In Part One of this series on conflict, we looked at what we do that turns a difference of opinion into the sort of toxic confrontations we all dread, the ones that get us nowhere, and leave us stressed out and depleted in the process.

The “what” is our tendency toward destructive responses like sarcasm, defensiveness, or gossip.

In Part Two, we examined why we so often do this. Our destructive responses arise from automatic (and inaccurate) thoughts.

Because conflict can feel threatening, the fast-acting parts of our brain that evolved to save us from predators kick in, usually assuming the worst, and rarely offering anything resembling calm, wise, or productive.

Getting Better

Our first priority, then, is to notice the automatic thought and resist reacting to it long enough to come up with something better.

Easier said than done, of course, but it IS possible, and understanding ourselves through tools like DiSC® or the EQ-i 2.0® can help.

None of this matters, however, if we cannot answer the last question: How can we respond more effectively?

That is the topic of this week’s final installment on conflict.

Finding the Gap

We have identified a three part cycle that perpetuates destructive conflict:

1. A conflict situation occurs.
2. Through practice and self-awareness, we notice our automatic thoughts.
3. Previously, we would have reacted with a destructive response.

But our efforts have paid off, and we have managed to wedge open a gap between that thought and our response.

What can we insert into that gap?

Step Back and Reframe

The way to achieve a more effective response in conflict is to use that gap to step back and reframe.

Stepping back means gaining some distance to the strong negative emotions we feel in conflict. We cannot suppress or ignore them. Rather, it is essential that we observe and allow them to happen.

When we can do this, we find that the emotions around conflict fall into two broad categories: anger and anxiety. Most often we are either mad or afraid. Thus the hasty threat response. It’s fight or flight.

Anger

We get angry when we feel our rights have been violated (or that they are about to be). In conflict, anger can manifest as outrage, frustration, resentment, or aggression.

For my Conscientious C style, anger often involves rehearsing a Supreme-Court-case-worthy argument “proving” how I am right and the other is wrong. Like really, egregiously, inexcusably, despicably wrong.

Stepping back from that can mean noticing that feeling and admitting that I kinda like it.

Although it’s a negative emotion, it feels powerful (even though it’s not). Stepping back means letting that go.

Anxiety

Anxiety can be just that, a fear that we will not be able to handle future events, or it can be confusing, panic, “deer in the headlights” freezing, or outright fear.

For Martha’s blended Si style of Steadiness and Influence, anxiety might mean catastrophizing about damage to relationships or being misunderstood or rejected.

Stepping back could involve acknowledging that real relationships are resilient, all of them have ups and downs, and the situation is almost certainly not as bad as it feels.

Stepping back looks a little different for every style and every individual, but if you pay attention, you will likely notice a few patterns repeated over and over. 

Stepping back doesn’t mean invalidating those emotions. Doing that makes it worse. Instead, just back up and watch them.

Reframe

Think of reframing literally. You’re not changing the picture. You’re just presenting it in a different frame.

It’s the same with conflict. We are not changing the situation. We are just presenting it (to ourselves) differently.

Our automatic thoughts are the default frame through which we are seeing the situation, but if we’re honest, they are cheap and poorly constructed.

Three Questions

We can swap that frame out for a new and more attractive one by asking three simple questions:

1. Is it true?
2. Am I exaggerating or overreacting?
3. Is there another reasonable interpretation?

I will stick with myself as an example, since I am most familiar with my own particular brand of conflict dysfunction.

Question 1: Is It True?

For me, and I presume many other C styles, a very common automatic thought is “I am being blamed (unjustly)?”

That idea often dissolves rapidly upon exposure to Question 1. Am I really being blamed? Uh… okay. Probably not.

Question 2: Am I Exaggerating

As for Question 2, if the conflict in question involves some sort of error or a potential mistake, I must confess, I will almost always overreact or exaggerate the impact.

I HATE making mistakes. It feels horrible. It can be challenging for me to step back and acknowledge that it’s not really that big a deal.

It is important to note that the feeling is real. I really do feel awful when I make a mistake. That’s part of what drives C styles to be so conscientious. It’s not that the emotion isn’t real, just that it isn’t always justified.

Question 3: Is There Another Reasonable Interpretation?

Question 3 is a challenge we pose to our clients regularly.

They have their story as to why their coworker said or did that awful, offensive thing. We ask them to make up three different, non-awful explanations for that same behavior. When they take the time to do so, they find many other reasonable, and better, interpretations of their challenging situation.

Am I really being blamed? Or is the other person just asking a question and trying to understand what happened? Are they really mad at me? Or is the situation just generally frustrating?

When it comes to seeking other reasonable interpretations, we suggest three rules to live by:

1. People aren’t thinking about you nearly as much as you think they are. (They are thinking about themselves.)
2. Always assume positive intent, and you’ll be right most of the time.
3. Hanlon’s Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity (or innocent ignorance).

How to Respond to Conflict Productively

That’s it. Responding productively in conflict instead of destructively is just a matter of stepping back to gain some emotional distance, and reframing the situation to understand it not as a threat, but just as a problem to be solved.

If you can do that, you will undoubtedly come up with better responses, the kind that allow conflict to produce a better outcome for everyone.

Although it is simple in theory, we will be the first to acknowledge that it is difficult in practice, and practice is exactly what is required to master it.

Tools like the Everything DiSC® Productive Conflict Profile can help, and much of our executive coaching work involves helping people step back and reframe the challenges we all encounter at work and at home, every day.

We look forward to supporting you on the journey.

Until next time,

Greg