Tips to Maximize Your Conflict Resolution Experience

A conflict resolution conversation represents an opportunity to do something different. To stop fighting and collaborate. So, what can you do to make the most of your opportunity to get to a mutually beneficial agreement?

 1.         Prepare

You’ve probably heard how failing to prepare, is preparing to fail. And this is very true of our conflict situations. There are things you can do to get yourself ready so that you can be at your best when having a difficult conversation. We can figure out in advance what we are feeling, what we need, what external norms, standards and laws are at stake, but also what we’ll do if we don’t reach agreement. Completing the worksheet on the back is a great idea!

 2.         Listen to understand

The best way to persuade another person is by listening well. “Seek first to understand, then to be understood”, said the late Stephen Covey. Yet listening is one of the hardest skills to master – especially when we perceive the other negatively. As long as you are listening and demonstrating that you understand what the other is saying, you are more likely to reach your goal: agreement.

 3.         Respond wisely, don’t react defensively

Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl famously pointed out that there is a gap between stimulus and response and that in that gap lay our freedom. We respond wisely to our conflict situations when we are able to articulate what we are feeling and needing and our actions are guided by our highest values. By contrast, when we react defensively, we judge and blame and escalate the situation.

 4.         Use I Statements to communicate without judgment or blame

‘I’ statements are different from ‘you’ statements. You statement are judgmental and shut down communication. They are ineffective communicators of what people really feel or need.

By contrast, ‘I’ statements are empathic and open up communication. They require you to describe the situation observationally; to identify how you feel about what you have observed; to articulate your needs that are not being met and which give rise to your feelings; and to describe the concrete actions you need to move forward.

 The four elements of an ‘I’ Statement are:

o   I feel… (Feelings)

o   When… (Observation: describe behavior in non-blaming terms)

o   Because… (Needs)

o   Make a positive behavior request. (Request)

 For example: “I feel frustrated when you start talking before I have finished because my full message is important. I would appreciate it if you could let me finish talking first.”

 5.         Assert your needs and be creative when you brainstorm solutions

To assert your needs, you must first know what they are. Sadly, we often don’t know what we are needing and focus more on our judgments and demands of others. Reframe the conversation to focus on your needs. Coming into the conversation knowing what your needs are will make a huge difference. And, the more you can anticipate what your colleague needs the better. Once we have a good sense of what we each need moving forward, we have an opportunity to find mutually beneficial solutions. In many senses, we are limited by our own creativity.

 6.         Consider what external norms, standards, and laws are at stake

Conflict plays out within a particular context in which participants have expectations of what will happen based on what has happened to others (precedent), and also any relevant norms, standards and law. Knowing this in advance, will help. For example, if you have a concern about noise, is there a policy or directive in the handbook that describes what to expect?

 7.         Know what you will do if you don’t reach agreement

It is important to know what you will do if you don’t reach an agreement (your alternatives). Also, it’s wise to contemplate what the other person may do (their alternatives). You may not like what is being offered but if you don’t have a better alternative away from the table it may be wise to accept what’s on the table. Knowing what your best alternatives are, will inform you as to whether you should accept an offer made. If you have a better way of meeting your needs on your own (a strong alternative) you won’t be as motivated to work something out. However, if you don’t, then you will be more motivated to find a mutual way forward.

 8.         Focus on the future

When it comes to resolving conflict, mediators encourage you to focus on the future you would like to create, rather than on the past that didn’t work. At the same time, it is important to be able to talk about what happened in the past, so that you can get closure, but always with an eye to the future you are envisioning.

 9.         Be conciliatory

A genuine apology is a conciliatory gesture. If you need to apologize, do so. And if your colleague is conciliatory, make sure you acknowledge the gesture and reward it. Don't respond to conciliatory gestures with an attack. For example, "I can see my part in this problem" is conciliatory. Saying "It’s about time" or something to that effect, negates the impact of the gesture.

 10.       Be Open

Doing what we always did got us here! View the conflict resolution conversation as a way to do things differently. So, if you come into the conversation thinking you are right, have all the answers and have nothing to learn then it is unlikely that you are going to work things out. By contrast, if you are open to showing up differently, then there is a reason to be hopeful. Either you are open or closed. Be open!

Preparation Worksheet Questions:

What am I feeling?

What may my colleague be feeling?

What do I need?

What are my colleagues needs?

What external norms, standards, precedents or laws have a bearing on the situation?

What external norms, standards, precedents or laws have a bearing on the situation?

What will I do if we don’t reach an agreement? Consider best and worst cases.

What will my colleague most likely do if we don’t reach an agreement? Consider best and worst cases.

The Tension Between Empathy and Assertiveness

In 1996 Robert H. Mnookin, Scott R. Peppet and Andrew S. Tulumello wrote an article for the esteemed Negotiation Journal that explored the tension between empathy and assertiveness as two key indicators of how we approach our negotiations strategically.

Very basically there are five widely accepted negotiation strategies available: avoidance, accommodating, competition, compromise and collaboration. An important topic I agree, but not the focus here.

What I wanted to share, was their definition of empathy and it’s practical benefits to the world of negotiation.

***

“Empathy

For purposes of negotiation, we define empathy as the process of demonstrating an accurate, nonjudgmental understanding of the other side’s needs, interests, and positions.

(As is common in legal journals, there are a lot of footnotes. Here’s what the author’s added in theirs in relation to this first sentence:

The notion of empathy is and always has been a broad, someone slippery concept — one that has provoked considerable speculation, excitement and confusion. The term ‘empathy’ is of comparatively recent origin. It was coined by an American experimental psychologist in 1909 as a translation of the German word Einfühlung, defined as .to feel ones way into. Over the last 80 years, many subdisciplines in psychology adopted and modified the term, giving it a range of definitions and connotations.

Contemporary scholars debate such issues as whether the content of empathy is cognitive or affective — whether we understand the thoughts, intentions, and feelings of others or contemporaneously experience them. Similarly, scholars question whether the empathic process is primarily cognitive ‘thinking it through’ or affective ‘feeling it through’ )

There are two components to this definition.

The first involves a skill psychologists call perspective-taking  trying to see the world through the other negotiator’s eyes.

The second is the nonjudgmental expression of the other person’s viewpoint in a way that is open to correction.

In crafting this definition, we have found useful the work of Carl Rogers. Rogers described empathy as:

“Entering the private perceptual world of the other and becoming thoroughly at home in it. It involves being sensitive . . . to the changing felt meanings which flow in this other person. . . . It means temporarily living in their life, moving about in it delicately without making judgments, sensing meanings of which they are actually aware. . . . It includes communicating your sensings of their world as you look with fresh and unfrightened eyes at elements of which the individual is fearful. It means frequently  checking with them as to the accuracy of your sensings, and being guided by the responses you receive. . . . To be with another in this way means that for the time being you lay aside the views and values you hold for yourself in order to enter into another world without prejudice.”

For Rogers, empathy involved the process of nonjudgmentally entering another’s perceptual world.

For us, it also involves the active expression of this understanding of the other side.

Defined in this way, empathy requires neither sympathy nor agreement.

Sympathy is ‘feeling for’ someone — it refers to an affective response to the other persons predicament.

For us, empathy does not require people to have sympathy for others plight.

Instead, we see empathy as ‘a value-neutral mode of observation’, a journey in which we explore and describe another’s perceptual world without commitment.

Empathizing with someone, therefore, does not mean sympathizing with, agreeing with, or even necessarily liking the other side.

Instead, it simply requires the expression of how the world looks to that person.

The benefits of empathy relate to the integrative and distributive aspects of bargaining.

Consider first the potential benefits of understanding (but not yet demonstrating) the other sides viewpoint. Skilled negotiators often can "see through" another person’s statements to find hidden interests or feelings, even when they are inchoate in the others mind.

Perspective-taking thus facilitates value-creation by enabling a negotiator to craft arguments, proposals, or trade-offs that reflect another’s interests and that may create the basis for trade.

Perspective-taking also facilitates distributive moves. To the extent we understand another negotiator, we will better predict their goals, expectations, and strategic choices.

This enables good perspective-takers to gain a strategic advantage  analogous, perhaps, to playing a game of chess with advance knowledge of the other sides moves.

It may also mean that good perspective-takers will more easily see through bluffing or other gambits based on artifice. Research confirms that negotiators with higher perspective-taking ability negotiate agreements of higher value than those with lower perspective-taking ability.

The capacity to demonstrate our understanding of the other sides viewpoint to reflect back how they see the world  confers additional benefits.

Negotiators in both personal and business disputes typically have a deep need to tell their story and to feel that it has been understood. Meeting this need, therefore, can dramatically shift the tone of a relationship.

The burgeoning literature on interpersonal communication celebrates this possibility. As Nichols writes, “. . . when . . . feelings take shape in words that are shared and come back clarified, the result is a reassuring sense of being understood and a grateful feeling of shared humanness with the one who understands.”

The subtext to good empathy is concern and respect, which diffuses hostility, anger and mistrust, especially where these emotions stem from feeling unappreciated or exploited.

Another important benefit of expressing our understanding is that this process may help correct interpersonal misperceptions.

Many scholars have documented the how perception mistakes beset most negotiations; such mistakes are perhaps the foremost contributors to negotiation and relationship breakdown.

Negotiators, for example, often make various attributional errors  that is, they attribute to their counterparts incorrect or exaggerated intentions or characteristics based on limited information.

If for example. our counterpart is late to a meeting, we tend to assume that they either intended to make us wait or that they are chronically tardy, even though we may be meeting them for the first time.

In either case, we have formed an attribution or judgment that may prove unnecessarily counterproductive.

By expressing our understanding, we can correct  or at least test  our attributions about others. By journeying into their shoes, we collect new information and new clues as to their motivation that may help us to revise our earlier assessments.

In a sense, empathy requires us to roll back our judgments into questions or tentatively-held assumptions until we have more complete information.”

***

That’s the extract from the article that I wanted to share.

So, when through perspective taking we are able to demonstrate an understanding of another’s needs, interests and positions we are being empathic. However, it is when we feel understood, as when feelings are reflected back through words that clarify that understanding that we “can dramatically shift the tone of a relationship.”

Which is probably why I so appreciate Marshall Rosenberg defining empathy as demonstrating an understanding of another person’s feelings and needs, not just their needs, interests and positions.

Extract from: The Tension Between Empathy and Assertiveness, Robert H. Mnookin, Scott R. Peppet and Andrew S. Tulumello, Negotiation Journal, July 1996.