“The successful person has unusual skill at dealing with conflict and ensuring the best outcome for all.” — Sun Tzu

Conflict management gets a whole lot easier when you know what you’re dealing with.  The problem is, if you don’t have a simple mental model for conflict, things can get complicated fast.

While reading Positive Intelligence, by Shirzad Chamine, I came across an amazingly simple model for conflict management:  The Iceberg of Conflict.  I’ve seen variations of the Iceberg of Conflict before, but I find this version easy to follow, and easy to use.

The Iceberg of Conflict

According to Chamine, the Iceberg of Conflict has three layers:  Positions, Assumptions, and Aspirations.  You can visualize it like so:

The iceberg metaphor is helpful because it’s often easy to see the position that somebody takes, but not necessarily see the underlying assumptions or aspirations.

Positions

For every position there is an opposition.  This is the place where conflict lives.  Chamine writes:

“The problem with positions is that they almost always create automatic opposition; for every position there is an opposite one.  Conflict lives at the position level and is rarely resolved there.  At this level, one part or the other needs to give up its own position entirely, or the two need to meet somewhere in between, which would result in each feeling they had compromised.”

Assumptions

Check your assumptions.   If you start checking your assumptions, you might find you had it all wrong, or that you misread the intentions.  Misreading intentions is a common source of conflict.   Chamine writes:

”People’s positions are often fed by underlying assumptions.  These often include many assumption’s about the other party’s intentions.  Even as an expert in the field, I have been humbled by how difficult it is to correctly guess another person’s needs and intentions.  I have learned that it is critical to check with them, rather than assume.”

Aspirations

Find the common ground at the aspiration level.  Chamine writes:

”The underlying aspirations that feed our positions hold the key to harvesting the gift of conflict.  While it is an automatic human response to opposite another’s rigid position, we react quite differently to aspirations, which are very difficult to argue with.  Each of us is wired to champion other’s deeply felt aspirations.  Consider, for example, how frequently you have automatically rooted for total strangers you’ve read about or watched in a movie who are passionately pursuing an aspiration.  There is a whole lot of common ground between human beings at the aspiration level.”

The next time you find yourself in a conflict, check your assumptions and connect at the aspirations.

My Related Posts

• 5 Conflict Management Styles at a Glance
• Shift Tense to Resolve Conflict
• Agree, Build, and Compare (ABC)

Editor’s note: This is a guest post from Eric Brun on lessons learned from the book, Crucial Conversations. Eric is a colleague at Microsoft, and he leads a development team.  As you can imagine, there are a lot of high intensity scenarios, with tough deadlines, conflicting opinions, and different communication styles.  I asked Eric to share his insights and actions he learned from applying the Crucial Conversations model to work and life.

It is a few years ago, as I was working on communication and influence that I met J.D. I got to tell you, it was one the most intense and exciting conversations in my life. As I was telling him I was looking for a way to deal with conflict, sometimes finding myself in situations where my emotions were limiting my effectiveness. He mentioned “Crucial Conversations” as a very good reading.

Our Reptile Brain Doesn’t Always Help

One of the ideas that had a lasting impact on me, is that we have two brains: our Sapiens brain and our reptilian brain.   While thinking about it back home, I realized that was the heart of the issue.  The reptilian brain helped us to survive by short-circuiting the low-speed complex Sapiens brain.  It did this by putting us in a “fight-or-flight mode.” This was useful to escape a saber tooth tiger, but in a civilized setting, such as a business meeting or a family dinner, it doesn’t serve us very well.

I could recognize situations where I was not very proud of my achievements. For example, these were some situations where I was entrapped in silence, and could not find my words.   On the other end of the spectrum, I would feel mad and have angry arguments.

Stakes are High, Opinions Vary, and Emotions Run Strong

When I reviewed he situations, they had three things in common:

1. The subject was important to me.
2. I was feeling strong emotions.
3. The heat was intense

In the book Crucial Conversation, the authors define a crucial conversation as a discussion between two or more people where stakes are high, opinions vary, and emotions run strong.

Crucial conversations generally precede “crucial confrontations.”  With a  crucial conversation, the goal is to discover the problem, work through the problem during the conversation, and get to an agreement.  With crucial confrontations, you are dealing with broken promises, such as when the agreement is not honored.

While the scenarios and intensity may vary, both crucial conversations and crucial confrontations are based on the same principles and work in a similar way.

Recognize the Signs

First, you need to recognize the signs. What happens when the reptilian brain takes control? …

In fight mode, you feel heat, and you raise your voice.

In flight mode, you might feel anxious, and retreat in silence.

Even if you try to control or negate your feelings, they are most likely going to act up and probably not at the best moment.

Get Prepared

To get prepared, you need to do your homework.  This includes collecting the facts, defining what you really want, and mastering your stories. Stories are those intentions that we think people have and which alter our perception.

The authors propose a powerful yet simple mental exercise to master your stories.   They suggest, ask yourself why a decent, respectful person would think or do that?  I would add: “question one’s own virtue” as proposed in the excellent Leadership and self-deception.

I have found for myself that these thoughts have a profound impact.   They bring a calm and open mind.

Establish Safety and Create a Shared Pool of Meaning

There are two very important concepts:

1. Establish Safety — Establish safety by seeking mutual purpose and showing respect. The more respect you can actually, genuinely feel, the easier the conversation. Mutual purpose comes from looking at what is really important (do you care more about “wining the argument” or creating a “win-win” outcome?) and genuine respect makes you really persuasive as well as more resistant to cutting remarks that can burst out – especially before your interlocutor is convinced of your intentions.
2. Create a “shared pool” of meaning.  The “shared pool” of meaning is the ideas and understandings. This is the material from which solutions will emerge.

Who Does What, and By When

When the crucial conversation comes to an end, it’s important to get to an action-oriented conclusion. This means defining with clarity, “who” does “what” and “by when”. It’s really important to have the discipline to define all three.  Defining all three helps avoid ambiguity and future frustration.

Command, Consult, Vote, or Consensus

The authors identify four ways that require increasing efforts and time:

1. Command
2. Consult
3. Vote
4. Establish consensus.

Personally, I was almost always seeking consensus, until I understood it was probably more costly and less efficient. Then I started exploring and using vote, consult, and command. These additional options  really made a big difference, both at work and at home.  For example, in some scenarios, I now appreciate the fast decisions and clear instructions as part of a command style.  And I’m often surprised that it makes the situation easier for others, especially when they are looking for direction.

Honesty, Respect, and Courage

What I like in the Crucial Conversations model is that it is based on honesty, respect, and courage (Yes, getting into a Crucial Conversation in a calm and willful way requires courage). In addition, the model is simple, applicable, and highly effective.

I first applied the Crucial Conversations model at home, telling myself I should practice a bit before trying it out at work. That was probably one of the best decisions I’ve ever made.  I learned that being able to have crucial conversations at home is just as important, if not more important, than on the job.

Editor’s note: Meet Jim Camp.  This is a guest post by Jim on how to use the power of “No”, to negotiate more effectively.

Jim is a best-selling author of, Start with No, and NO: The Only System of Negotiation You need for Work or Home.  He has trained and coached more than 100,000 people in the art and science of negotiation over the last 25 years.  Jim’s approach has been featured on CNN, CNBC, Fast Company, Fortune, Harvard Business Review, and The Wall Street Journal.  The FBI and many Fortune 500 companies rely on Jim’s approach to negotiate with skill.

What I like about Jim’s approach is, it’s different.  It’s refreshing.  Jim’s approach gives you permission to say “No.”  And rather than see “No” as the end of a negotiation, you can see it as the beginning.  The best part is, it’s about taking the pressure off the other person, as well as yourself, and getting down to real, authentic communication.

I also like the fact that rather than coerce somebody to a “Yes,” it’s about getting the concerns on the table.  When somebody is pressured into a “Yes,” it’s not real buy-in, and it can often lead to a “Say yes, do no” pattern.  If it’s OK to say, “No,” then people can really open up.

I’ve asked Jim to share his best insights and actions on how readers of Sources of Insight could add the power of “No” to their negotiation skills.  Here is what Jim has to say …

The best word to hear, invite, or say in any type of negotiation is “no.”

When negotiating, “yes” is the worst word to say or to hear at the outset.

But if you are like most businesspeople, you were taught negotiating strategies that were designed to get the client to say “yes.” You learned to impress with your speech and your dress. You learned how to sway people’s decisions with dramatic presentations. You learned how to use charts and graphs to back up your claims. You learned how to persuade, cajole, and manipulate. And you learned how to spot the right moment to close the deal.

“No” Will Liberate and Protect You

“Yes” was the word you associated with winning.

But there’s a problem with “yes.” A quick “yes” is generated by out-of-control emotions. “Yes” just betrays a fear of failure, a fear of losing this deal, and primes you to please the other side, to rush ahead, to compromise early and often, and to come to a deal—any deal.

There’s a better way. Learn to harness the power of “no.” “No” will liberate and protect you.

Forget what you’ve learned about win-win solutions, the art of compromising, and getting to “yes.” A negotiation is defined as the effort to bring about an agreement between two or more parties, with all parties having the right to veto, or say “no.”

In other words, if you don’t like what’s happening in the negotiation, say “no” and we’ll go from there. Conversely, if I don’t like what’s happening, I’ll say “no” and we’ll go from there.

If you’re a parent, you know that every child hears “no” as the start of the negotiation, not the end of it. As adults, however, we’ve been conditioned and trained to fear the word.

“No” is Simply a Decision

Politely saying “no” to your respected opponent, calmly hearing “no,” and just letting the other side know that they are welcome to say “no” has a positive impact on any negotiation. In fact, your invitation for the other side to say “no” has an amazing power to bring down barriers and allow for solid beneficial communication.

Let’s take a look at the word “no,” and the power of “no.” Where does all that come from? What is “no,” really? To the professional negotiator, it’s simply a decision, and it’s a decision to be changed.

But do you know what the really great pros know? And what I teach and coach? They know that “no” maintains a status quo. It’s the safest decision our adversaries can make. Change is scary. People gain comfort when they say “no” because it keep things the way they are. The word “yes,” on the other hand, brings change—and that’s scary.

“No” is When the Negotiation Begins

There’s something else that’s very interesting about the word “no.” When you give someone permission to say “no” to your ideas, the emotions go down, the effectiveness of the decisions go up, and they’re allowed to really look at what you’re proposing. They’re allowed to hold it in their hands, to see it in their mind’s eye, to turn it around. To try to envision all the different complexities that might come with that thought, that idea. Great negotiators seek the “no” because they know that’s when a negotiation begins.

Invite your adversary to say “no.” Here’s how to do it. “Well, Ms. Smith, I have no idea whether what we do has any relevance for your business. I just don’t know. Maybe it doesn’t. If not, just tell me and I’ll get off the phone. Is that fair? Ms. Smith, who handles your accounting services? I’m with Acme Financial Services, and I’d like the opportunity to sit down with you and allow you to discover the opportunities.”

“No” Releases Emotional Pressure

By inviting her to say “no” from the get-go, you put the other party at ease and allow them to feel in control.

Seeking “no” may seem counterintuitive to those who follow the “win-win” philosophy that drives compromise and assumption in today’s politically correct world, but in fact, allowing the other side to say “no” releases emotional pressure in a negotiation, encouraging a real exchange of information.

Think about the negative reaction you’ve experienced at one time or another when dealing with a hard-closing salesperson. That negative feeling is your reaction to their effort to take away your right to say “no.” Instead of folding under this pressure, most of us run as fast as possible in the other direction. Even if a deal is made under this type of duress, later it often falls apart.

If the salesperson had invited you to say “no,” however, you would have gladly listened to the pitch. This is the power of “no.”

Every “No” is Reversible

When we say “no” we are not closing the book on further negotiation. Every no is reversible. But when we say it, we must do so in a nonthreatening manner. Use a nurturing statement along with the “no” to mitigate any perceptions of harshness. For example, “I can’t agree to that, but I do see where you’re coming from. I see the problem and would really like to help. What other possible solutions do you see?”

As the negotiation is winding down and you’ve gotten the other party to agree to your proposal, invite them once again to say, “no.” Let them know that there will be no hard feelings if they decide your proposal is not right for them.

You will be amazed at how inviting a prospect to say “no” relieves pressure and turns skeptical opponents into willing partners.

Take “No” for a Test Drive

Take “no” for a test drive—and see for yourself. Have some fun and take the opportunity to practice using “no.”

With a smile on your face, tell someone in a low-risk situation that you “just can’t do that,” or that you “just don’t see it that way.” Then encourage the person to go on. Say, “no,” and in the next breath, encourage the person to convince you that what he or she is proposing is the right course.

Or, go the other way. Tell the person that you have an idea and you want him or her to be comfortable saying “no” to you. Promise the person that he or she won’t hurt your feelings.

In either case, you will see results instantly.

“Conflict is inevitable, but combat is optional.” — Max Lucade

Conflict happens.  How you respond to and resolve conflict will limit or enable your success.  My goal with this post is to give you the tools to understand conflict, learn your own conflict patterns, and empower you to make more effective choices when you are finding or facing conflict.

Embrace Conflict as a Source of Growth and Transformation

Conflict can come from a variety of sources:

• Goals.  Conflict can happen as a result of conflicting goals or priorities.  It can also happen when there is a lack of shared goals.
• Personality conflicts.  Personality conflicts are a common cause of conflict.  Sometimes there is no chemistry, or you haven’t figured out an effective way to click with somebody.
• Scarce resources. Conflict can happen when you’re competing over scarce resources.
• Styles.   People have different styles.  Your thinking style or communication style might conflict with somebody else’s thinking style or their communication style.  The good news is that conflicts in styles are easy to adapt to when you know how.
• Values.  Sometimes you will find conflict in values.  The challenge here is that values are core.  Adapting with styles is one thing, but dealing with conflicting values is another.  That’s why a particular business, group, or culture may not be a good fit for you.  It’s also why “bird’s of a feather flock together” and why “opposites attract, but similarities bind.”

By embracing conflict as a part of life, you can make the most of each situation and use it as a learning opportunity or a leadership opportunity.  You can also use it as an opportunity to transform the situation into something better.

Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument

The Thomas Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument is a model for handling conflict:

The model organizes five conflict management styles based on two dimensions:  assertiveness and cooperativeness.

Five Conflict Management Styles

Here are the five conflict management styles according to Thomas, K.W., and R.H. Kilmann:

1. Accommodating – This is when you cooperate to a high-degree, and it may be at your own expense, and actually work against your own goals, objectives, and desired outcomes.  This approach is effective when the other party is the expert or has a better solution.  It can also be effective for preserving future relations with the other party.
2. Avoiding -  This is when you simply avoid the issue.  You aren’t helping the other party reach their goals, and you aren’t assertively pursuing your own.  This works when the issue is trivial or when you have no chance of winning.   It can also be effective when the issue would be very costly.  It’s also very effective when the atmosphere is emotionally charged and you need to create some space. Sometimes issues will resolve themselves, but “hope is not a strategy”, and, in general, avoiding is not a good long term strategy.
3. Collaborating – This is where you partner or pair up with the other party to achieve both of your goals.  This is how you break free of the “win-lose” paradigm and seek the “win-win.”  This can be effective for complex scenarios where you need to find a novel solution.  This can also mean re-framing the challenge to create a bigger space and room for everybody’s ideas.  The downside is that it requires a high-degree of trust and reaching a consensus can require a lot of time and effort to get everybody on board and to synthesize all the ideas.
4. Competing – This is the “win-lose” approach.  You act in a very assertive way to achieve your goals, without seeking to cooperate with the other party, and it may be at the expense of the other party.    This approach may be appropriate for emergencies when time is of the essence, or when you need quick, decisive action, and people are aware of and support the approach.
5. Compromising – This is the “lose-lose” scenario where neither party really achieves what they want.  This requires a moderate level of assertiveness and cooperation.  It may be appropriate for scenarios where you need a temporary solution, or where both sides have equally important goals.   The trap is to fall into compromising as an easy way out, when collaborating would produce a better solution.

By knowing your own default patterns you improve your self-awareness.  Once you are aware of your own patterns, you can pay attention to whether they are working for you and you can explore alternatives.  By using a scenario-based approach, you can choose more effective conflict management styles and test their effectiveness for you and your situations.

Photo by ashraful kadir

“Character may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion.” –
Aristotle

Judo is a Japanese martial art meaning “gentle way.”

One of my manager’s at Microsoft referred to my colleague’s ability to influence others as “Mental Judo.”  My colleague was highly effective at influencing others in a gentle way, whether it was to share his own opinion, help others see another perspective, or to find another path.  His approach was highly effective and surprisingly simple.

His mental judo boiled down to three things:

1. Ask questions over make statements
2. Share a story
3. Ask somebody to share their story

Ask Questions
Rather than just make a statement or take a strong position, my colleague would ask questions. His questions created curiosity.  He invited people to explore the path.  His soft approach made a safe haven to explore an idea, without making people defensive and without coming across like an immediate critic.

Share a Story
Everybody loves a story.  My colleague was a good story teller.  His stories were short and insightful.  Rather than just state a conclusion or tell somebody they were wrong, my colleague would simply share a relevant story of his first-hand experience.  You can argue facts, but you can’t argue somebody’s experience.  His stories were a gentle way of sharing an alternative view.

Ask About Their Story
Asking somebody to share their story, is a simple way to see another point of view.  When somebody shares their story, they take you on their journey.  You can learn their mental model.  This helps explain why they see the situation as they do.  Together, this helps explain what’s behind their conclusion, and it puts their drivers and concerns in context.  It also helps you know whether this is first-hand experience, or hear say, etc.  It all starts so simply too … “Can you tell me about a time when you used that?”

How can you improve conflict resolution?  Do you find yourself stuck in conflicts or arguments that go nowhere fast?  You know the ones, where the longer you argue, the more you spiral down.  If you don’t know the secret of conflict resolution, you can literally spend a lifetime butting heads and locking horns.  If you know the secret, then you can recognize situations and quickly get unstuck.

What’s the secret of conflict resolution?  … Shifting tense.   Rather than focus on the past or the present, shift to the future.  The future is choice and opportunity.  In Thank You for Arguing: What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion , Jay Heinrichs writes about resolving conflict more effectively by shifting tense.

Past, Present, Future
The past is about assigning blame.  The present is about values.  The future is about choice:

• Past = Blame
• Present = Values
• Future = Choice

Example of Blame, Values, Future
Heinrichs uses an example to make the point.  Imagine a scenario where a couple is in their living room, reading books and listening to music.  In response to her request, “Can you turn that down a little?” , he can respond with blame, values or choice:

• Blame: You’re the one who set the volume last.
• Values: So that’s what this is about.  You hate my music.
• Choice:  Sure, I’d be happy to.  But is the music too loud, or do you want me to play something else?

Forensic, Demonstrative, and Deliberative
According to Heinrichs, Aristotle thought tenses were so important that he assigned a whole branch of rhetoric to each one:

• Forensic (past-tense) rhetoric threatens punishment.
• Demonstrative (present-tense) rhetoric tends to finish with people bonding or separating.
• Deliberative (future-tense) argument promises a payoff.

The past tense is good for whodunits and for courts of law.  The present tense is good for describing people who meet a community’s ideals or fail to live up to them.  The future is good for making joint decisions.  The future skips right and wrong, good and bad, in favor of expedience.

Switch Tense to the Future
Heinrichs suggest switching tense if you find yourself stuck:

If you find an argument spinning out of control, try switching the tense.  To pin blame on the cheese thief, use the past tense.  To get someone to believe that abortion is a terrible sin, use the present tense.  The future, though, is the best tense for getting peace and quiet in the living room.

I think this is as simple as asking a solution-focused question.  For example, “What’s the solution?” … or “How can we solve this?”

Focus on the Future
Rather than get stuck on right or wrong, or good or bad, you can shift to the future.  Heinrichs writes:

We expect our arguments to accomplish something.  You want a debate to settle an issue, with everyone walking away in agreement – with you.  This is hard to achieve if no one can get beyond who is right or wrong, good or bad.  Why do so many arguments end up in accusation and name-calling? The answer may seem silly, but it’s crucial: most arguments take place in the wrong tense.  Choose the right tense.  If you want your audience to make a choice, focus on the future.  Tenses are so important that Aristotle assigned a whole branch of rhetoric to each one.

To put this in practice, at work rather than ask somebody “why are you late?,” I ask them “how can you show up on time?”   This moves the argument from blame to opportunity.

Control the Issue
Do you want the issue to be about blame, values or choice.  Don’t get stuck in blame game or fighting over values.  The most productive arguments focus on choice.  Heinrichs writes:

Do you want to fix blame?  Define who meets or abuses your common values?  Or get your audience to make a choice?  The most productive arguments use choice as their central issue.  Don’t let a debate swerve heedlessly into values or guilt.  Keep it focused on choices that solve a problem to your audience’s (and your) advantage.

Control the Clock
Use tense as your friend.  To move the ball forward, shift gears to the future.  Heinrichs writes:

Keep your argument in the right tense.  In a debate over choices, make sure it turns to the future.

The point here is that if you are aware of the tense that you’re in, you can shift it deliberately to be more effective.

Key Take Aways
Here’s my key take aways:

• Many arguments that fail take place in the wrong tense.
• Past is blame, present is values, future is choice.
• Focus on the future for more productive arguments.

My Related Posts

• Agree, Build, and Compare
• Overcoming Resistance with Entanglement Strategies
• Framing Compelling Arguments
• Refuse the Sucker’s Choice

“If you can’t go around it, over it, or through it, you had better negotiate with it." — Ashleigh Brilliant

When you don’t get what you want, don’t get angry.  Compliment, disarm, and clarify instead.  Rather than focus on your anger, focus on getting what you want. 

In Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy Revised and Updated , Dr. David D. Burns writes about complimenting, disarming and clarifying over focusing on your anger.

Overview
Here are keys to negotiating more effectively::

• Find a way to genuinely compliment.  This helps reduce friction.
• Find a way to agree.  This takes the wind out of their sails and helps build rapport.
• Clarify and assert what you want. 

I think the key is staying focused on what you want rather than expressing your anger.  Getting angry will escalate emotions and put you in a less resourceful state.

Summary of Steps
According to Burns, here are ways to negotiate more effectively:

• Step 1 – Compliment
• Step 2 – Disarm
• Step 3 – Clarify

Step 1 – Compliment. 
Instead of telling them off, compliment them on what they did right.  It’s an undeniable fact of human nature that few people can resist flattery even if it’s blatantly insincere.  However, since you can find something good about them or their work, you can make your compliment honest. 

Step 2 Disarm. 
Disarm them if they argue, by finding a way to agree with them regardless of how absurd their statements are.  This will shut them up and take the wind out of their sails.

Step 3 – Clarify. 
Clarify your point of view again calmly and firmly.
Repeat the above techniques over and over in varying combinations until the other person gives in or you reach an acceptable compromise.

Additional Recommendations
Burns writes:

“Use ultimatums and intimidating threats only as a last resort, and make sure you are ready and willing to follow through when you do.  As a general principle, use diplomacy in expressing your dissatisfaction with his work.  Avoid labeling him in an insulting way or implying he is bad, evil, malignant, etc.  If you decide to tell him about your negative feelings, do so objectively without magnification or an excess of inflammatory language.  For example, “I resent shoddy work when I feel you have the ability to do a good professional job” is far preferable to ‘You mother —-! Your —- work is an outrage.’”

The key is to stay diplomatic and avoid using insults and threats

My Related Posts

• Disarming Technique
• How To Improve Your Crucial Conversations
• How To Deal with Criticism

Photo by Andyrob