According to Wikipedia, there are 5 phases of conflict – prelude, trigger, initiation, differentiation and resolution. The prelude refers to the variables that make the conflict possible whereas trigger refers to the event that creates the conflict. Initiation is when the conflict is made known, and differentiation is when parties involved raise the conflict issues and pursues reasons for the varying positions. Resolution is then the stage where the solution is sought, and where every conflict should hopefully head towards.
Having just learnt of the above, I realised that these phases were undeniably present in a conflict I encountered during my National Service stint. The situation was as such: Eric (not his real name) and I were in the same section (this is a team of 10 guys), and hence, served our duties together at most times. Eric and I were also from the same Junior College, and hence got along quite well initially. However, as we went about our daily duties, the prelude phase of a conflict developed, as I gradually realised that I disagreed with Eric’s methods of accomplishing certain tasks as well as his rather brash manner of dealing with others. However, I did not bring the matter up with Eric or our superiors initially, for cohesion is highly valued in the army, and I felt that I might only be over-sensitive.
This, of course, proved to be imprudent as it led to the trigger phase of the conflict during a task that is to be shared between Eric and I. In this task, each of us was to perform subtasks separately, which is then combined to form the whole. Hence, I believed that I have the right to perform my subtasks in my own way, as long as it does not cause extra effort on Eric’s part. However, Eric insisted that I follow his approach in accomplishing my part of the task. Inadvertently, this led to an argument for I felt that Eric was being over-demanding, whereas Eric probably felt that I was causing a delay to the whole operation by being stubborn and refusing to accept his method, which in his opinion, was more efficient.
This argument subsequently reached the ears of our superior, who attempted to mediate the situation between Eric and me. However, it was not quite successful and I was offered a transfer to another section, which I accepted. This was because I felt that it would be difficult for me to remain in close contact with Eric, given my dislike of his methods and attitude. With time and the distanced relationship, the conflict gradually dissolved, with Eric and I getting back to being friends, albeit not close ones. However, I wonder if there were any actions I could have taken to avoid, or resolve this conflict better?
Dear Clement,
ReplyDeleteIt seems as if we are in a somewhat albeit not exactly similar situation. I can infer from your post that your friend is a rather opinionated person. Opinionated people have strong views and tend to be quite confrontational.
I have learned that the best way to deal with such people is not to challenge them heads on. It is also worth remembering you are probably not going to be able to change their mind directly.
The problem comes when they have a strongly held opinion on something which is important and that you can’t just ignore. It is difficult because they are usually quite set in their ways like your friend in this circumstance. Don't ever start a conversation with your point of view or disagreeing with him as this he will resent this direct challenge. Praise him for his intelligent method in managing the problem and then suggest a different way of doing things. Get them in a good frame of mind first.
Or, you could start by asking him his convictions and reasons for adopting his method of doing things. Try to understand him but if it were to be a matter of right and wrong and you feel like you are right, I think you should just be firm.
Never feel guilty for standing up to some behaviour that is wrong. But, where possible make it as least confrontational as possible.
Hi Clement,
ReplyDeleteA couple of thoughts on this -
- From my limited experience and understand, Asians are confrontation-averse. Hence, I can relate to your reluctance in the initial stages.
- Having said that, keeping it quiet and internalizing it is also a characteristic problem in most Asian relationships. And this is a not-so-positive consequence of the above.
In this case, I feel the two of you might just have completely different value systems and it is probably best(from my understanding of the situation) that you don't work closely with each other. While we should try to resolve every conflict, it is not necessary that all conflicts have to be resolved.
It wouldn't be fun if got along with the whole world, would it?
Please Note: I have tried hard to avoid any judgement as it would only be fair if I listened to both sides. So, do let me know if I have acted against my intentions.
Hello Clement,
ReplyDeleteYour encounter sounded like one of those complaints my brother made whenever he books out from the army.
Well, I feel that both of you should give each other some time to cool off first before discussing further. There will never be a best way out when both of you are overwhelmed by emotions and impulses. When both parties are cool, they can deal with the differences at a more rationale level. I would say Eric is a rather strong-minded person who believes in doing things his own way. While dealing with such people, I feel that we should not start off by expressing our stance. Instead, like what Goh Chern suggested, you could simply agree with him first. By doing so, you could probably appease him. By making him feel that he was being listened and his method of doing things was not immediately rejected by you. In fact, you can make him feel better by saying positive things about him, even if you are really unhappy about him and he is still upset over the issue. Show respectful attitude even if he is just a normal friend. By saying things like, “Eric, I do agree that your method of action is more efficient and I really appreciate that you share it with me”. This may be hard to do, but sometimes we have to be soft to people like Eric first, in order to win in such a situation. This is when one’s Emotional Intelligence (EI) comes into display.
On the other hand, we should also learn to see the world through others’ eyes. At times, being humble is a virtue. Eric’s way of doing things may not be the best or most efficient, but there is no harm giving it a try. Perhaps, it may turn out better than you thought. This does not mean that we have to compromise our way of doing things. I believe in learning through others, regardless of their status. However, if his suggested method was obviously ridiculous or tedious, and he insisted that you use it, then I think you have the right to turn him down. But beware of your tone when you reject him. No one likes to be rejected, and it is not what you say but how you say it which makes a difference.
Lastly, I am glad both Eric and you are still friends, despite the tricky situation that has occurred!
Hi Diana(s) and Rohan,
ReplyDeleteThanks to everyone for your feedback.
Dianas, I think you two have brought up an important point - I should probably learn to use a softer stance when dealing with people with strong opinions.
I probably should have brought it up in the initial post as well, but I think part of the reason as to why I was the only one in the section to have an issue with Eric is that I tend to stand firmly on what I believe is right, and often would refuse to give way.
Rohan, I agree with you on the point that perhaps not every battle should be fought. Hence, in this case, I finally opted for a transfer to another section (avoidance) rather than a direct resolution. As you said, usually that is not the best way, but as the idea here was to ensure that everyone get back to doing their jobs as soon as possible, avoidance may be the best policy in this case.
Dear Clement,
ReplyDeleteAlthough Wikipedia is not 100% reliable, it definitely hit the nail in analyzing conflict.
I feel that this conflict could have been avoided if preemptive actions were taken. While the friendship is still intact, you could have talked to him regarding his actions. As a friend, give him your honest opinions and highlight to him areas where he can improve on. Explain to him about the consequences if he does not improve as well as the positive effects if he improves.
For the incident, perhaps you could ask Eric for an explanation as to why he wants things to be done that way. This way, you might be able to understand his way of doing things and see where he is coming from. If you have valid reasons for your actions, do explain it to Eric and hope that he would understand and leave you alone with your tasks.
Eric on the other hand should not have been too insistent of his way knowing your character.
I guess this situation has never occurred to me because I am usually the sort of person who would consider others ideas and try new things. With that, I would be able to avoid most conflicts (unless when I am really hungry). It will never hurt to try other people's ideas.
Dear Clement,
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I like the opening of the blog post where you introduced the five phases of conflict and linked your personal experiences to these phases.
I believe many people who served in the National Service have had similar experiences. Different people have different character and style of doing things. I believe the lack of understanding towards each other in this area was the root of your interpersonal conflict.
I do agree with some of your actions initially, when you did not bring the matter up to your superiors. If you had brought it up to your superiors, I believe that Eric would have felt that you have been talking behind this back and your might have jeopardized this friendship.
As I read only one side of the story, it would be unfair to judge if any party was at fault. However, I believe that there was a lack of empathy between the both of you. For Eric, he might not have understood your intentions of wanting a say in the way to complete the task. In your case, you might have failed to understand Eric’s reasons and intentions of wanting to complete the task in his way.
Moreover, I believe that both of you lack the skill of being self-aware. In Eric’s case, he might be unaware that he was possibly being over-demanding and stubborn towards you. In your case, you might have been unaware that you may have been demanding in the same way too. This can be seen from one of your sentences, “Hence, I believed that I have the right to perform my subtasks in my own way, as long as it does not cause extra effort on Eric’s part.” These feelings you had towards Eric might have been the same feelings he had towards you.
Furthermore, I feel that your perception of the feelings that Eric had towards you might not have been the way he really felt. Hence, I would suggest that you ask him the reasons why he insisted on performing all the tasks in his way. However, you would need to temporarily cast away your negative thoughts towards him and try not to enforce your opinions on him. Only then, he would not feel that you are trying to oppose him and may then share his true feelings and reasons with you in a diplomatic way. After which, you can then share your own opinions and reason it out with him. Remember to take note of the tone used, as it is important to show that you are trying to empathize rather than picking a fight with him.
Although you mentioned that each of you was to perform subtasks separately, the end result would still require some form of team effort. Hence, it may not be a very good idea to think that so long as you do not cause extra effort on others, it would be fine to proceed on with the subtask in your own way. I believe that a discussion with the others in the group who are trying to achieve a common goal would be beneficial in reaching a consensus.
Probably, with a better understanding between the both of you regarding each other’s feelings and reasons, the chances of this turning into a conflict might be minimized.
As suggestion, you might want to add in more details about the actual atmosphere and situation, particularly the tone that both of you had at that point of time. This would allow your readers to have a better understanding of this situation.
I hope I have provided a useful solution with my limited knowledge on interpersonal communication skills.
Hi Peirong and Kunlin,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments.
I see that both of you have brought up the same point, which is that I should probably have tried to understand the reasons behind Eric's actions. I think it is a good suggestion, and I will try to remember to do that when encountering other conflicts in future.
Peirong, I agree with you that I could possibly have added more details about the atmosphere of the situation. However, this conflict took place quite a while back (about 4 years ago) and hence some details are hazy in my mind too. Nevertheless, I will try to post more details in future edits when I remember them.
Dear Clement,
ReplyDeleteYou set a high standard with your last post. With this one you've raised the bar even higher. I appreciate the framework you introduce for your analysis (albeit being from Wikipedia, but as Kunlin mentions, this one is appropriate). I also like the clear, concise description of the problem context and the way you relate different stages in the conflict to your framework. Finally, the way you describe your "resolution" while still being able to pose a worthwhile question is admirable. That's a matter of being able to suggest to your readers that what you did was satisfactory but maybe not the best.
As always, I thank you for your effort.
Hi Brad,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your appraisal. I am glad that you found that my post was good.
However as Pei Rong mentions, and as I notice while reading others' blogs, perhaps I should have spent more words on the description of the situation and atmosphere, as that would probably allow readers to more clearly understand the conflict. I would try to keep this in mind while describing events in future.