Increasing our options

In my last blog, I looked at more difficult situations, involving scarce resources -- which look like a win-lose situation (I get the resource and you don't). Today's blog focuses on ways to generate more options to convert the situation from a competitive one to a cooperative negotiation because we can then resolve the conflict in a way that satisfies us both.

Generating more options often requires thinking outside of the box, maybe even getting creative. How do we do this?

1. Brainstorming: This term is often misunderstood. It is not something we do by ourselves. It is also not the same as discussing ideas. We brainstorm with the other person or each of us brainstorms with our family or friends or colleagues at work, and we simply list all the suggestions without discussing them or evaluating any of the ideas. Why not? Calling something a good idea or a bad idea discourages others from making contributions. Even a bad idea can trigger people to think of other better ideas. Also, later on, several of the ideas (which were less effective by themselves) may be combined to solve a problem. So brainstorming often produces a way to solve a problem that had not occurred to the conflicting parties initially.

2. Cost-cutting: One way to resolve a conflict may cost you in time, money, and effort. Part of the solution to the problem might involve the other party contributing time, money, or effort to make life easier or more affordable for you.

3. Compensating: This occurs after an incident because it involves reimbursement. Whereas cost-cutting pertains to the future, compensation involves the past. If you suffered in some way, the other person may offer to compensate you for your loss of time, money, effort, or pain.

4. Changing positions to interests: We learned in making I-statements (see Sept. 18 blog), that the last part should be a statement of your goal in the conflict, what you want specifically. You want to use our only car tonight, but I want to go somewhere else. Notice the word "want" here. What we want, specifically, is our position, which may involve a scarce resource -- only one car that we both want to take in opposite directions. Our interests however occur on a higher level because they are our needs. In this situation, our interest or need is for transportation. The shift from "I want this car" to "I need transportation tonight" is a shift in thinking. Suddenly, we realize that there may be other ways to get from point A to point B. A friend in going to the same event, and I might be able to go with him, while you take the car. So we both go where we want to and who gets the car becomes irrelevant. Shifting from positions or wants to interests or needs often results in resolution.

5. Granting priority: We can invite the conflicting parties to each draw up a list of items to be negotiated and rank them. We might then agree to grant each other the top one (or two), but negotiate the rest on the list. Note: both mush grant the other the top item. This can be viewed like a trade off. I give you X but in return I get Y. Often granting the highest items frees up the negotiation so that the remaining issues can be resolved much more easily.

6. Tossing a coin. In our society we have many ways to assist people in making decisions. We know that two people are going to arrive at a doorway at the same time, so we say "women before men" or "age before beauty, etc." I am amazed that even in life threatening situations, these methods work. On a sinking ship, we are reminded, "women and children go first. " "Who risks her or his life?" let's flip a coin or draw straws. Rock/scissors/paper and drawing numbers to wait at the deli are techniques people often use to settle potential disputes. Of course, you have to get agreement before hand on the technique if there isn't one already in place (like doorways and sinking ships). Once that is agreed upon (like let's see who is the fastest, so let's race for it), the conflict is often easily resolved.

Entering into a difficult and complex negotiation, we might begin by granting each other the top item on our priority list, we might then engage in brainstorming, cost-cutting or compensation, and focus on interests rather than positions to resolve many of the other issues. Finally, we might agree to tossing a coin or some other common method for resolving what remains. In any case, we will have tried to be creative, and employed negotiation techniques for generating more options to resolve the irresolvable. (Photo by fezinator1)

Negotiating over scarce resources

Many conflicts clear up as soon as we make our wants, interests, and needs know to others. Sometimes, they just need to know and they will quickly grant your wishes. Other times, with the communication skills described so far, they will accept a solution if they see benefit to themselves. In either case, you asserted yourself and worked with them collaboratively to resolve the issue.

In this blog, I look at a more difficult situation, involving scarce resources -- not enough to go around. What if you both want to use the same car tonight, don't have enough money to buy what you want and the other person wants, want to be with the same man or woman that someone else wants, want to be with your family over the holidays but the other wants to be with his or her family at the same time, or both of you want to watch two different TV programs at the same time? In these cases, making your needs or desires known to the other is not enough. You also need additional tools to increase the options for reaching an agreement. Today's blog focuses on how you can do that.

My ideas for today's blog come from the subject of negotiation. There negotiators exchange proposals and counter proposals as a means of reaching a satisfactory settlement. Negotiators are governed by the minimax principle, where they strive to minimize loses and maximize gains.

The rub is that there are two entirely different ways to negotiate, either cooperative or competitive, each with its own purpose. First, there is competitive negotiation, which is useful for dealing with people with whom you do not have or desire an interpersonal relationship. Such cases may include buying/selling a car, house, etc. In such cases, one should start high, concede slowly, emphasize the value of one’s offers, conceal some information (like home much you earn or have saved in the bank), argue forcefully, and try to outwait the other. In these situations, it is OK to view the situation as win-lose. You want to sell at the highest possible price, while the other is trying to get the lowest.

Secondly, cooperative negotiation can be a win-win. It is an integrative form that combines formal bargaining techniques with many basic interpersonal skills such as effective listening, assertiveness, supportive communication, and collaboration. This works best when both parties trust one another and the outcomes could be mutually satisfactory. In these situations, competitive negotiation would leave at least one party dissatisfied and could lead to the destruction of an interpersonal relationship. Rather, the parties need to view the situation as win-win. They want both parties to feel good about the outcome of the negotiation.

So you want to save competitive negotiation for selling/buying houses, cars, etc., but use cooperative negotiation for friends, family, and romantic partners, etc. How we actually engage in cooperative negotiation is the subject of my next blog. (Photo by Rebeloneil).

What should I say in a conflict? (I-statements)

In my last blog, I introduced the idea of communicating our wants, interests, and needs to others, but in a way that involves working together rather than forcing our wants on others. One useful technique for accomplishing this is through the use of I-statements. Generally you-statements ("you this...you that..." ) arouse defensiveness in others. I-statements do not.

I-statements consists of 4 parts:

1. Feelings: You need to state how you feel (emotionally). I feel angry..upset..frustrated..sad..afraid...anxious...uncomfortable... is much less likely to arouse defensiveness. How can anyone deny how you feel? Besides an expression of your feelings is of interest to others, if they care about you.

2. Problem: You need to identify the behavior that caused you to feel the way you do. I feel angry because you didn't return any of my calls...were late...forgot our special day...took the car without telling me...left dishes in the sink...didn't vacuum like you were supposed to. The problem is the issue or the event that triggered the conflict.

3. Consequences: You need to also explain why the other's actions affect you the way they do. I thought maybe something happened to you (because you didn't show or call).. maybe you don't care enough about me or think enough about me...left me stranded because I needed the car...it is unfair for me to have to work and do the housework too... We cannot expect others to be mind readers. They do not always realize how their behavior impacts on you.

4. Goal: What do you want? If the other were to agree to do something, what would you want him or her to do? You need to be specific about what you want. Don't say, you want the person to be on time after this because that may not always be possible. Say you want the person to try to be on time, but if they can't, then to call you and let you know when they can be there. Or, you want them to start marking special days on a calendar as a reminder. Or, you want the person to ask before taking the car. Don't say that you want more help with the housework. Instead, say that you want the other to wash the dishes and not leave them in the sink over night or you want the other to vacuum once every week. I am suggesting ways you can clearly express the goal you have in mind.

I-statements can consist of a single sentence like "I am anxious and afraid when you don't show because I think that something may have happened to you, so I want you to try to be on time, but if you can't, then call me." I have found it useful to even write out this sentence ahead of time. However, you can also cover each of the 4 parts in the course of a discussion in which you spend some time talking about your feelings, then mentioning the problem, eventually explaining how it affects you, and then finally telling the other person what you want (goal).

I-statements help us take responsibility for our feelings and wants, and enable us to stand up for what we think is important. If we don't tell others what we are thinking, can we blame them for being confused, uncertain, or blame them for acting the way they do? At least we owe them the chance to cooperate, change, or make amends.

However, if we use I-statements, but the other continues to ignore our feelings and wants, then this may be a clear sign that the other person doesn't care about you. Then you need to say something like, "I am frustrated and upset when you ignore my requests because I don't think you care about me. I want you to try to be more considerate of me by taking my requests seriously." If that fails, then you truly have a very serious problem in your relationship. (Picture by by rosco_sandy).

S-TLC steps to dealing with conflict

I have written a lot about conflict, but the one topic that people seem to remember most and comment on using the most often is my 4 step S-TLC model. Many admit not thinking along these lines until I introduced the 4 essential steps to take when engaging in a conflict. I copyrighted these 4 steps in Chapter 3 of a textbook: Managing Conflict Through Communication (2007), which I co-authored with Ruth Anna Abigail. To help people remember these steps, I use S-TLC, for stop, think, listen, communicate

STOP: Take a time out! Before you say or do anything, stop and get a hold of yourself. Too many of us react to a situation, and then we later regret what we said or did in the heat of the battle. Many people have trouble with this step of the model. How do you pause long enough to get control of yourself? You should come up with what works for you, but reading what others do may help you think of something your could use in the future. Here are some suggestions:

1. Leave for a few minutes or however long it takes to get control of yourself. You could walk around the block, go get a cup of coffee, or smoke a cigarette (if you must).
2. If you can't leave, try counting to 100 (or count backwards), ask to change the topic of conversation for a while, agree to sit and say nothing for a few minutes.

THINK: While taking a time out and before saying anything you might later regret, reflect on what you want, what you think the other person wants, imagine how your interaction might go if you say something one way or another.

1. Ask yourself, what it is you want from the other person. If everything went your way, what is the best you could hope for? Then, on a more realistic level, under the circumstances, what might you expect to gain?
2. If you make your needs, concerns, interests known, what impact will your assertiveness have on your relationship with the other person?
3. Behaving one way or another, how will you affect the other person's view of you as a person? Will you be seen as thoughtful, conscientious, reasonable? Or a hot head, lose cannon, a person unable to control her/himself?

LISTEN: After you make your request, offer your view, and explain why all this is important to you, then hear the other people out. Give them a chance to make requests, offer their views, and explain why they feel as they do.

1. Pay attention to the other by looking at them, nodding your head, and saying, uh-huh, OK, I see, etc.
2. Don't interrupt the other person. Don't make negative facial expressions or show lack of interest.
3. Try to put yourself in the other's place to see the conflict from the other's point of view. Ask the person questions.
4. At some point, summarize to the other what you think the person is saying. This forces you to pay attention, and makes the other person realize that you get the message. You could ask them to do the same for you.

COMMUNICATE: I view communication as a process (involving a series of steps) by which people interact in a way that involves coordination (working together), so that the outcome is a mutual understanding. One should not try to be controlling and dominating. I cringe whenever I hear someone say, "I have to be right," "I always win the argument," "I am never wrong," "I know what's best for you," "I don't care what you think," "I have the best idea, " What you think doesn't matter," "You have to do this or else..." All theses phrases are one-sided. However, we have all heard the phrase, 2 heads are better than 1. So as you communicate with the other person,

1. hear each other out, try to cooperate, work together.
2. Discuss the problem, not what you think of each other at that moment.
3. Keep trying to see the problem or issue from the other's point of view, which is what he or she is trying to tell you if you listen to the person.
4. Try to keep an open mind, withhold judgment, don't jump to conclusions, welcome feedback.

With which of the S-TLC steps do you have the biggest problem? When talking to groups of 20-30 people, I find some who say that one step or another is their biggest problem, but some admit that 2, 3 or all 4 steps are a big problem for them. I suggest that everyone carry a card with the words stop, think, listen, communicate written on it. Also, make a note or two for each word to help you make the right choices. I might write: Stop--walk around the block, Think--What do I want?, Listen--ask questions & give feedback, Communicate--Don't dominate. You need to adapt your card more to your style and available options. What works for you is what you need to do.
(Picture by LA_signals)

What choices do I have?

Throughout your life, you probably never thought about the options you have when you see a conflict coming. You probably just chose one way or other without really realizing what you were doing. However, information on your options may help you make better decisions in the future.

There are different ways we can respond or react to a pending conflict. A very common reaction is to choose not to deal with it. That means we could avoid the person, situation, or issue altogether, or if we can't do that, we could quickly give in and not make waves. A lot of people don't want to spend time arguing with someone else for a lot of different reasons --such as knowing they won't win the argument, fear of abuse or frightening rage, not wanting to suffer other negative consequences like breaking up, losing a job, or losing a friend, or not knowing how to confront and arguing with others in a positive, constructive way.

But, not dealing with a situation goes nowhere. Nothing changes because problems do not go away by themselves. Sometimes when in a temporary bad situation, we just have to tough it out, but in interpersonal relationships, where the relationship is important to you, it does not pay to always give in and not make waves. Sooner or later one who always gives in becomes fed up, probably erupts at some point, and may even end the relationship once and for all. Even those who "suck the life" out of others to the extent that they lose their sense of self, eventually lose respect for them and turn their attention to other more interesting people.

When is it not OK to overlook issues? If you find yourself later regretting that you did not speak up earlier, then you probably should have said something. Putting it off only makes matters worse. So, while one legitimately may not deal with every issue in a relationship, because it is minor or temporary, people who always avoid or accommodate the other end up unhappy.

Other reactions to pending conflicts include: aggressive (verbally abusive and using physical force, controlling, dominating) and passive-aggressive (initially agreeing or supporting, but later behind the person's back engaging in "back stabbing"). In my last blog, I talked about the problem with aggressive reactions to conflicts. We all know and dislike someone who is passive-aggressive. Neither are responses we can be proud of.

One last option is the most recommended, assertiveness or standing up for you rights, interests, needs, or concerns, but not at the expense of others. In some cases, this means compromise, where you don't get everything you want or always get what you need, but you figure that something is better than nothing. Better still is what we call collaboration, where everyone is satisfied with the outcome. This is often called a win-win solution to the problem because everyone walks away feeling good about the decision.

This is not to say that I think we all should be assertive in every situation. In cases that are minor or temporary, it may pay to be a team player and nonassertive. When trying to protect oneself from injury by others, it may be necessary to react aggressively in self defense. If someone threatens you, it may be necessary to give in initially but later have the person arrested. However, in most other cases it pays to be assertive and attempt to collaborate more with others. How one better manages her or his conflicts by asserting oneself and collaborating is what this blog is all about.
(Picture by BlackDevil03X)

Did you have to hit her (him): Is violence inevitable?

I remember when a former student came to see me, sat across from me, and told me how he had just hit a guy who angered him at a game arcade in a local shopping mall. He said he lost his cool and wanted help to prevent that from happening again.

The term violence includes physical violence and verbal abuse. I see interpersonal violence, physical aggression, and abusive relationships as types of interpersonal conflict, albeit extreme and unhealthy.

New York like Pennsylvania has many Quakers, who played an important role in our country's development by giving us the city of Brotherly Love (Philadelphia), helping with the League of Nations, creating Alternatives to Violence Programs, Mediation training, and the idea of Restorative Justice. I was trained by Quakers in a local Alternatives to Violence Program, and then allowed to accompany them into two state penitentiaries, one of which was a maximum security prison. We passed through 4 electric gates to get to the most violent offenders. Oddly enough, sitting with them in groups and working through the anti-violence program, I was struck with how much they were like other people I knew on the outside, except for one characteristic: Many did not entertain the idea that there was an alternative to violence in many common situations. When discussing case studies or participating in role plays, they would say, "you can't back down, you have to fight for her, I would have to kill him," etc. When I introduce similar situations in the college classroom, I almost never hear these fighting words. My students seem to recognize that there are alternatives in a conflict situation, whereas many of the inmates did not.

What separates many of us on the outside of the prison from those on the inside is the recognition that conflicts need not turn violent, because we have options when handling our differences with others. The notion of choice applies to interpersonal violence in two ways. First, when we turn violent we are using force to prevent others’ freedom of choice. How many times have you heard defendants in a murder trial say: "I killed her because I couldn't bear to live with out her...I couldn't let her go." Obviously, the murderer had a warped idea of love. I find the following saying useful in cases like these: "If you love something, let it go. If it comes back it's yours. If it doesn't, it never really was in the first place." -- Anonymous.

Second, the notion of choice should help us realize that we need not turn violent in the first place. We always have choices in conflict situations, we are all responsible for our own actions, and we can make a difference in our lives and others. Although conflict is inevitable, it need not, and should not get out of hand, turn violent, and harm our relationships with others.

By teaching nonviolent solutions to problems, setting an example in our daily lives, and raising our children to resolve interpersonal conflicts peacefully, we are helping to reduce a serious social problem. Thus, learning to avoid escalation (i.e., learning de-escalation) is an important goal of future postings to this blog. I did have suggestions to give the student who came to see after his fight, so stay tuned.
(Picture by CarsonHill779)