Categories
Thriving Together Series

Thriving Together Series: 10 Well-Being Strategies to Navigate Conflict

Thriving Together Series well-being strategies to navigate conflict

 

By: Kimberly Jackson Davidson, University Ombudsperson, Office of the University Ombudsperson

“Between stimulus and response, there is space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.” – Victor Frankl

The differences and disagreements in our lives don’t have to affect us negatively. They can be opportunities to learn how to manage conflict well and experience positive change as a result. When we use well-being strategies to navigate through conflict, we can emerge from conflict with solutions to problems and stronger relationships with each other. Let’s explore how to reframe our approach to conflict and how we can use 10 well-being strategies to manage it well.

We live in a polarized society, where conflict seems to increase every day. The conflicts we experience can disrupt our equilibrium and trigger a spontaneous response in us – leading to undesired consequences. However, we can adjust our communication when we encounter minor to moderate differences during an ordinary day. We can regularly practice strategies that strengthen our capacity to address more significant conflicts and disputes with intention and self-control. By this, I do not mean without speaking truthfully, or by glossing over existing differences. Instead, this involves developing the capacity to reflect before responding to consider our purpose(s) for responding and when and how to do so in a way that supports those purpose(s).

A New Perspective on Conflict

In my roles as Mason’s University Ombudsperson and a CINERGYÔ Conflict Management Coaching practitioner, I often work to resolve conflict. Earlier in my life, I tried to avoid conflict because of the stress it causes. However, I learned to embrace conflict as an inevitable part of life. I saw how practicing communication strategies in everyday disagreements builds our capacity to tackle tougher conflicts with intention and self-control.

We can reframe our approach to conflict by:

  • Shifting perspective: Seeing conflict as differences in viewpoints, not battles to win.
  • Starting small: Applying communication tools in daily interactions to hone our skills.
  • Prioritizing needs: Focusing on what matters most, not just being “right.”
  • Actively listening: Understanding the other person’s perspective before reacting.
  • Reflecting before responding: Choosing our words and actions with purpose.

By making these small shifts, we can navigate everyday disagreements more effectively, laying the groundwork for tackling even the most challenging conflicts with greater skill and grace.

Well-Being Strategies to Navigate Conflict Well

When our interests (needs, value, or sense of identity) have been undermined, we sense a threat, and our responses are generally governed by the amygdala part of our brains, which prompts the fight, flight, or freeze mode of decision-making. However, these 10 actions can strengthen and maintain our ability to navigate conflict well.:

  1. Accept that conflicts (differences in perspective, values, and needs) are a given. Adopting this understanding of conflict may reduce our sense of threat in the face of differences and encourage more curiosity about the values, needs, or status concerns that may inform the conflict we perceive. This may help prevent the kinds of minor misunderstandings that unattended mushroom into high-stakes disputes.
  2. Focus on needs, values, and interests over positions. When we have substantial differences with others, we tend to defend our positions. The wrong we perceive/experience must be addressed in a particular way to have satisfaction or feel restored. For instance, we may want a genuine apology. However, genuine apologies cannot be compelled. People cannot regret what they do not understand as an offense. However, if we become aware of the needs, values, or status interests of the person(s) we disagree with, there is room to identify a meaningful mutual way forward. The difference may not disappear, but it might cease to be a source of dispute. The next time we want an apology, we can dig a little deeper to understand what need or value has been undermined. We can let the other person know respectfully that when they neglected to say good morning, we felt invisible, and then ask if they can try to say good morning when they see us the first time each day. If they offer a reason that might be difficult, we can try to keep the conversation going to see we can understand one another well enough to find a mutually agreeable way to address what matters most – one person being seen by another.
  3. We may become aware of conflict at different times. According to Cinnie Nobles, developer of CINERGY Conflict Management Coaching, conflict is an internal phenomenon, and a dispute occurs when someone intentionally or unintentionally alerts another person, group, or organization that things are not okay in the relationship or interaction. We can tolerate unwelcome communication or actions without expressing frustration. The silence may lead to a sudden expression of deep anger that blindsides the other party, who may interpret the response as an overreaction. Many disputes (externalized conflicts) arise because parties have become aware of a point of difference between them at distinctly different times. Awareness of this possibility helps support curiosity and empathy when choosing to speak with another party about a dispute.
  4. Keep in mind that our reactions to triggering stimuli are instantaneous. If another person’s actions, inactions, words, or silence trigger strong negative feelings, the process of being triggered is neither linear nor slow. It’s more like the protons and electrons interacting in an atom and generating abundant energy simultaneously. Our significant needs, values, and sense of self are being undermined in a manner that is out of personal control. That sense of vulnerability leads to emotions, physical responses, and an urge to protect ourselves from the perceived threat that may catapult us into fight, flight, or freeze reactions. How our bodies register that we are being triggered can prompt us to ask simple questions that will help us shift away from the protective amygdala toward the pre-frontal cortex, where executive function and logic are governed.
  5. Choose empathy over blame. We can choose self-empathy first by considering our own needs in the situation. Then we can empathize with others by considering what the other person needs or values in the situation. Often, we try to understand another person’s motives for actions, and we tell ourselves negative stories about ourselves or them to help us make sense of their words, actions, or failure to act or respond. It’s hard to imagine a good reason for the other person’s decision(s) when our feelings (emotions and physiological responses) are activated. It is helpful when we feel our heart rate begin to increase or our stomach begins to contract to check in with ourselves to get a sense of what we need, what values, or what aspect of our status or identity seems challenged by what we see or hear and imagine what might address those concerns. After doing this, we might be able to imagine what needs, values, or status concerns may be challenged by the other person by what we have said, done, or omitted. Others around us may hear our story and ask us to consider the other person first. The invitation to empathize with the person whose actions animated such strong emotions may cause us to become defensive and get lost in deflecting the blame we feel toward the other person. The value of self-empathy first is that we will be more able to consider and care about what might have prompted their disruptive actions, communication, and lack of responsiveness. We can focus on the needs, values, and interests over positions. This starting point for a discussion may open better pathways than blaming ourselves or others. A discussion that might fuel mutual responsibility.
  6. STOP and think about what really matters: Stop – Think – Observe – Proceed. Our ability to think logically is compromised when our feelings are activated. Suppose we recognize the physiological shifts that accompany our being triggered. In that case, we can buy ourselves some response time by choosing to breathe deeply, get up and get a cup of water, or go outside for fresh air. We can check in about why we feel the way we do (“Is my head hurting because I need food?”, “Am I blushing because your statement draws unwelcome public attention to me?”, “What would help me most right now?”) When answering these questions, we can aim to hold our answers to what can be observed (see, hear, touch, smell, and taste) and avoid assigning value or meaning to what is observed. Based on these observations, we can imagine one positive reason the other person may have communicated or acted the way they did. This pause provides space to reflect and move forward more responsively than reactively.
  7. Own my impact; own my intent. This a golden nugget from the anthology, The Art of Effective Facilitation: Reflections from Social Justice Educators. Too often, ground rules or agreements for dialogues contain statements like “assume the best,” or people will preface or follow potentially hurtful statements with disclaimers such as “I don’t mean any harm, but…”. The statement “Own my impact; own my intent” calls all parties to account. Suppose each individual enters a conversation or dialogue with a commitment to recognize that regardless of what we intend, others can be negatively impacted by our words, facial expressions, gestures, tones, attitudes, etc. Similarly, when we want to express judgment or harm with our words, silence, action, or inaction, we can show respect by acknowledging it to ourselves and the other party.
  8. Choose to listen with a posture of resilience and understanding over defense and persuasion. Be willing to learn, flex, and adapt. This is one of my favorite contributions from a facilitated dialogue participant. Frequently, in meetings, family mealtime discussions, and even casual conversations with friends or acquaintances, we hear some things we disagree with expressed, and we begin to argue our case to change their minds or to defend our perspective. We do it even though we hate it when others engage us in this manner. The call to listen with resilience is not to stuff feelings, silence ourselves, or become a doormat. It is a call to listen first to things we may dislike, disagree with, or be uncomfortable with, and a willingness to learn more about what motivated the other person’s thinking and statements. It also implies a willingness to consider whether hearing more might change our thinking on the topic and change our future decisions or actions.
  9. Ask clarifying questions rather than making assumptions. When unresolved conflict (internal) or dispute (external) is present, generally, all parties are missing information that might inform the range of possible responses. When we feel in danger of harm or losing something important, we will draw on the available data to quickly determine the best immediate action to avoid or defend against the threat. When there is no risk to life, it is usually safe to take some time (even 30 seconds to slow down to gather information from ourselves regarding internalized conflict and from others where there is an acknowledged dispute.)
  10. When speaking with others briefly about topics of controversy, keep in mind the following tips adapted from Essential Partners (EP) 2017 Guide for Conversations Across the Red-Blue Divide:
DO DON’T
ask, “What [leads you] to that belief?” tell them they are wrong.
ask, “When [did you begin] to believe that?” ask, “How could you ever believe that?”
pause before speaking to make sure the other person has finished. interrupt them.
say, “Hmm, [I had not considered that. Are you willing] to tell me more? ask, “What about…?”
ask, about the person’s goals, hopes, and intentions. assume their motives.
share your frustration or disagreement and take responsibility for it. (In other words, speak for yourself and not a group or other individuals.) blame the other person for your anger and frustration.

There are situations where it would be unwise to choose some of these suggestions. For instance, it would be reasonable to believe that a person poses a threat who expresses that they have harmful intentions. These are not formulas or recipes for avoiding or resolving every conflict or dispute.

However, based on our situations, we may find value in one or more of these strategies when faced with a low- to moderate-stakes disagreement. Practicing these strategies can strengthen our well-being and our ability to manage conflict well.

Additional Resources

Write one of these Thriving Together Series features! We’re looking for contributions on all topics related to well-being. Read other Thriving Together Series articles here and contact us at cwb@gmu.edu for guidelines. Thank you for helping our Mason community thrive together online!