Main Street: March 16, 2022

Editor’s note: Marva Mingledorff, from Oklahoma City, once again joins Dr. Daake as a co-writer of this two-part series.

“Peace is not the absence of conflict but the presence of creative alternatives for responding to conflict — alternatives to passive or aggressive responses, alternatives to violence.” — Dorothy Thompson

Most of you are familiar with the phrase “The good, the bad and the ugly.” It was popularized by the movie of that same name. It was marketed as the third and final installment in the Dollars Trilogy, following “A Fistful of Dollars” and “For a Few Dollars More.” The series is credited with catapulting Clint Eastwood into stardom.

Usually, when we think of conflict, we tend to focus on the bad and the ugly. We think, “Wouldn’t it be a lovely world if we never had to deal with conflict?”

Although conflict may conjure up some painful or negative emotions, the good news is that conflict can also be a positive aspect of life. Even though it might not seem like it when we are in the thick of it.

In this two-part article, we’ll first focus on the bad and the ugly parts of conflict. Next week, we will turn to the potential good in conflict and give you some specific techniques to use.

Whether we like it or not, most of us are experienced in conflict. But few of us are experts in conflict resolution. We encounter conflict from day one of our lives – when the doctor gives us that first slap to get our little motor running.

A creative acrostic by Marva can focus our thinking. She suggests asking ourselves eight probing questions. Do we ever contemplate our role in it? Are we open to seeing the truth? Is it necessary to prove ourselves to be right? Are we fervent to listen? Do we give ourselves liberty to listen? Are we intentional to even care? Do we hoose to resolve our differences? Can we trust that the truth will be revealed amid conflict?

We will examine these questions one at a time. Do we contemplate our role in it? It is easy to see all the reasons it’s the other person’s fault. We all know people who approach life with a chip on their shoulder and are looking to be offended.

This is a significant source of the bad and ugly of conflict. Both of us have had this happen to us in the past and sometimes even now. As Ed and I have written about so often in the past, this involves emotional intelligence . It forces us to take a good hard look at ourselves in relationship to the other person’s frame of reference.

Secondly, are we open to seeing the truth? This is especially difficult because of how people want to define truth. Too many times today, people will say, “You have your truth, and I have mine.”

Over the past few years, public conflict has reached a fevered pitch. As Stephen Koonin writes in his book “Unsettled?,” people who declare “the science says and the science is settled,’ too often use that to shut up the other side.

Koonin rightly points out “the science,” when it is being used as a weapon, is not science at all. This paradox too often descends into ugly confrontations.

Third, is it necessary we always be right? We need to go into conflict-laden conversations open to accepting reliable sources of information from varying viewpoints. But this takes goodwill from both sides.

Suppose we have the attitude that it is necessary to prove we’re right and others are wrong. In that case, the conflict will only escalate, and very little will be accomplished except more hostility.

Fourth, are we fervent when we listen? That means we’re not just thinking about our next argument and not paying attention. We need to get more serious about intentional listening.

Fifth, do we give ourselves the liberty to listen? In a previous column, Dr. Daake wrote an article about “earning to listen and listening to learn.” He defined the Daake Talk Listen Ratio (DTLR) as the ratio percent of our talking divided by the percent listening.

There is special freedom in listening. But many of us have to force the discipline upon ourselves.

Sixth, are we intentional in finding a solution? There are times we fear if we listen to another viewpoint, we might become upset, or it will seriously challenge what we believe. We would rather “correct” the other person’s ideas – defined as our viewpoint.

During our careers, both of us have seen managers or project leaders walking away thinking they have an agreement. But then nothing happens because unless we listen to others, they don’t really buy in. The conflict goes underground, and either nothing happens, or there may be active sabotage of the non-consensual solution.

Next, do we choose to resolve the conflict or at least after everyone has had their say to support the decision that is made? An honest, open, caring conversation is a choice one can determine in advance of difficult conversations.

But be fully aware that some people relish confrontation, and others will avoid it at all costs based on their personalities. Be aware of the other person’s natural preference and take that into account.

Finally, can we trust that an agreement on the truth or solution can be reached if people act in good faith? Or at least believe even if the conflict continues, it can be done respectfully. Martin Luther King Jt. reminds us, “Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.”

Next week we will focus on why conflict is good, reasonable, and necessary and share some specific techniques that allow us to get the most from it.