CONFLICT RESOLUTION & RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT...

… Appropriate Resolutions™ for home, work, community, and everywhere in between.

© 1998-2008 Joseph Ravick  and Appropriate Resolutions™

           "All human beings - not only professional practitioners -  need to become competent in taking action and simultaneously reflecting on this action to learn from it." Chris Argyris and Donald Schön

     Although Chris Argyris and Donald Schön wrote the book Theory in Practice for professional conflict Resolvers, competency can only be achieved through reflection. And this principle to anybody and everybody. People negotiate everyday regardless of whether they do it professionally or simply as part of getting what they want. So if you care about your relationships, about outcomes to which you've contributed, and those outcomes are not your preferred consequences, its time to reflect, learn, and to negotiate differently. As a human, a fundamental factor for success in negotiations, as in anything, is to know yourself.

 

     First and foremost on this reflective road you'll honestly self-analyze about your traditional and dominant style of resolving differences. In effect, how you normally negotiate when the outcomes are important to you. Knowing yourself accurately will help you deal with those triggering moments when you might do or say something you will later regret. After all, as anger increases cognitive ability generally decreases. I'm talking about the power to be rational with your eyes on the prize. If you know yourself, you will more successfully manage your emotions and strategically react and respond as you try to resolve. And you might not have to worry about an attack of the APES^© (Assumptions, Perceptions, Expectations, Solutions).

      It was always a learning experience when I observed how students in Conflict Management had perceived themselves before assessing their dominant negotiating style. With the help of exercises such as The Thomas and Killman Model, they reflected about themselves and came up with one (or more) of five means, or styles, which most closely matched their own traditional styles of dealing with conflict. Their choices were avoiding, compromising, accommodating, competing, and collaborating, and shades thereof.                    

     Let me add that this was in no way an empirical research study. It was what I observed and registered during my many years working with people challenged by disputes or wanting to learn how to better manage their conflicts and relationships. 20 years ago, with the help of a dear friend and colleague, I was one of those who had to be shaken and stirred to realize that same truth. At 30 something I discovered that I had been deluding myself about being mostly collaborative. From that moment of discovery, I began to learn how to choose how I managed relationships, and in the process, conflicts.

 

     The bottom line is that if a person is surprised by an outcome after a conversation, if conflict, dispute, anger, or frustration comes at them seemingly out of nowhere, he or she might do well to reflect on the WHYs, rather than the WHO. As I repeat probably too often, in negotiations as in most of what we do, the reality is the bottom line. Knowing oneself is key to being mindful about how we do everything we do. Or we can struggle along and hope for the best. In my case, I did enjoy my fantasy; but the reality is much more satisfying. So if you don't know yourself, at least enjoy your fantasy.

     What was also surprising for me was how often, before the exercise, learners perceived their dominant negotiating style to be either accommodating or collaborating. Only a few acknowledged the other options. And yet, when these same negotiators were challenged during role-plays, many had an epiphany as they became angry or frustrated. Suddenly, seeing themselves as attackers often became a defining moment for them.                      Soon...Some exercises … if you dare!