I’m Right, You’re Wrong
Last January, three school board members resigned when they learned the board chair withheld information; facts and suspicions that impacted them as parents and exposed them to potential legal action. A fragile trust snapped. Board members were sure they were right, and the board chair was wrong.
When we frame conflict in terms of right and wrong, we become a magnet for all the reasons our opponents are wrong. We start to attribute emotions to that confirm our certainty. Our complaints are directed at our opposition’s competence: “They don’t know what they are doing” or “They aren’t very smart”. We lean into stories about how they feel about us, “They don’t have our back”; “They are envious”; or “They act entitled.” And according to recent research from the University of North Carolina, we overestimate our opponent’s antipathy, making it possible to dig our righteous heels in even deeper. We do this in our personal, professional, and political lives.
If we imagine we are pitted against one another there are only a few avenues for resolution. First, we may choose to avoid the concern entirely, offering justifications: “He will never change” or “It won’t make a difference.” And there are indeed times when the risk of conflict is not worth the reward associated with approaching the conflict.
Avoidance can be a comfortable response for many, especially people who have the power to get the result they are seeking without engaging others. Being “conflict averse” may be a natural default for people willing to live with negative outcomes rather than confront conflict. Unfortunately, conflict has a way of insisting it is delt with, and when direct conversations are avoided, conflict can linger longer in the form of back-biting, exclusion, passive aggression, and direct penalties.
“Avoidance can be a comfortable response for many, especially people who have the power to get the result they are seeking without engaging others.”
When we approach conflict from the dichotomy of “I am right, you are wrong”, it is possible we are placing a high value on our own goal or issue and a low value on the relationship. I win, you lose, is the likely outcome in this scenario.
Researchers at The University of Texas compare this aggressive, autocratic style of decision making to an accommodating style. Accommodating approaches to conflict are typified by a willingness to lose in order to maintain relationships. It is likely this is coupled with a low value of your own issue or goal. You may even be willing to seek compromise, a seemingly middle road solution where both parties lose something.
A much more sustaining and satisfying approach to conflict is a collaborative approach that puts relationships and deep understanding of one another’s positions at the center. In this collaborative approach, conflict can transform relationships and institutions. Collaborative approaches are achieved by tending to relationships in times of ease so that there is relational credit, trust, in the bank during times of conflict. Collaborative approaches also acknowledge the emotions accompanying conflict and validate individual concerns. The types of questions tend to be open-ended geared to unearthing needs rather than rushing to an array of potential solutions. This approach to conflict is both a byproduct and a catalyst for groups that operate with high levels of trust, job satisfaction and positive relationships; the types of environments that are poised for productivity and transformational endeavors.
