Ashford University: COM325 Communication and Conflict Final
Personal Conflict Strategies
Personal Conflict Strategies
I am a sociotropic personality. According to Karahan (2009), sociotropy is characterized by dependence on others, low self-respect, high anxiety, and desperation. They generally exhibit passive responses to others. Sociotropics deal with conflict via the avoidance style, using withdrawal, denial, and postponement to avoid conflict situations (p. 788). Cahn & Abigail (2007) define a conflict style as a preferred set of behaviors for dealing with similar situations, a cluster of characteristics linked to personality (p. 78), and avoidance style specifically as not addressing a conflict at all (p. 81). Given all I have learned about conflict styles versus strategies, or a group of behaviors used in individual situations (Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 80), I believe it is time this sociotropic personality put her conflict resolution skill training to work (Karahan, 2009, p. 792).
People “react instead of respond” in a conflict (Frisinger, 2009, p. 17). To combat this natual occurance, Cahn & Abigail (2007) suggest their S-TLC system (p. 41-54) for dealing with conflict. S-TLC, an acronym for Stop, Think, Listen, and Communicate, is designed to help conflict participants “cool their jets” so that overcharged emotions do not get in the way of what the conflict actually is. Taking a deep breath is a good way to start stopping. Cahn & Abigail (2007) suggest getting a glass of water or changing the subject (p. 42). While not the optimal choice, when all else fails, one could simply walk away from the conflict for the time being. Technically postponing, an avoidance tactic, this allows the partners to calm themselves before discussing the problem.
Calmness and rational thoughts can assist in the resolution process. Stress and anger can only hinder it. Stress and anger, according to Cahn & Abigail (2007), make it difficult to use our communications skills to our advantage (p. 204). While “anger protects us” from displaying our more vulnerable emotions, it also clouds judgment and makes any thought formed come out of our mouths (Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 210). That is why we should not wait until we are angry to address a conflict (Maxfield, 2009, p 29). The ability to stop the cloud, step back, and assess the situation is the first step in resolving a conflict.
Thinking about the impending conflict is the next step. “Conflict is an inevitable situation in interpersonal relationships,” says Kaharan (2009, p. 788). Cahn & Abigail (2007) agree; “conflict is a fact of life,” (p. 9), “conflict is inevitable,” (p. 11). Indeed, Hagerman (2004) also mentions that, “conflicts, disagreements, misunderstandings, and frustrations are unavoidable parts of life” (p. 22), and Rizkalla (2008) mentions “conflict is a normal part of human interactions” (p. 1594). Since conflict is such an impending concept, it stands to reason that one should consider certain things about it before proceeding. Cahn & Abigail (2007) recommend beginning by viewing the conflict as a whole picture (p. 43). Hagerman (2004) suggests answering the questions, “Which is more important… being right or resolving the problem?... What else could this mean?...[and] What’s good about this?,” in order to put the conflict in perspective.
Milliren, Milliren, & Eckstein (2007) refer to this pre-conflict thinking as “analyz[ing] the gap,” where the gap is the space between the real and the ideal (p. 415). While the gap and the time it takes to analyze it may be filled with anxiety and uncertainty, considering it is a necessary precursor to discussing the conflict. Cahn & Abigail (2007) advise thinking about certain changes to the conflict: the other person, the situation, or the self (p. 43). These changes may be necessary to reduce some of the anxiety felt while analyzing the problem. Changing the other person would require persuasion techniques. Changing the situation requires problem-solving skills. Changing the self may require giving up a part of the need that caused the conflict in the first place. Whatever, or if, one decides to change depends upon the desired outcome, or goal, of the conflict resolution.
Milliren, Milliren, & Eckstein (2007) describe aligning goals as part of a conflict discussion (p. 415). Maxfield (2009) also mentions pointing out shared goals and interests in order to find common ground within the conflict (p. 30). Goals, according to Cahn & Abigail (2007), fall into three categories. Instrumental Goals focus on your conflict partner removing or changing a barrier that is blocking something you want. They use the example of a professor changing a grade that you believe is wrong. Relational Goals regard power and trust within the relationship. In the example of the professor, this would include defending your right to question the grade. Identity Goals involve protecting how the other person sees him/herself, or face, while communicating our needs. In the grade example, accusing the professor of unfair grades or not listening is attacking his face, something we need to avoid (p. 46).
Listening to the other person’s side of the conflict and asking explicatory questions can help to align their goals with yours, making the problem easier to solve. Milliren, Milliren, & Eckstein (2007) call this Socratic dialoguing (p. 416). Cahn & Abigail (2007) mention asking the questions, “‘Who? What? Where? When? How?’” (Socratic questions), of yourself while thinking about the conflict (p. 98), but Milliren, Milliren, & Eckstein (2007) suggest asking them of one another to clarify the situation. Never ask “why?” because it creates defensiveness (p. 416). Incidentally, it has been my experience that the most common reply to “why?” in a conflict is, “I don’t know,” and so it does not help to define the problem anyway.
If you are using effective listening skills and understanding the problem, “why?” is probably unnecessary. My mother always told my father, before their divorce, “If you were listening, you’d know why!” Sarah Trenholm (2008), says, “listening is the forgotten part of communication… yet being able to listen well is one of the most essential communication-related skills” (p. 68). As I mentioned in another paper I wrote, listening skills take practice. No one was born knowing how to listen effectively. Still, when they take a listening course, people often say that so many of the skills they learn are “common sense.” “Common sense,” however, is a relative term. For example, to my father and my mechanic, changing the oil in my car is “common sense,” but to me, it is something that would take a great deal of learning and practice.
Cahn & Abigail (2007) provide some basic listening tips (p. 51-52). Perhaps they seem “common sense,” but, again, that’s a relative term. “Stop what you are doing… Look at the other person” (p. 51-52). Trenholm (2008) calls this “voluntary attention” because it shows that you are truly interested in what your partner has to say (p. 48). “Engag [ing] in positive nonverbal feedback” (Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 52), called “active listening” by Trenholm (2008, p. 60), shows that you are listening and understanding your partner. Finally, rather than coming up with rebuttals, “work on understanding the other person’s feelings” (Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 52). Not only will this help clarify the problem in your mind, but it is also a good way to avoid unnecessary distractions that can harm your listening and worsen the conflict. Trenholm (2008) recommends not “dismiss[ing] the message ahead of time,” since this, also, interferes with listening (p. 49).
Listening to the other person’s concerns is the beginning of what Milliren, Milliren, & Eckstein (2007) refer to as “develop[ing] resources” (p. 417). This is also the beginning of communication about the problem (Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 52). Once you have discovered the nature of the problem through listening, you can then brainstorm to come up with possible solutions. As with any brainstorming session, it is not a good idea to dismiss any suggestion until neither partner can come up with any more. To help in this phase, it may also be a good idea to compare this conflict to similar conflicts in the past. Perhaps one of those past solutions might work for this problem as well (Milliren, Milliren & Eckstein, 2007, p. 417).
While discussing the issue, it is necessary to be assertive and communicate your “feelings, needs, and desires” (Dunne, 2003, p. 59). This does not mean, however, that you should try to dominate your partner. It is not necessary to always be right, it is more important to solve the problem (Hagerman, 2004). You can be assertive, communicating your needs, thoughts, and emotions, without infringing on the rights of your partner (Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 66-67). “Assertive people… stand up for themselves… are respectful, but direct… [and] confident and they know their rights. However, they know and respect the rights of others as well” (Dunne, 2003, p. 59).
Communicating your emotions and thoughts without blaming them on your partner means you need to take responsibility for them using “I-Statements” (Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 105) or “I-Messages” (Dunne, 2003, p. 66). The opposite of these, “you-language,” allows you to avoid accountability for your own feelings (Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 106) by placing the fault on someone else. Maxfield (2009) also suggests eliminating excuses for not initiating discussion about the conflict (p. 30).
While it is essential to discuss conflicts so that we are not “gunny-sacking”, or accumulating injury and irritation from unresolved “minor” disagreements (Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 69), it is also necessary to confront partners in a positive way (O’Donnell, 2003, p. 8). “Pick your conflict,” says O’Donnell (2003), so that you are not constantly harping on your partner (p. 8). “Pick the right time and place” (O’Donnell, 2003, p. 8), or set up an “appointment” to discuss the problem, but try to make it within 24 hours of your request (Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 99). People tend to feel attacked when you suddenly confront them out of the blue while they are doing something else or when they have just gotten home from work.
O’Donnell (2003) also suggests, “One issue at a time.” This goes along with her earlier suggestion about picking your conflict. You might have a number of issues to discuss, but “assailing” your partner with all of them at once will only compound the problem. Finally, O’Donnell (2003) declares, “Prepare and practice” (p. 8). Cahn & Abigail (2007) propose using “imagined interaction” to prepare for confrontation. This simply means that you consider what you might say and how the other person might respond to you. If you know them well enough, you can play the scenario out in your head. This may help with the apprehension you might feel about confronting this person (p. 98).
The apprehension will also ease as you make a plan (Milliren, Milliren, & Eckstein, 2007, p. 417) and come to an agreement (Cahn & Abigail, 2007, p. 104). This is where the partners evaluate the possibilities that you came up with as you discussed the conflict and choose a solution that works best for both parties. Milliren, Milliren, & Eckstein (2007) warn, “When decisions are made that have no implementation plan, the forward movement all but disappears,” leaving the conflict at a standstill or, in some cases, moving it back to where it started (p. 417). This can also happen if the parties forget to keep track of their plan implementation. Milliren, Milliren, & Eckstein (2007) and Cahn & Abigail (2007) both stress following up on the solution reached to prevent backsliding into the same old conflict (p. 417, p. 104).
Studying conflict management and resolution was found to be effective on students of a variety of ages in a study of sociotropic personalities in Turkey
References
Cahn, D.D., & Abigail, R.A. (2007). Managing conflict through communication (3rd ed.). Boston
Dunne, G. (2003) Anger and conflict management: Personal handbook. Torrance , CA
Frisinger S. (2009) Steps to resolve workplace conflicts. Supervision, 70(5), 17-18.
Hagerman, J. (2004). Is it wrong to be right? RDH, 24(4), 22, 103.
Karahan, T. (2009). The effects of a communication and conflict resolution skill training program on sociotropy levels of university students. Educational sciences: Theory and practice, 9(2), 787-797.
Maxfield, D. (2009). Five crucial conversation that drive educational excellence. Education digest, 75(2), 26-30.
Milliren, A., Milliren, M., & Eckstein, D. (2007) Combining Socratic questions with the “ADAPT” problem-solving model: Implications for couples’ conflict resolution. Family journal, 15(4), 415-419.
O’Donnell, M. (2003). Positive confrontation. Rural telecommunications, 22(5), 8.
Rizkalla, L, Wertheim, E. & Hodgson, L. (2008). The roles of emotion management and perspective taking in individuals’ conflict management styles and disposition to forgive. Journal of research in personality, 46(6), 1594-1601.
Trenholm, S. (2008) Thinking through communication:An introduction to the study of human communication (5th ed.). Boston