20 tried-and-true ways to unclutter a conflict

Conflict coaches and professional mediators like me help people unclutter and untangle conflicts. We know how to step into the puzzle with you and figure out what pieces go where. With the right thoughts, you can do it for yourself, too.

Here are 20 ways to move yourself toward the simple, uncluttered thoughts that will unlock complexity. But don’t read them all now.

Bookmark this list and come back to it as a reference for those times you’re stuck in a conflict situation and need a little guidance and inspiration.

1. Have a centering question you can use when you need it
2. Empty your teacup
3. Shift how you think about conflict
4. De-escalate with genuine listening, not the fake technique-y crap
5. When things heat up, calm yourself
6. Acquaint yourself with your own hot buttons
7. Take the long view
8. Choose to adopt a “mind like water” attitude
9. Refuse to accept the gift of an insult
10. Make peace with the groan zone
11. Avoid the 7 phrases you can’t say in conflict resolution
12. Learn the mediator’s secret for good listening
13. Bring a beginner’s mind to the conversation
14. Separate intention from impact
15. Forget fault, consider contribution instead
16. Don’t offer disingenuous apologies
17. Distinguish acknowledgment from agreement
18. Beware the “tweaking CC”
19. Remove “always” and “never” from your argument vocabulary
20. When you blow it, be patient with yourself

Interpersonal conflict, runaway stories, and the legend of Rhonda Brickman

Runaway stories and effective interpersonal conflict resolution are like oil and water.

Runaway stories are the experience of telling yourself a tall tale about the person you’re in conflict with. You catastrophize the situation, or project your own stuff onto them, or amplify their less commendable traits in the story you tell yourself. And the more you tell yourself the story you’ve made up about them, the more you believe it. The more you believe it, the more like The Truth it becomes. The more it feels like The Truth, the harder it is to unlock the interpersonal conflict because it’s hard to change The Truth, right?

Trouble is, runaway stories are just fabrication. A runaway story may feel like The Truth, but it began with a story you made up because you let your thoughts and assumptions run ahead of you.

The legend of Rhonda Brickman

In The Legend of Rhonda Brickman, folk singer Christine Kane tells the story of two yoga instructors and their student:

Ben and Gina became friends with Rhonda, and they often spent time after classes talking about their lives.
 
In these conversations, Rhonda talked about her husband often. And Ben and Gina began to weave all kinds of stories about this man. They made him into sort of a corporate giant, giving him all kinds of powerhouse personality traits. They were even a little intimidated by all of their pre-conceptions about him.
 
Finally, they all went out to dinner together. And as it turns out, Rhonda Brickman’s husband couldn’t have been more unlike their fabricated image of him. All evening long, Ben and Gina glanced at each other in sheer amazement at how completely wrong they had been.

Ben and Gina now use that experience to call each other on runaway stories. They’ll simply say to the other in a sing-song voice, “Rhonda Brickmaaaan.”

Christine, in relating the tale, talks about how she’s been using the legend of Rhonda Brickman in the recording studio.

Three questions to neutralize your runaway thoughts

I love the idea of learning how to “Rhonda Brickmaaaan” ourselves. Once we’ve called ourselves out on our own runaway stories, we can get grounded again with these questions:

1. How is being attached to my runaway story influencing my reaction?
2. How would I be different in this situation if I were not attached to my runaway story?

Do you have a Rhonda Brickman-like story?

Garbage in, garbage out in conflict resolution, too

In computer science, garbage in, garbage out (or GIGO) refers to the notion that faulty input yields erroneous output.

GIGO is true in conflict and resolution, too. For instance:

Garbage in: Diagnosis of their personality flaws or psychological condition (e.g., they’re just rude, passive-aggressive, manipulative, etc.).
Garbage out: Argument focuses on what’s wrong with them and how to fix it. They, of course, defend and push back. You’re off to the races.

Garbage in: Belief that your solution is the right or best one for everyone involved.
Garbage out: Disagreement becomes a tug-of-war because they think the same about their own solution or don’t agree that yours will work.

Garbage in: Blaming them for the problem, dispute or conflict.
Garbage out: Blame may be soothing balm for your ego, but it isn’t for theirs. Argument gets side-tracked as they defend themselves or blame you in return. And you’re off to the races again.

Garbage in: Demanding an apology as a condition of staying in the conversation or being willing to resolve the problem with them.
Garbage out: Outrage from them or the kind of apology that’s useless. Then the conversation degrades into who got hurt more. Demands for apology rarely yield the desired result.

Preventing GIGO is very learnable, either through your own commitment to study and practice, or with support. For those of you new to Conflict Zen, I teach folks how to prevent GIGO in my Conflict Zen retreats, workshops and one-on-one coaching.

3 eye-opening questions for conflict clarity: question 3

This is the third in a mini-series about gaining clarity during a conflict and asking yourself the kinds of questions that shine new light on the problem (links to the earlier two posts are at the foot of this one).

The first two questions I offered were, What is this really about for me? and What do I need them most to understand? The third questions turns the second on its head:

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

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

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

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

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

In workplace conflict, questions are different than questioning

Effective conflict resolution is as much — and probably more — about attitude than it is about action.

Bring the right frame of mind or attitude to your disagreements and you almost can’t help doing and saying more effective things. Bring a problematic attitude, and all the tools and techniques in the world will only get you so far.

Last week, while facilitating a retreat, one member of the group I was working with made this really smart observation:

I think there’s a difference between asking questions and questioning. When I have a questioning attitude, I’m really expressing disbelief, doubt or skepticism about the other person. When I’m asking questions, I’m expressing interest, curiosity, and wanting to learn.

It wasn’t just a wise remark, it was the perfect example of the way attitude makes the difference. Imagine, for instance, that you disagree with a co-worker about a decision they made.

Now imagine you’re disgusted with their decision or suspicious of their motivations. Ask the following question out loud as you read this, in the way you might ask it if you’re expressing disdain, skepticism or distrust:

Why did you decide to do it that way?

Now imagine someone whose motivations you don’t doubt and whose judgment you almost always find on the mark. Imagine they’ve made a decision you disagree with and you’re more interested in understanding their thinking than questioning it. Ask the following question out loud, in the way you might ask it if you’re expressing curiosity or a desire to learn:

Why did you decide to do it that way?

Same question, different attitude. It sounds different in the way it comes out of your mouth, the tone you use, and your inflection. And, most likely, the listener hears it differently, too.

I hasten to add then, even when you do doubt someone’s motivations or are skeptical of their abilities, an attitude of curiosity will always trump an attitude of skepticism. The former creates dialogue, the latter creates defensiveness and escalation.

Do you have other good examples that illustrate the difference between questions and questioning? I’d love to hear them in comments.

Conflict Zen joins the 9rules network

Conflict Zen has been chosen to join the 9rules blog network and the site now sports the the 9rules leaf logo (click through to check it out if you’re reading this in RSS or email).

I first discovered 9rules because a number of blogs I love are members. Then, when I read the 9 rules that were at the foundation of the network when it was founded in 2003, I knew it was something I wanted to be part of:

1. Love what you do.
2. Never stop learning.
3. Form works with function.
4. Simple is beautiful.
5. Work hard, play hard.
6. You get what you pay for.
7. When you talk, we listen.
8. Must constantly improve.
9. Respect your inspiration.

I hope most, if not all, of those 9 rules feel as familiar to you as a Conflict Zen reader as they do to me as the author.

What does this mean for you and me?

For you, it means that by clicking on the 9rules logo anytime, you can find other terrific blogs to read, many of which write on topics I think Conflict Zen readers will find interesting.

For me, it means that more folks will have a chance to find and see my conflict resolution writing. I love the chance to meet new friends.

Thanks for including me, Tyme, Scrivs, and Mike,

3 eye-opening questions for conflict clarity: question 2

The pursuit of conflict zen is, in part, the pursuit of clarity. Clarity about the conflict, what most needs to be discussed to unlock and untangle it, and what it’s most about for you.

In 3 Eye-Opening Questions for Conflict Clarity: Question 1, I offered up the reflective question, What is this really about for me? and some strategies for answering that question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next Page »