Constructive Conflict Resolution (or, Stop Being a Saint)

I spent most of my day yesterday in a (very cold) room in Duke's Smith Warehouse. From 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., I was in a class on Constructive Conflict Resolution as part of Duke Continuing Studies' Nonprofit Management Certificate requirements. The classes I've taken for the program have been hit or miss in terms of their helpfulness, but this one was definitely a hit. The instructor, Robert Kenney, really knew his stuff and continually checked in with the 6 of us to make sure we were keeping up and were able to connect what we were learning with real life in terms of applicability.

We went through a lot of material, looking at the basics of conflict, root cause analysis, conflict resolution styles, active listening, constructive feedback and more. But perhaps the most helpful part was when we examined several different conflict styles, diagnosed our default modes, and considered how to move from where we naturally are to a more constructive approach. I've reproduced a chart he showed us below:

I didn't even have to read the descriptions or look too hard at the chart to figure out which style represented me. I am the saint, the smoother. This made me feel good about myself for about 2 seconds, until I read the description and realized that smoothers often put on a false front and ultimately are seeking others' approval, not really a resolution to a conflict. Ouch.

Let me just go over the conflict styles quickly. Avoiding is exactly what it sounds like, but something I hadn't thought of before is that although temporary avoiding can sometimes be helpful to let conflicting parties cool off, using avoiding as a permanent solution involves not only walking away from a conflict but also walking away from the relationship. By saying the conflict isn't important enough to deal with, you're saying the relationship isn't worth your time and energy. Eek. Smoothing often puts the other person's interests first but can be disingenuous when the smoother doesn't admit that he or she has a stake in the conflict. Fighting is the most common response, where one's own concerns are first; this style is appropriate in some circumstances, of course (like abuse or when the other party has clearly done something wrong), but is generally unproductive. Bargaining is basically compromise and is good, but the best outcome is problem solving, where brainstorming leads to a joint conclusion that benefits both parties. Kenney encouraged us always to aim for problem solving, because then if you have to settle for second best, where you end up is with bargaining, which is still OK; but if you aim low for bargaining, you may still fall to smoothing, avoiding or fighting.

The goal of self-diagnosis was to figure out how to move from our natural tendencies (which are almost never the best ones) to problem solving. In my case, here's what I have to do as a smoother: I have to realize that it's only a temporary fix, and I need to acknowledge my own concerns in the situation. My first reaction to conflict (which I fear profoundly) is usually to apologize and to seek to change my behavior or situation to make everything OK for the other person, even if such a change is not beneficial to me. I credit this to my natural peacemaking tendencies, but what I hadn't thought of is that ultimately it is not an honest approach to conflict resolution and may make me seem insincere. Plus, if I constantly yield ground to others and never stand my own, I'll end up feeling bitter and put-upon, and nobody likes a martyr.

I liked that the axes of the chart had to do with concern for others and concern for self; I hadn't really thought of conflict in those terms before. I tend to think that humility and selflessness are good traits, but I'm realizing that I sometimes misconstrue those values. I assume that in order to have a high concern for others, I must have no thought for myself. Certainly there may be circumstances in which this is the case, but if I've been paying any attention to the gobs of Henri Nouwen I've read, I should know that the only way I can love anyone else rightly is by accepting my own belovedness. I think the same principle applies here. If I cannot acknowledge my own needs and values as important in a conflict situation, how can I do so for someone else? Humility is not about self-deprecation but about seeing and valuing the personhood of both oneself and of another human being equally. Just as a fighter creates more problems by putting his or her concerns above those of others, I do no one any favors by denying my own concerns. That's not a relationship; it's a means of pacification, and probably ultimately lets me feel good about myself for how humble and selfless I am.

What's your default conflict style? When might one of the less desirable styles actually be necessary? How can the church help people, communities and institutions better manage conflict?