One car passes another, a hand gesture is made, shots are fired and someone ends up dead.
Well, I'm talking about the street.that, something that comes up so often that we have a name for it. But would you consider a street riot some kind of argument? After all, the parties involved may not exchange a word. And yet it is very much a kind of argument. In essence, a dispute is any situation where two parties disagree and both parties feel they are right and don't, can't, or won't think differently. Sometimes this can result in two people yelling at each other about who got to the supermarket checkout first. In other cases, it can tragically result in a senseless act of violence.
A violent outcome is not as likely in organizational settings, but it is not uncommon either, for example. B. cases of disgruntled employees who were "discouraged." (Another thing we sadly have a name for.) Our increasingly combative culture makes arguments not only inevitable, but all too common. At the same time, we as a society still have a lot of room for improvement when it comes to effectively addressing conflict. In extreme situations, where there is already intense conflict and stalemate, there are theoretically several different approaches, but only two are feasible, while the others are all impractical or simply unfeasible.
The Five Common Conflict Resolution Methods
To understand which approaches are potentially effective and which are not, let's look at each one first. In psychology, research on conflict analysis, one way or another, consistently yields five common methods of dispute resolution. The explanations can be quite academic, but there is a way to simplify them. Basically, whenever a dispute arises, both thesubstanceof the dispute (i.e., your point of view) and theRelationshipbetween the parties intervene, which opens the following options:
- collaborate: you defend or defend your point of view and also maintain the relationship by creating a win-win situation.
- compete: You prioritize fighting or defending your point of view to the point of damaging the relationship.
- Commitment: You fight or defend your point of view and maintain the relationship by letting both parties settle for a suboptimal outcome.
- accommodate: You focus on maintaining the relationship, but at the cost of sacrificing or betraying your point of view.
- Avoid: You don't fight or defend your point of view, but you don't sacrifice or betray it either. It's not that you don't stand by your point of view, but at the same time you're not willing to risk damaging the relationship or the fight just doesn't seem worth it.
What approaches are the best? Well, it depends on the situation. Remember, the initial premise of this post is that we are talking about conflict situations where there is intense deadlock or stubborn deadlock because both sides have strong and passionate stances on an issue or issue.
"Collaborate", in which you are trying to achieve a win-win result, will not work in this situation. If both are positive, your path is thisfairway, you will not find a win-win situation. For example, how could someone create a win-win situation where one side is pro-abortion and the other is decidedly pro-life, and they can only agree that there is no middle ground?
"Compromise" doesn't offer much hope either. Remember that this is a situation where the participants have diametrically opposed points of view that are deeply rooted in personal values. The example of abortion also applies here.
"Adjust?" I don't think so. This includes getting along to get along. Yes, you value the relationship, but pretending to agree with something you don't agree with is a bridge too far for many.
All that's left is "avoid" and "compete" and those are the two available options we have to wrestle with when it comes to one of the hottest topics of the day.
The avoidance approach makes a lot of sense in many situations, even if your point of view is very important to you. It may be that you don't care about the relationship and therefore don't care if the other person accepts your point of view or not. It's not worth the effort. Or it could be that you care about the relationship and want to keep it going, and winning the argument could hurt the relationship. At the same time, you also don't want to use the "commit" or "fit" approaches, as that would imply a compromise. "Avoid" can work in this exact situation because you don't give up. You can't admit it if you never argue.
However, on the other hand, there may be times when you feel that you cannot remain silent and feel compelled to fight or defend your point of view, even if it means jeopardizing a cherished relationship. In such a situation, he may want to take the "competitive" approach. However, discretion is key here. Being competitive doesn't necessarily mean you have to be overly aggressive or rude, just that you're willing to make your point harder and more persistent.
Regardless of whether you choose to "compete" or "avoid," a persuasive influencer should always try to apply the other principles we've covered in this post. In any dispute, you must 1) keep this in minda mantrasay or do what is effective, 2) try to use itMore persuasive argumentspeople, 3) be carefuldo different, and 4) try to cultivatethick skin and long wickThin skin and a short temper are a recipe for disaster, especially in an emotionally charged disagreement.
There is more than one way to win
Our culture is obsessed with "winning," but our notion of what "winning" really means is often very limited. When it comes to arguments, we sometimes think that "winning" requires being tough on the problem and the person. This is especially true in cases where each party perceives the other as inaccessible to facts and logic and fundamentally unrealistic, i. H. You cannot separate the person from the problem because on this particular issue the person (and how he thinks—or doesn't think) becomes part of the problem. Trust me, as a former attorney, I understand this dynamic. But if you want to improve your levelconvictionand influence, so you need to understand that victory takes different forms depending on the situation. Sometimes you can take a step back and realize that getting the person you're arguing with to see things your way isn't that important or even possible (see Rule #2 for Political Skills:Choose your battles wisely).
When you manage to preserve or strengthen an important relationship by wisely challenging a verbal battle on a specific issue, that's a victory to be celebrated. (My father used to humorously say that you should never miss an opportunity to shut up.) Plus, it can be a much more important victory than persevering and asserting yourself, but damaging a cherished relationship in the process. On the other hand, a discussion in a "competitive" situation can turn into a heated argument. However, it could be an occasion for you to finally talk to an unspoken elephant in the room who has strained the relationship or significantly influenced the way you interact with each other, so it could be a sure win as well, especially if you clarify which type Of relationship. you can have with this person in the future.
The point is that there is more than one way to "win" an argument, and there is more than one way to persuade. Being persuasive invariably includes the full range ofwhat, when, where, who,miAscalculations. You may win arguments in the short term, but if you damage relationships in the process, you riskspend your strengthOr as Dale Carnegie said, "You can't win an argument. If you lose, you lose: and if you win, you lose." What he really means by "lose" is that you may lose a relationship that you value.
You are now equipped with the ability to think methodically in a conflict situation in which you and the other party are very connected to your own points of view and in whichcooperation, compromise or customization is not possible or desirable and where the only real options are to compete or avoid. You also now know that there are many ways to "win" an argument, and that sometimes the best way to win is not to argue.
You just can't argue with that.
craig barkacs, business law professormoral principleI amMaster in Executive LeadershipmiMBA programNoThe Knauss School of Business at the University of San Diego.