Do you want to resolve your conflict? Let go of your perspective.

Photo by Tasha M. Troy

Last week a friend posted a cartoon on Facebook that purported to explain “white privilege.”  This stirred up all kinds of controversy in the comments, including a link to a counter cartoon.

The trouble is I could see elements of truth in both cartoons.

It has been my observation that many, if not most (or more!), conflicts arise over a refusal to consider the other person’s perspective.  Perhaps refusal is too strong, but at the very least an inability and at worst a refusal to walk in someone else’s shoes is an element of almost any conflict.

Looking from Other Perspectives:

If you want to resolve a conflict, you must begin by seeing the situation from the other person’s perspective.  This concept is echoed by many experts:

Roger Fisher, William Ury, Bruce Patton:

Whether you are making a deal or settling a dispute, differences are defined by the difference between your thinking and theirs.  (Getting to Yes, loc. 685)

Mark Goulston, John Ullmen:

To practice connected influence, you need to break down the barriers that keep you from knowing what other people think, want, and need.   (Real Influence, p. 81)

John Maxwell:

If you want to connect with others, you have to get over yourself.  You have to change the focus from inward to outward, off of yourself and onto others.  (Everyone Communicates Few Connect p. 29)

Stuart Diamond:

People like to give things to others who listen to them, who value them, who consult with them.  (p. 32)

Stephen R. Covey:

If I were to summarize in one sentence the single most important principle I have learned in the field of interpersonal relations, it would be this: Seek first to understand, then to be understood.  This principle is the key to effective interpersonal communication.  (The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, p. 237)

Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, Al Switzler:

People who are skilled at dialogue do their best to make it safe for everyone to add their meaning to the shared pool [of meaning] – even ideas that at first glance appear controversial, wrong, or at odds with their own beliefs.  (Crucial Conversations, p. 24)

There is no way to resolve a conflict until you are able to hear and understand all parties involved.

The Struggle is Real:

While it is a natural human condition to be concerned primarily for oneself, it is not conducive to living peacefully with others.  Everyone has challenges.  Some are monumental challenges – a family member struggling with cancer, the loss of a job and financial struggles.  Others are less so – an extended bout of bronchitis, an unexpected expensive car repair.  However, the size of the struggle is in the eye of the experiencer.

Photo by Tasha M. Troy

This became abundantly clear to my family about 7 years ago.  My niece was born a micro premie, with a birth weight under 2 pounds.  As you can imagine, this instigated a season of intense struggle and incredible challenges.

I am very proud of my sister and her family for how they came through the first year or so, and today they are all doing very well.  However, in those early days she received very little support from her church and other friends, to my mind shockingly little.  The simple reason was that the people around her had their own struggles to deal with and were unable to see my sister through her struggle.

My sister had the opportunity to become very bitter and resentful, but she didn’t.  Instead she taught me the truth I am sharing with you – that everyone sees the world through their own lens, and you can’t blame them for that.

The ability to step back and view the world from someone else’s perspective requires a level of maturity not required under normal circumstances.  Many people don’t recognize the need for it until they are in the moment and find themselves lacking.

A New Approach:

In the commentary under my friend’s post, most comments were between a very angry woman and a very exasperated man.  In both of their comments I could hear their pain; it was clear both had had very hurtful experiences, but I don’t think they could detect it in each other.  Instead, they just kept jabbing at each other, increasing the anger and resentment they already felt.

What if … just imagine, if instead of reacting out of our own hurt, maybe, just maybe, we were able to ask instead, “tell me what happened to cause you to react this way?”  How could things be different if we only listened, really listened and tried to understand each other’s stories?

 

Resources:

Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes are High.  Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, Al Switzler

Everyone Communicates Few Connect: What the Most Effect People Do Differently.  John C. Maxwell.

Getting More: How You Can Negotiate to Succeed in Work and Life.  Stuart Diamond.

Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In.  Roger Fisher, William Ury, Bruce Patton.

Real Influence: Persuade without Pushing, Gain without Giving In.  Mark Goulston, John Ullmen.

The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change.  Stephen R. Covey.

Read more about my sister’s story here:  Born at 26 Weeks Weighing Under 2 Pounds, This Happy Girl Shows Why We Stand for Life

 

Open Dialogue: A First Step

Communication is one of the distinguishing characteristics of human society.  With the advent of digital communications, we find ourselves in constant communication with those in our personal network – family and friends, colleagues, and interest groups.  With all this experience in communication, it would seem that we might be expert communicators, but often people communicate in ways that don’t accomplish their intention.  From living rooms to board rooms to the halls of congress, I have observed that effective communication that is aimed at the resolution of issues is rare.  Most of the voices I hear are more interested in expounding upon their own position with little or no interest expressed in the views of others.  While this tendency may be as old as the human race itself, I find this polarizing effect to be highly counterproductive.  If we here in the US hope to successfully live in our pluralistic society, we need to start spending more time listening and less time expostulating.

at George Washington’s Mount Vernon

So let me ask you this: When was the last time you sat down with someone and talked about things you don’t agree on with the intention of understanding the other person’s perspective?

The Bible has a lot to say about how we communicate, especially in the book of Proverbs but also throughout the New Testament.  It follows a theme that the business world understands well: if you want to have influence, you have to communicate in a way that the other side can hear and receive.  This is a lesson that I believe has been lost in everyday communication in general and in online and digital communications in particular.

In the well-known negotiation book Getting to Yes, the authors Roger Fisher, William L. Ury, and Bruce Patton talk about the difference between positions and interests.  Your position is what you state you want, for example universal health care.  Your interests are your underlying motivations, which for our example could be a concern for the health of the underprivileged.  When we begin to discuss our interests rather than our positions, real progress becomes possible.  You may find that both sides have similar interests and simply disagree on the method of satisfying those interests.  This is when it gets exciting, because at this point creative problem solving can kick in and “out of the box” solutions can be discussed.

Elizabeth Lesser is, in her own words, both a mystic and a warrior, one who has spent her life fighting for causes from women’s issues to the environment.  In her TED Talk “Take ‘the Other’ to Lunch,” she brings up some very relevant points.  First, she accepts that she doesn’t know everything, and she implies that dialogue between two sides becomes possible when both take that position.  Second, she observes that both ends of the political spectrum engage in demonizing the “other,” or those who disagree with them, which she indicates is the first step towards violent conflict and even genocide.  Third, she recommends that, in order to avoid such demonizing, people from opposite sides of an issue should sit down together for lunch in order to try to understand each other better.  Moreover, she has walked this out in her own life, and she tells about the experience in her TED talk.

In order to make such a meeting productive rather than destructive, she gives the ground rules she used at her lunch.

1. Don’t persuade, defend, or interrupt
2. Be curious, conversational, and real.
3. Listen.

She also shares the conversation starting questions used:

1. Share some of your life experiences.
2. What issues deeply concern you?
3. What have you always wanted to ask someone from the “other side”?

While a conversation over lunch will not bring two people of opposing views into agreement, it can help prevent the damaging tendency to paint those who disagree with you in a negative light, making further dialogue possible.  It can open the door to talking about interests rather than positions.  It can start a conversation that could lead to creative solutions.  My vision for this blog is to create a community that is interested in engaging in conversations of this sort.  As the Chinese proverb says, the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step – let this be our first step.