
• Look for possible areas of agreement
• Facilitate a way out of a deadlock

Who is Mediation for?

Anyone can use Mediation for a variety of issues, including: 

• Small Claims
• Neighbourhood disputes
• Financial disputes within families
• Personal injury
• Disputes arising from commercial contracts and services
• Workplace issues such as personality clashes, bullying, unfair dismissal etc.
• Divorce, access to children and distribution of finances and debts

For more information about what my mediation services entail and their cost, please go to  http://www.choiceconflictresolution.com/mediation.html