In conflict situations people often feel completely powerless. The other person seems to have more money, more support, more energy, more important friends, and all those things are up against poor little old me! But the funny thing about power is that it is more in the mind than in reality. If you think you’ve got power, then you’ve got it. If you think that you don’t have it, then you don’t! The perception of power is more important than any actual power that people have.
Power is also a very fickle concept. It is not black and white, in that you don’t either have it or you don’t have it. In any interaction power is constantly shifting and changing between the people, and different kinds of power come and go at different times and in different contexts. For example, let’s look at the power of a George, a 3 year old boy. If George has a tantrum at home, his parents will probably be able to ignore it and George will not be able to use his behaviour as a way of getting what he wants. However, if George has the same tantrum in the middle of the local supermarket, George’s parents are probably going to be doing everything they can to stop George’s behaviour, including possibly giving him what he wants! The situation and the audience makes a difference to whether George’s behaviour gives him power over his parents.
George’s power in this situation is a kind of ‘nuisance power’. People who have very few other sources of power can often use ‘nuisance power’ as a way of taking some control over their conflict. Another good example of nuisance power is a person who has a conflict with a big organisation – they may not have the resources to take the organisation to court, but they can stand outside their office with a big placard saying negative things about the organisation. They can go on 60 minutes and do a very public expose about how badly the organisation treated them. This type of behaviour is kind of an adult version of George’s tantrum, played out very publicly in order to get attention.
There are many different kinds of power that a person might have in a conflict situation. We often think of power as being based in resources (e.g. more money) or authority (e.g. a more senior rank). However, people without that sort of power can still have other kinds of power. It is true that knowledge is power – the more information you have or can access, the more you have to work with. A person can also have power over the conflict process – if you can control when and where the conflict interaction takes place, or who else is present, this gives you power. Even the ability just to walk away and refuse to interact is a form of power. Personal and relationship power is also particularly useful in conflict. If a person is well liked and respected, and can motivate others to support them, and has strong communication skills, they are likely to be very powerful in a conflict situation.
Next time you are feeling powerless, think carefully about the different sources of power that might be available to you. You might be more powerful than you think! And remember, sometimes the perception of power is more important than the reality – so think powerfully!
When we are in conflict, we often feel stuck, perhaps between a rock and a hard place! It’s important to remember, though, that we always have many choices about whether and how we respond in a conflict situation. Our first two obvious choices are: (1) do something, or (2) do nothing. Assuming that we would like to do something, then our choices really expand. We have options about what exactly we could do, when, how, where and with whom, we could do them.
Being a good conflict manager is about identifying the variety of choices we have about how to respond, and making an informed decision about what we do next (rather than simply acting in a reactive way without thinking through the consequences).
Here’s an example. Let’s say that someone you work with has done something to upset you. Perhaps you overheard them criticising your work to another colleague. You think this criticism was unfair, and you would prefer your workmate to discuss any problems she might have with you directly, not with other people behind your back. So what are your choices about how to respond?
Firstly, you have a choice about whether to raise this with your colleague directly or to do nothing. Is the matter serious enough to have a difficult conversation about it? If you decide not to talk to her about it, are you definitely going to be able to forget about it, or is it going to fester and change your behaviour around your colleague in the future, perhaps having a negative impact on your working relationship?
Assuming that you decide you really do want to talk to your colleague about what happened, then you have a wide range of process choices:
When would be the best time to talk to her? Sooner or later? On a particular day of the week? At a particular time of the day? During work hours or after hours?
Should you discuss this with her in person? Or by telephone? Or by email? Or though an intermediary (e.g. another colleague or mutual friend)?
Where would be the best place to talk with her? In the office? At a nearby café? At her desk? In a meeting room? In the staff room?
Who should be involved in the conversation? Just you and her? The other colleague who she spoke to about your work? Your supervisor? A mutual friend or support person? A mediator?
What, exactly, do you want to say to her? What are the main points you want her to understand? Do you have any questions that you’d like her to answer? What are some different ways you could frame your statements/questions in order to keep the conversation constructive and not escalate the conflict?
Once you start considering all the different options you have available to you, you can also think about the potential consequences of these choices. What would be the impact of each of these choices on you, on the other person, and on other people around you (e.g. your other work colleagues)? What would be the impact in the short-term and in the long-term of your various options?
Frequently, in conflict, we respond automatically, without thinking through our options and without considering the consequences of our actions. However, a little bit of planning and a proactive approach to conflict can make all the difference!
Do you need to have a difficult conversation with someone? Do you keep delaying it? If so, you are not alone. I see this all the time (and to be honest, I sometimes do it myself).
What is it that makes us avoid those hard conversations? Even though we know that they need to happen, and the sooner the better?
Well, the first obvious reason is that these conversations are difficult! We rarely put off things that are easy, right?! The problem is, however, that the longer we leave them, the harder they get. Most people realise this, but they still procrastinate.
This continuous delaying (even when we know it’s not sensible) is usually driven by fear. We are afraid we will say the wrong thing. We are afraid what the reaction might be from the other person. We are afraid of the consequences of our speaking up. We are afraid that we could make things worse.
These fears are not completely unfounded, and the risks are real. However, there are things that we can do to minimise the risks and to build up our confidence to have that hard conversation. Here are some strategies that help in getting ready for a difficult conversation. You can probably do them yourself, but you might find that you can do them better with someone like a conflict coach to talk you through them:
1. Get your facts straight (well, as much as you can… sometimes you also need to get clear about what you don’t know, and maybe need to ask the other person).
2. Be really clear about your purpose for having the conversation. Are you providing feedback for performance management type reasons? Are you hoping to change the other person’s behaviour? Are you just wanting to get something off your chest? Are you seeking something from the other person?
3. Come up with, and practice, a number of different ways to say what you need to say to the other person. Try to map out the range of different responses you could get for each thing you might want to say to them. (e.g. what’s worst case scenario, what’s best case scenario, what other things in between might happen?)
4. Think about how you could manage the consequences of the range of reactions you thought of. (e.g. if the person start to cry, what will you do; if the person gets angry and defensive, what will you do; if the person seems to shut down, what will you do?).
These things won’t necessarily make you completely fearless, but you will certainly be more prepared and able to manage a range of possible scenarios.
A Buddhist nun once said to me, “when you point the finger of blame at someone, remember that there are a few fingers pointing back at yourself”. At the time, I was indignant! I wasn’t at fault in the situation I was telling her about, the other person was entirely to blame. She asked me whether there was anything that I could have done, or not done, that might have avoided the situation, or at least made it less of a problem now. She was right, there werethings that I could have done. I could have been more assertive in raising the problem earlier and I could have not overreacted to later behaviour.
In conflict, we are very quick to blame the other person, and also to deny that we have done anything wrong. But the language of blame is not very productive in resolving conflict. In most conflict situations there is not a black and white answer to who is right and who is wrong, and no amount of discussion is going to resolve that kind of argument.
However, if we start talking about contributions then we often start to get somewhere. A question I often ask parties in conflict is how each of them might have contributed to this situation arising. Usually, both parties are quick to come up with examples of how the other person contributed to the situation.
What is most powerful in resolving conflict, however, is each party being willing to admit that they themselves might have contributed to the situation in some way. This doesn’t mean that they are admitting that they are to blame for the situation, rather that they have done something, or not done something, that has contributed to the situation arising or not getting resolved earlier.
Typical ways that people contribute to conflict situations are: avoiding the problem so that it escalates, not being assertive and raising their concerns early, not being willing or available to communicate with the other person in order to try to sort it out, and making assumptions about the other person’s intentions.
Like tango, it takes two to conflict! Both parties need to contribute to the conflict for it to continue to exist. When both people recognise this, and are willing to talk about their own contributions to the conflict situation, a shift happens towards resolution. Both people realise that, just as they both contributed to the situation arising, they can also both contribute to resolving it!
So next time you find yourself in conflict, ask yourself a few simple questions: Is there anything that I could have done differently that might have avoided this situation arising? Is there anything that I have done, or not done, that has made this situation get worse?
When both people in conflict seriously consider those questions, they are one significant step closer to resolving it, but more importantly, they are also likely to identify some ways to avoid such a conflict arising in the future!
Intent and impact
I wish I had a dollar for every time some said to me “But that’s not what I meant”! It’s such a common phrase in situations of conflict. Let me set the scene: In the lunch room, Joe is watching Fred make a sandwich. As Fred carefully butters the bread and slices the tomatoes, Joe laughs and says “Wow Fred, you are so anally-retentive – check out those geometrically constructed sandwiches”! Everyone in the lunch room laughs…except Fred. Later, Fred makes a complaint about Joe’s behaviour towards him. In particular, he says that Joe behaving offensively towards him in front of his workmates. When Joe is confronted with this allegation, he is dumbfounded. Joe was just trying to be funny, and he knew that his comment would get a laugh from his mates. He never intended for Fred to be offended by the comment and thinks that Fred is completely overreacting and should learn how to ‘take a joke’. Sound familiar?
The problem in this kind of situation is that there is a vast difference between Joe’s intent (to be funny) and the impact it had on Fred (he was offended). In conflict, when we are confronted with an un-intended impact, our natural response is to deny that the other person’s feelings are valid and to restate our intention. So Joe’s response is likely to be something like “That’s totally ridiculous, I was just trying to be funny”. However, this kind of response makes the conflict even worse. Firstly, it denies the other person’s feelings. Whether or not Fred should objectivelyhave been offended by Joe’s comment, the fact is that he wasoffended. When someone feels strongly about something, telling them that they shouldn’t feel that way is almost never going to change how they feel – it just makes them feel misunderstood and criticised, which makes the conflict worse. Secondly, no matter how often a person re-states their intention, it doesn’t change the actualimpacton the other person. If someone doesn’t think your comment is funny, no matter how many times you tell them it was meant to be funny, they are not going to laugh about it.
So how do we manage the intent/impact problem? Firstly, we have to acknowledge that sometimes, despite our best intentions, our behaviour has a negative impact on others. If we truly didn’t intend to cause such an impact, we can say this to the other person in an apologetic way. For example, Joe could say to Fred “Fred, I never intended to offend you and I am sorry that you were offended.” It’s important to note that this statement does not necessarily make any admission that Fred was completely right in being offended, nor does it imply that Joe was at fault. It simply acknowledges that for whatever reason (justified or not) Fred was offended and Joe did not intend that and is sorry that the impact was not what he intended.
Fred could also use the intent/impact distinction by raising the issue with Joe before making a complaint. For example, he could say to Joe something like “Joe, when you made that comment about me being anally-retentive, I don’t know what you intended, but I was quite offended”. What is important in this statement is that Fred is acknowledging that he is not sure about Joe’s intention (rather than jumping to the conclusion that Joe was intending to offend him) and it opens up an opportunity for Joe to apologise for the impact of his statement and to explain his actual intention (to be funny).
While these kinds of conversations are not easy, they certainly can avoid misunderstandings and potentially manage a conflict constructively at an early stage. So many conflicts arise because of differences between intent and impact, and so many escalate and become full scale disputes because these kinds of conversations do not occur early in the conflict.
Keep an eye out for intent/impact problems in the day-to-day conflict around you – once you start looking for them, you will see them everywhere – and hopefully you can start managing them effectively!
Barbara is having a bad day. She is in a grumpy mood, and when Gloria asks her a question, Barbara snaps at her “It’s not my problem, figure it out yourself”. Later, someone accuses Barbara of ‘biting Gloria’s head off’ for no reason. This upsets Barbara even more. Barbara thinks of herself as a nice person and she is most definitely NOT the kind of person who snaps at someone without a good reason. (Only, this morning, Barbara really didn’t have a good reason, other than that she was in a bad mood.) So how does Barbara deal with this contradiction between her self-image and her behaviour? She comes up with a reason (some might call it an excuse) for her behaviour. She doesn’t exactly lie, but her mind plays a little trick on her. It helps her to find something that Gloria did wrong that justifies Barbara’s response. For example, Barbara’s mind might exaggerate a little, convincing herself that: Gloria is alwaysasking questions and should learn how to do things herself. This might be something that Barbara had never actually thought before, but it comes to mind now as something that would explain her behavior in some kind of logical way, and it sounds rather convincing.
The problem with this kind of ‘excuse’ is that it leads to another contradiction – Barbara has made this statement without very much evidence. In order to feel confident that she is not the kind of person to make accusations about others without evidence, Barbara now (probably unconsciously) goes on a little mission to find other evidence that supports her statement that Gloria doesn’t know what she’s doing and is always asking for assistance. Suddenly, Barbara notices anything Gloria does that might support this view, and ignores anything that seems inconsistent. This kind of filtering of information leads to a further problem. Barbara begins to really dislike Gloria. She starts to honestly believe that not only is Gloria incompetent, but she is also a bad person. Again, this justifies her focus on the negative aspects of Gloria. The conflict escalates and before we know it there is a full-scale workplace war going on. Poor Gloria probably has no idea what hit her!
The real problem is that poor Barbara probably has no idea either! She is probably not conscious of the little tricks her mind has played on her in order to make her feel secure and consistent. She has probably forgotten that this all started one day when she was in a bit of a grumpy mood and behaved in a way that she would not be proud of. She has probably not noticed the slow but steady escalation of the situation, and she is now so deeply entrenched in it that simply pointing it out to her is not going to help – she is going to be even more defensive and become even more entrenched.
This kind of situation is caused by a phenomenon known as “cognitive dissonance”: when we are faced with two contradictory phenomenon and our mind tries to reconcile them so that we don’t have internal conflict. The problem is that in ‘fixing’ our internal conflict, we can often create and escalate ‘external’ conflict.
Part of the solution to the problem is to recognize (early!) that nobody (including ourselves) is ever perfect. That Barbara is a nice person, and that she sometimes has bad days and behaves in a less-than-perfect way. That Barbara likes to make informed decisions, and sometimes still jumps to a conclusion too quickly. It’s also useful to occasionally ask ourselves whether we really have the whole picture in relation to a particular situation. To slow down and actively check for information that might contradict what we feel is obvious. This is particularly important whenever we find ourselves feeling defensive – this is typically when cognitive dissonance is likely to kick in – and this is the time when we have to be especially careful to control our mind, rather than let it control us!
Many people, when they find themselves in a conflict situation, feel helpless and powerless to do anything about it. However, in any conflict situation, there are always a number of choices about how to deal with it. At the very least, there are always two choices: do something or do nothing. There are also usually even more options when we start to consider variations on how, when and where we might do something!
Frequently, though, we tend to avoid making a choice about what to do, and desperately hope that the situation will just resolve itself or miraculously go away. Somehow we convince ourselves that doing nothing is the best (or at least the easiest) option.
Avoidance is usually not the best way to respond to conflict, as nothing is likely to be resolved if the people in conflict do not communicate about their needs and concerns. However, in some circumstances, avoidance can be appropriate.
If interacting with the person with whom you are in conflict is dangerous, avoidance might be a sensible choice. For example, if I return home to find someone breaking into my house, and they are carrying a gun, approaching them to try to explain to them why I would prefer that they not steal my belongings is probably not going to be very effective, and could be quite risky. The wisest move would be to avoid the interaction and refer the conflict to someone who has more power than I do to manage the situation, for example calling the police.
Even if the situation is not a dangerous one, avoidance can be useful as a short-term approach to managing conflict. For example, while one or both the parties in conflict are very emotional (angry or upset), communication between them is unlikely to be particularly constructive. Sometimes it’s also just not the right time and place for the interaction. Taking time out to calm down and think clearly about what needs to be discussed can be very useful, so long as it’s used to prepare for a constructive interaction in the future, and not as a long term avoidance strategy. This stops being an effective response to conflict when the parties continue to avoid one another indefinitely, and emotions escalate rather than calm down. The longer this goes on, the less likely the conflict is going to be resolved. When an outcome to the conflict is actually important to people, but they do not engage with the other person in an attempt to resolve it, resentment builds up and the conflict often becomes bigger and more difficult to resolve.
Finally, permanently avoiding having a conversation about the conflict can be an appropriate response where a person can honestly say that the conflict is not worth engaging over, and where the person is truly able to let go of the situation without resentment. This often happens in relationship conflict, where the issue is something fairly trivial and where the relationship is more important than the matter that the parties are potentially in conflict about.
Remember, avoidance might make you feel better in the short term by postponing that difficult conversation, but if the situation really matters to you, the longer you leave it, the more difficult that conversation is likely to be!
We all know how frustrating it is when we have something important to say and the other person just isn’t listening to us. When we are in conflict, this becomes a pattern that makes it more and more difficult for two people to communicate effectively. Both people get frustrated because the other person isn’t listening! When this happens, our natural tendency is to talk louder, more forcefully and more emotionally, in the desperate hope that suddenly the other person will hear what we are saying to them. The only problem is, while you are talking, the other person is busy planning their response, identifying all the holes in your argument and composing a blistering reply. In other words, they are still not listening!
It’s counter-intuitive, but the best way to get someone to listen to what you have to say is to listen to them first. This doesn’t mean just standing there letting them rant and rave until they take a breath, and then jumping in with your response. This means REALLY listening to them: consciously making an effort to pay attention to what they are saying and how they are feeling without interrupting or responding. Then, most importantly, you need to show them that not only have you heard what they said, you understand what they are saying.
The best way to show someone that you understand them is to summarise back to them what they have said. This doesn’t mean you have to agree with them! You simply want to acknowledge what they have told you. A good way to start is to say something like “So, let me get this straight, what you are saying is that you feel … because I …”. Don’t get into an argument in the middle of this – it’s really important at this stage that you simply show them that you understand what they are saying without contributing your own comments or responses.
Ideally, if you have summarised what they are saying more or less correctly, they are going to have to agree with you. What you are looking for is a response like “YES! Exactly!” This is your opportunity to invite them to show you the same courtesy that you just showed them. Start off with a statement that explains that you would simply like to share with them your perspective of the situation. For example, “I experienced this a little differently. For me, …”. If they start interrupting you, remind them that you listened to what they had to say without interrupting or arguing with them.
If you have first given the other person a chance to have their say, they are much more likely to listen to you more attentively now. They don’t need to plan their argument in response – they’ve already told you their side of the story and you showed them you heard and understood what they said.
Counter-intuitive, but it works! Listen first and you are much more likely to be listened to!
Research has shown that when managers coach their employees, they get the best out of them. What is it that coaching offers that other management strategies do not?
- Coaching demonstrates that managers listen to and value their employees’ perspectives, which builds trust and loyalty.
- Coaching demonstrates that managers have confidence in their employees’ ability to work through challenges themselves.
- Coaching builds employees’ capacity to make their own decisions and when they do so they have greater ownership and commitment to their actions.
- Coaching helps employees develop and grow their skills and confidence.
Not only does coaching result in skilled, confident and loyal employees, this has a flow on positive impact on customers and the business as a whole.
While effective coaching may take some initial investment (in training managers to coach) and some ongoing investment (in the time taken to coach employees), the benefits of this investment are worthwhile and lasting.
I’m excited to announce the release of The Story Cookbook, which includes quite a few of my ‘recipes’!
Stories and storytelling represent powerful creative processes for communication and change across personal, organisational and community contexts. With over 80 activities collected from contributors around the world, The Story Cookbook is one of the most comprehensive collections of story-based activities currently available. The book, organised by menu courses, provides the reader with a treasure trove of activities ranging from elegant relationship-building story techniques to more complex story processes such as quantum storytelling, genre bending and provenance. Designed in an easy-to-follow format, the smorgasbord of storytelling ideas that fill this book provide rich pickings to apply and adapt for all sorts of situations. This enticing resource is a must-read for consultants, facilitators, educators, change makers and leaders interested in working with story and narrative techniques for positive change in individuals, organisations and communities.