.title
{The Five Steps to Resolving Conflicts}
.subtitle
{An excerpt from <u>Type Talk at Work<N>, by Otto Kroeger and Janet M. Thuesen}
.text1
{TypeWatching's value can't be better demonstrated than when it comes to resolving conflicts. At the core of our TypeWatching approach to conflict resolution are the five key steps to resolving conflicts:}
.list1
{Define the issues involved.}
.list2
{Try to put the issues into a typological framework, ideally pinpointing them to a letter preference.}
.list3
{Examine the likely cause of the conflict, again, in typological terms if possible.}
.list4
{Ask each party involved to identify with the other's point of view.}
.list5
{Seek compromises or contracts that can move the conflict toward resolution.}
.text1b
{These five steps, when executed properly, represent an extremely effective and efficient means of ensuring that solutions to conflicts improve rather than undermine an organization. We have seen the TypeWatching process generate beautiful results time after time.}
.box1title
{When Similarities Differ}
.box1
{So far we've concentrated on what happens when people of opposite preferences disagree--Introverts vs. Extraverts, Sensors vs. iNtuitives, and so forth. But a great deal of conflict arises when people share the same preferences and thus magnify each other's strengths. (Remember the Second Commandment: Your strength maximized becomes a liability.) And while you'd think that people who are alike could get along, that's often far from the case.

Consider two Extraverts--each talking over the other, with neither hearing the other. As the volume goes up, listening goes down. Or consider two Judgers--each with a set of unbendable rules. One's definition of "neatness" may differ substantially from the other's.  While one party has straightened up and knows exactly where things are, the other finds the situation lacking--or simply different than expected. Both parties know they're right, setting themselves up for a no-win argument. If both Js are Introverts, the dispute can lead to a long period of mutual avoidance. If they're both Es, it can lead to an escalating exchange of bad feelings.

We were once called in to do time-management training for a company that was almost 100% Judgers. Our first reaction was, as organized as Judgers are, why would they possibly need time management? What we learned was that each had his or her own time organized and they were totally rigid about anyone else's imposition on that schedule. So, forty managers worked on forty different time schedules, pulling rank on each other, arguing that their time or schedule was the most important. You can imagine the chaos!

There's no reason why the five steps we've outlined can't work in such situations. But a quicker resolution may come simply from bringing in a mediator of a different type. Ask the mediator to hear both sides and to offer his or her own analysis. Because they are different types, the analysis can't help but bring a different dimension and probably some helpful insights.}
.text2
{Before we demonstrate these five steps further, let's take a look at how each of the preferences deals with conflict.

<B>How Thinkers and Feelers Deal with Conflict<N>

We'd like to discuss the TF dimension first because we believe that this comprises far and away the most crucial differences in dealing with conflict.

In the simplest of verbal exchanges a Thinker's need for objective clarity can push an issue to a level almost immediately interpreted by a Feeler as hostile. Remember, it is the F who prefers to make decisions based upon whatever will create the greatest harmony.

For example, a T might ask an F, "What do you mean by that?" - simply seeking to clarify a point. The F, though, responds defensively to what he or she feels is a curt demand, saying back, "I don't know" or "You seem angry" or "It doesn't really matter."

None of these replies produces the clarity the T is seeking, and each causes the T to push harder for a more desirable response: "How can you not know what you mean?" or "I'm not angry at all, but I must understand what you're trying to say," or "It matters a lot because it's imperative that we have a common starting point."

To which the F takes further offense and is liable to blurt out something like, "You can define it any way you want." Then follows the ultimate T put-down: "Now, now, let's not get emotional. I can't define your words."

What started out as a simple exercise in seeking clarity can turn, in barely a few moments, into a full-fledged fight, with both parties scratching their respective heads as to how it all happened so quickly.

To illustrate how important the TF differences are in resolving conflict, we've taken total strangers, couples, managers, work groups, and even boards of directors and separated them into groups of Thinkers and Feelers. We give each group a series of experiential exercises to heighten their differences in addressing conflict by listing on a large piece of flipchart paper their responses to the following:

 * How do you define conflict?
 * How do you deal with conflict at work?
 * What would you like others to keep in mind when conflict arises?

In the first question, the Thinkers almost always define conflict as an inevitable process that leads ultimately to creativity. Their definitions include such things as "creative tension," "when two minds do not meet," and "opposition between energies." The Feelers, for their part, have a recurring theme based on disharmony and the desire to avoid it at all costs. They are likely to define conflict using such words as "stressful," "emotional," and "upsetting."}
.box2title
{Box Seats}
.box2
{In the course of working with a group of managers who had just concluded an intense, head-to-head confrontation, we were trying to help the group understand what had happened and to see what they could learn from the experience. There had been some hurt feelings and bruised egos. An ENTJ, who had been very vocal, shared with genuine enthusiasm how exciting the event was. He said, "It was like driving a family camper to the edge of a battlefield and watching one person get harpooned, another catch a sharp blow to the midsection, and another limping to the sidelines." The Feelers in the group were stunned that he could be so involved and yet removed and consider such an intense personal experience as a spectator sport. But as a Thinker, there was a certain consistency to his behavior: He participated as much as was needed for clarity and candor, but not so much as to get personally involved.}
.text3
{In response to the second question Thinkers tell us that they deal with conflict at work by learning, discussing the issues, and strategizing solutions, whereas Feelers say that they reflect on their feelings, blame themselves for the conflict, and often react physically--sweating, yelling, and crying, among other things.

As for what each of the preferences would like others to keep in mind when conflict arises, Thinkers would like Feelers not to personalize things, deal with just the facts, and keep hysteria to a minimum. Feelers would like Thinkers to consider their feelings and to remember that there is anxiety on both sides and that there must be respect for other people's positions.

You can easily see the enormous differences here. For example, while Fs deal with conflict by getting emotional, Ts would prefer that they not personalize things and minimize emotional reactions. It's easy to see how some conflicts never get resolved simply because the individuals' approach to resolving them are equally at odds with each other.

We've been doing this exercise for the better part of a decade with every imaginable configuration of groups--husbands and wives, executives and underlings, parents and teenagers, even church groups--and the results are always the same. And the amazing result is that both Ts' and Fs' biggest concerns are over the same thing: losing control, albeit for different reasons. Ts don't want people to personalize things; they're afraid that they might "lose control" if they admit that they have been personally wounded by what's just been said. And Fs are afraid that in a conflict they'll "lose control" and say things that will do irreparable harm to interpersonal relationships.

Whatever the exact words used by Ts and Fs, the responses to these exercises are always true to type. As the sheets of flipchart paper are unveiled, the participants inevitably respond with one of the following reactions: nervous laughter (because of the inner secrets that have been revealed) or stunned silence (from the near disbelief that people could produce such dramatically different responses to the same questions). It is exactly these insights and differences that we intend to bring to the forefront and use as the basis for subsequent lessons on this subject. The ultimate insight, of course is the one at the very basis of TypeWatching itself; there are no good or bad approaches to resolving conflicts, there are only differences. That understanding alone can be liberating and can unlock previously closed doors to resolving problems.}
.box3title
{Here's To A Good Fight}
.box3
{Some types simply deny the reality of conflict, preferring that it will just go away. Take the case of Murray, an ESFJ rabbi working in a military organization. He could not stand the different staffers engaging in even friendly disagreement. Murray assumed any raising of voices in argument would escalate to all-out war. For such occasions Murray would keep a bottle of schnapps in his desk drawer. As conflict surfaced, Murray would run around the office, bottle and glasses in hand, forcing each party involved in the dispute to join in a toast. As he would pour the good cheer, he inevitably said, "Now, now, we're all professionals and we all love one another." The group always indulged him and toasted one another. They knew that, following the toast, Murray would leave, believing he had resolved everything. Without Murray around they would be free to resume their argument.}
.text4title
{How Extraverts and Introverts Deal with Conflict}
.text4
{You won't be surprised to learn that Extraverts, usually unwittingly, prefer to move a conflict to the external arena, where it can become a point of discussion, if not argument. This happens whether the Extravert is arguing with an Introvert or with another Extravert. In the process Extraverts will likely spray everyone with their verbalizations of the moment, usually refining their points of view while speaking them. Most Extraverts know that with one more word "we can clear this matter up." ("One more word," of course, often becomes a paragraph, if not a rambling dissertation.) Introverts, on the other hand, know that if they hear just one more word, they're going to go stark-raving mad.

One problem with Extraverts is that they can say so many things in so little time that they scarcely remember what they've said. Indeed they may be surprised--perhaps shocked--to learn that others have not only paid attention but taken offense. This creates at least two problems. The fact that the remark caused offense is one, ironic in that the statement might have been merely a trial balloon designed to sort out, if not solve, the conflict at hand. In addition, the Extravert's forgetting exactly what was said may lead to additional conflict--a debate over whether the remark was spoken in the first place, was said in the exact words heard by the other party, or was intended to convey the message that was ultimately heard.

This whole phenomenon is exacerbated when an Extravert is also a J. Judgers, we know well, are prone to utter decisive statements: "I like this." "My answer is no." "Do it now." Such statements may be spoken by an EJ with little or no commitment or regard for their impact. But if heard by a P, particularly an EP, that statement might generate a question: "What do you mean?" "Why did you say that?" "Do you really feel that strongly about it?" In the meantime the EJ, who may not even remember making the statement, may respond to the question by giving yet another answer. (We've long believed that if you are an EJ, you will spend an inordinate amount of time in your life defending things you don't necessarily believe.) In the course of about three question-and-answer exchanges, the two parties find themselves defending or arguing positions that are just slightly to the left of absurd.

When arguing with an EJ, remember this cardinal rule: EJs already know the answer; the question is irrelevant. We can't think of a better example of this than the EJ army colonel we know who was about to leave the office for a three-day trip. Standing in the doorway about to depart, he looked back at his staff and in his commanding EJ way said, "Just in case something comes up while I'm away, here are five noes that will take care of them: No, no, no, no, and no." He saluted and departed.

Imagine how difficult all this can be to Introverts. As you'd expect, they deal with conflict by saying (to themselves), "Go inside and work carefully on your next move. Don't expose yourself, don't make a fool of yourself, and don't say or do something you will regret. Above all, stay aloof, cool, and quiet."

Nothing is more physically stressful to an Introvert than conflict. During an argument, while an Extravert dumps his or her problems into the outer world, an Introvert internalizes them. As a result, during conflict an Introvert's insides resemble those old TV ads for Bayer and Bufferin: hammers pounding on the head, ropes knotting in the stomach, screws tightening all over. Boom, boom, boom. Tension.  Anxiety. Stress. Studies have shown that Introverts are more prone than Extraverts to such stress-related maladies as ulcers and lower-colon problems.

As we've said many times, Introverts get ulcers; Extraverts give ulcers.

Clearly, when in conflict with an Extravert, an Introvert is yielding home-field advantage. This is because, with Extraverts representing 70% of the population, most of our conflicts are played out verbally. It rarely occurs to one party, in the heat of a disagreement, to say to the other, "Hey, put it in writing and I'll get back to you tomorrow." Not that this is necessarily the best tactic, but the point is valid. There is more than one way to deal with conflict.}
.box4title
{Mixed Messages}
.box4
{We have one Feeler and one Thinker supervising our production shop. When asked how things were going, the T said he often had to reprimand one man who did not follow instructions. The F said, "Yeah, and every time you yell at him, I have to go over and make up for it."}
.text4b
{ Introverts would do well to level the playing field a bit. We'll offer some specific suggestions later, but the idea here is to realize that in tense or conflictual situations there are alternatives to merely shouting about them. In fact talking problems through-- without allowing sufficient time for introverted reflection--is probably the least effective way to resolve a conflict.}
.text5title
{How Sensors and iNtuitives Deal With Conflict}
.text5
{When two people perceive the same thing differently, it can become extremely difficult to untangle how those different perceptions fuel subsequent communication. If you believe the problem is centered around specific wording on a memo itself, then we have a conflict about what the real conflict is. Remember that the S-N difference revolves around how we take in information, which becomes the basis for the decisions we subsequently make.

The information that Sensors take in deals more with the specifics of what has been said or has taken place. Precise words and events are key here and are subject to subsequent recall and scrutiny. For iNtuitives, implications and meanings about what's transpired are far more important. This difference leads to a variety of "yes, buts," which sound something like this:

<I>Sensor: <N> "Yes, but, this is what you said...."<R>
<I>iNtuitive: <N>"Yes, but, this is what I meant...." <R>
<I>Sensor: <N>"Yes, but, if that's what you meant, you should have said it." <R>
<I>iNtuitive: <N>"Yes, but, I shouldn't have to speak the obvious to intelligent people." 

<B>How Judgers and Perceivers Deal With Conflict<N>

Once again, the J-P difference can play a major role here. When a Sensing-Judger or an iNtuitive-Judger knows what he or she has perceived, there will be little room for negotiation on their perceptions. Indeed, an ongoing organizational dilemma is that there are far more Js than Ps in management positions, setting up this obviously conflict-laden situation.

We've already covered some of the J-P differences during conflicts, but they are worth reviewing.

We know that Judgers like structure. So any unplanned or unannounced change can lead to some abrasive responses, which are often interpreted as anger or disagreement, even when that's not the case. The J's initial negative response to your idea or statement may have more to do with the fact that you've just interrupted the J's schedule--even if the J appeared to be just sitting around doing nothing--than with the J's actual response to what you said. (That "just sitting around" may well be part of the J's schedule for that point in the day.)

We also know that closure is important to Judgers. Their statements often lead us to believe that their positions are very fixed, with little room for negotiation--"The boss said it, I believe it, and that settles it." It is in the nature of Js to sound right (or closed), even if they don't know whether they're right or wrong. But the fact is Js aren't always right, and they may even recognize this, but they may have difficulty dealing with unresolved issues in an open-minded way.

We've talked with several Judgers, especially Extraverted-Judgers, who are shocked, flabbergasted, and amazed when, in the peak of a "discussion," they are told that they sound angry. In fact this couldn't have been further than the truth. At such times they were counting on the other person to push back so that some sort of a satisfactory resolution would result. But that aggressive, intimidating behavior gets the opposite response: The other person shies away, wanting to avoid going to battle with such an "angry" person.

When Js seem closed and not open to negotiation, Ps are clearly at a disadvantage. They may have opinions on the issue, too, but their P nature is to continually redefine things, to stay open-minded about alternative solutions, and to maintain real flexibility. The tenser the situation becomes, the more the P can swing between blurted-out opinions (which may in fact be only additional options to explore) and questions (perhaps designed to generate still more options). During the conflict a Judger can read such scattered behavior as undependable at best, outright spacey at worst.

All of which creates a vicious circle of behavior: As the P continues to generate options, the J becomes more fixed in a definite position. So, to the J's assertion that "The boss said it, I believe it, and that settles it," the P might respond, "Are you sure? What if the boss meant...?" The J will inevitably insist that his or her initial interpretation was the right one. And the P likely won't be able to resist the bait to find additional alternatives around such a fixed position. The two find themselves locked in a hopeless conflict that may reflect positions that are far removed from the initial issues that began the disagreement.}
