Conflict Management and Constructive Confrontation

By Gregg Walker Department of Speech Communication Oregon State University This material is adapted from: Johnson, David W. (1990). Reaching Out, 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. We respond to conflicts by confronting, accommodating, or avoiding. Both accommodation and avoidance are passive; Confrontation can be aggressive and competitive, or assertive and collaborative. The latter approach is generally the most constructive.

What is Confrontation?
A confrontation is the direct expression of one's view (thoughts and feelings) of the conflict situation and an invitation for the other party to express her or his views of the conflict. Confrontations involve:

Describing behavior and one's reactions to that behavior. Clarifying and exploring issues in the conflict (substantive, relational, procedural). The nature and strength of the parties' interests, needs, and concerns. Disclosure of relevant feelings.

To Confront or Not Confront? Generally the decision to confront is based on the following factors:

The nature of the relationship. The greater the relationship's importance, the more meaningful the confrontation. The nature of the issues. The more significant the issues, the greater the potential benefit from confrontation. The ability of the other party to act on the confrontation. If the other party's anxiety level is high or motivation/ability to change is low, confrontation will likely fail.

Confrontation Guidelines

Do not "hit and run." Confront when there is sufficient time to share views about the conflict and schedule a conflict management session. Communicate openly and directly your perceptions of, and feelings about, the issues in the conflict. Try to do so in minimally threatening ways. Focus your concerns on the issues and the other party's behavior, not on the other party's character or personality. Comprehend as completely as possible the other person's views of, and feelings about, the conflict.

Value disagreement over the issues and the opportunity to work through that disagreement. Disagreement should be communicated in a manner consistent with acceptance of the other person. Does not demand change. You may request and negotiate changes in behavior but do not demand them. Demanding changes constructive confrontation into forcing. Invite the other person to confront you about your behavior. Reciprocal confrontations can balance power in the situation and lead to higher quality conflict management efforts. Don't preach to or interpret for the other person. Share your interpretations while inviting a collaborative approach to improving the situation.

Confrontation Skills A confrontation about actions should be specific and timely. It should be conducted in a way that helps the other party examine the consequences of her/his behavior rather than causing her/him to defend her/his actions. Communicate:

Your observation of the other person's behavior (description). Your reaction to that behavior. Your interpretation of what that behavior means. Your desire to increase your understanding of the person's behavior. Your concerns about that behavior and its possible consequences.

More precisely, these steps involve using a number of "communication competence skills" (see the Communication Competence Skills materials on this web site for more information), particularly:

Personal statements or "I" messages. "I am concerned about", "I am confused by", "My worry is", "I am frustrated by" are all personal statements. Relationship statements. These are "I" messages about some aspect of the relationship. "I appreciate your consulting with me on . . ." is a relationship statement. Behavior descriptions. These are statements describing observed actions. Direct description of your feelings. Feelings descriptions are personal statements of feelings focused on yourself, rather than vague expressions of feeling. Understanding and interpreting. Use questions for clarifying and paraphrasing to check understanding before indicating how you are interpreting and reacting to the behavior. Perception checks. Communicate what you perceive the other person to be feeling or thinking. Provide and invite concrete feedback.

Dealing with confrontation

Dealing with anger, abuse, and confrontation poses a new challenge; for many an insuperable one. As with so much of this chapter, the starting point is the determination to understand first what lies behind the apparent anger, the hurtful comments. The aim is not just to hear, but to profoundly understand, to search for the precise meanings and, by focusing on this objective effort, to avoid the habitual resort to automatic kneejerk response and closedminded defensiveness. These usually only escalate the anger. Remember, we need to use all our senses: hearing, understanding, feeling, seeing and, in this instance, we need also to look at our own wants from the solution. This article owes a great deal to Rosenbergs book on "Non Violent Communication". Rosenberg sets out a framework for dealing with confrontation that can be summarized in four steps:

Step 1: Observation discerning what is seen, heard, felt, without judgment or evaluation; Step 2: Feeling discerning how we feel about the observation, discerning factually how we are reacting; Step 3: Needs defining our own needs within the context of the argument; Step 4: Request setting out a request for response or reaction from the other person.

Instead of the alltoocustomary descent into an increasingly frustrated shouting match, the process becomes a managed toandfro. "What is the first speaker saying?", "How do I feel about that?", "What I am requesting?", and so on. Not so simple in practice. The key is for each to express himself clearly, practically and honestly, and also to receive from the other person just as openly and clearly. Difficult, but far better than useless argument. In managing this type of situation, we call upon all the levels of listening already discussed. Avoid moralistic judgments: Look instead for what they need and are not getting, not at your own mindset. For example, a colleagues concern for details and minutiae should not be because "she is picky, compulsive, missing the bigger picture". If I am more interested in detail, he should not be "sloppy, disorganized". Is my priority really to sanction him or her? Should we not really be trying to understand each other, develop our relationship and build to a more robust conclusion? Avoid making comparisons: Comparing with others is not a useful way of establishing your own standards. Above all, avoid saying how much better you can do it. Take responsibility: Most important of all, avoid all coverup. "I was following orders". Never let your language cover up an opportunity to choose your words, to confront your needs and to explain your value. Rosenberg quotes the French moralist George Bernanos: "I have thought for a long time now that if, someday, the increasing efficiency of the technique of destruction finally causes our species to disappear from the earth, it will not be cruelty that will be responsible for our extinction and still less, of course, the indignation that

cruelty awakens and the reprisals and vengeance that it brings upon itself . But the docility, the lack of responsibility of the modern man, his base subservient acceptance of every common decree. The horrors which we have seen, the still greater horrors we shall presently see, are not signs that rebels, insubordinate, untameable men are increasing in number throughout the world, but rather that there is a constant increase in the number of obedient, docile men." ("Non Violent Communication" Marshall Rosen PhD: Puddle Dancer Press 2000) Non Violent Communication Faced by someone losing their temper in the office, the conversation can rapidly escalate to outright argument. "Youre always like this, you never listen, I might as well be talking to a brick wall." "Dont be so stupid, of course Im listening, youre just not making sense." "Well, how many more times do we have to" Instead: "Im not sure that you want to listen to me right now, I can see that you have an enormous workload to get through. However, I feel that the budget figures still greatly overstate our capacity. I need the opportunity to go through them with you carefully one more time and to explain what they will mean for my team. Can we set aside an hour to do this?" The more we can train ourselves to listen constructively, but with robust consideration and challenge, the more opportunity we will have to nip future chaotic thinking in the bud, and lead it empathetically into a more ordered and positive pathway. Use positives: "Youve got no sense of responsibility" is a sure start to "yes, I have look what I did last week" etc the bad argument is well under way. Avoid vague words: "Youve got no sense of responsibility." What does "responsibility" mean? Avoid demands: We are trying to create the world of adult debate, not one of ultimatums. Imply no threats use instead requests, invitations to listen and discern. Avoid blame and punishment: The objective of adult argument is surely to establish common understanding, shared goals and see ourselves both benefiting from the outcome. Domestic arguments often start, and eventually almost thrive, upon inaccurate and absolutist generalizations, rather than on specific and accurate observations: He: "Youre always on the phone to Anne, talking about nothing at all" She: "I hardly ever speak to her; Ive only rung Anne once today. Whatever is the matter with you?" is a sure start to a tense and unenjoyable evening. Most importantly, the absolutes and generalizations hide the real basis for his initial complaint (if there was one), and give her no chance to explain how important Anne is to her. We all need to look for specific and accurate meaning, and be prepared to challenge the mixedup thinking that distorts so much of debate and discussion. In particular:

Blaming Vague exhortation

Impressive waffle Opinions as fact Stoppers and limiters Unthinking absolutes Self-drivers Distortion Presumptive mindreading.

Lets now put all these points together and look at a live example. First, to summarise: Confrontation is a regular part of life. It can rapidly escalate into an emotionallycharged and negative sequence of angry charge and countercharge. Look for clarity, precision and positive language. Avoid negatives, blame and, above all, vagueness.