Managing Conflicts in Relationships

Communication is cool . Good communication is awesome .

On Wednesday, me and friends visited an art exhibition in the art of discussions and fighting constructively with words.

Reason enough to revisit our frameworks.

Communication Basics

The core always in anything said is the deconstruction into Schulz von Thun’s four dimensions of a speech act.

1. Relationship: how what is being said is possible due and a relection of the relationship and assumptions on it.
2. Factual Content of Message: The actual thing being said.
3. Intent / Imperative Aspect: Why it is being said, the intent it likely has and the appeal or implied action and expectation of the recipient’s response when it is being said.
4. Self-Expression: The act itself reveals something about the sender such as his emotional state, his needs, his way of thinking, how he sees the world and how he refuses to see the world.

That one is a no brainer. It gets more interesting when you add the emotional wheel you can find on the web and map the speech act to a source emotion and target emotion.

So you can start in the inner circle and walk outward to the details . Person is sad, because it suffers from being hurt by action X.

Now if the person says it is feeling in such a way, the other person may think it is angry, irritated and annoyed from this and does not want to hear this. The interplay of these two emotions between A and B defines a psychodynamic that is important because it follows needs.

Person A says I am sad, because X and I tell it to you because (a) you are responsible and should acknowledge what you do, or (b) you are the person I open up to and I want you to exchange on this and you to support me.

Person B may thing in (a) that it is being insulted and that A sees this in the wrong light — judging and denying the feelings of A — or in case (b) that A is overstepping the relationship boundaries by talking about these feelings.

So within the context of relationships, appeals and content, there are needs and emotions clashing which regulate the relationships and emotions inside of them.

In our situation, we assumed little care among both and there was a conflict arising. But it could also be that B likes A and cares about A, and it wants to understand the needs of A and react to those needs, independent of its own emotions at that time or any other interfering bias and issue hindering the communication. Maybe B says deliberately “my needs and emotions are now not important, I listen to A and try to help.” Thereby expecting that the person A will return the favor later on. due to also being interested in B. These are all relationship questions.

The Relationship Layer

Adding complexity

Before looking at the relationship layer, let’s look how situations become more complex independent from the relationship.

Time Horizons and Contexts

So typically, things happen in longer reaction chains. So you can not judge a single action. So activities often need to be monitored over time. Only when comparing behaviour over time and in different situations and in their consistency or lack thereof, they become meaningful.

Normal Behaviour and Influencing Factors / Baselining

One has go monitor recurring influencing factors such as mood cycles, moon cycles, period cycles, month-end./ poverty cycles, seasonal affectd and cycles, stress at work cycles and levels.

One also has to monitor presence and absence of external stressors such as bad family, toxic friends/coworkers/bosses/clients, events that are triggering and so forthy

And one has to monitor how consistently and inconsistent people are in general when acting in consistent and confined relationships as co-workers, bosses, etc.

Only then can we understand the make-up of someone and read a specific situation

Autopilot versus intentional goal behaviour

In general, reading people requires looking at their normal behaviour and spotting differences. If a person acts the same way towards all people, he might have the same feelings and behavioural repertoire active all the time. It is hard to read intentionality out of an ordinary action. But general needs can be seen. A person kissing up all the time. Of being an ass to everyone. Being generally dishonest and conning.

Affect and disorders

Otherwise people are also impulsive. Impulsive behaviour is often not consistent. It lacks real permanent intent and can be focused on a short spike in mood, emotion or needs. In general, impulsive behaviour comes with retrospective guilt.

Also, people can lose their temper or frame. When internal processes and bottling up of emotions suddenly leads to compulsive behaviour and outbursts, then this is not impulsive, but compulsive.

There is also playful behaviour or explorative probing behaviour where people violate norms or play with behaviours to create comical situations, false impressions, or a joke later to be revealed.

A mix of impulsive, compulsive and playful behaviour also typically is found in manipulative behaviour. Playful and impulsive behaviour can be used to scope and probe the reality testing ability of someone : does this someone understand what is going on and is it able to react to it. It can be used go see how much trust there is and if people are overall gullible or more analytical in reading their surrounding. This can be measured in small and persistent violation of boundaries and reality tests to see if someone is able to set boundaries and also end a contact if it becomes toxic. And last but ot least, if those probes lead to an understanding that a person is vulnerable, needs can also be used to hook someone in, build attachment, increase shared time and attention. And from there, measuring autopilot reactions to compliments and insults and freedom granted and taken can be used to slowly control the emotions of someone and make them fall in love or grow attached and then to take control ober them.

Normally, people only see all of this is if they are trauma-prone and hypervigilant or if they have a large and strong support network where at least one person usually finds some of the manipulative behaviour odd. People that lack experience, hypervigilence and a support network more often deal with these behaviours and it is more often shown to them due to them being targeted.

It is important to understand that compulsive behaviour relates to issues and need healing, but are not necessarily bad on intent level. But can be dangerous. People with strong compulsions suffer mostly under them. Sometimes the compulsion is so strong they consider it normal and not worthy to mention or heal.

Impulsive behaviour can be extremely destructive by being reckless and bearing consequences the person is not able to see. It is primarily a neurotransmitter issue and not an issue where people decide to be impuslive. But such people are not per se dangerous as there is no compulsion, and there is no consistent intent. People may be difficult in a situation and indeed hold strong opinions and intent when they are in the impulsive state, but the intent is almost surely not permanent and the actions still require executive decision making and are not compulsive. But impulsive people want to do the things they do. They just might reject and dislike their actions later and feel ashamed.

And of course playful is not toxic either, but can be very enriching and important to get to know each other. People do probe each other and test limits also to respect them later on and to communicate how free of issues they are themselves. A person making insults for fun may also show that he is immune from hurt from insults and it is something he knows how it works and maybe wants to overall avoid, but can still communicate openly.

The big difference when assessing toxicity of these behaviours is how subtle and persistent they are. If you suddenly become more isolated, feel more dependent, like this person more and more but consistently see boundaries crossed, chances are you are being manipulated with intent and malice. Normal people run no long term consistent patterns that are toxic and end in such roads.

Change and Negotiation Psychodynamics

Adaptation and Change

Life and change happens in the famous Tucker change cycle that also often underlies longer term conflicts that lead to a climax and change. Very often there is precursor of events that lead to an incident event that creates a crystallization of a conflict that needs resolution. The shock.

From the sock, we first start wo wonder what happened and scan the past for cues in utter disbelief that we now have to deal with the shock. We ask ourselves if this is really happening and if we understand it correctly. We wonder if we could have seen it earlier and are in disbelief that we did not and that it came to the shock. And we start preparing for the conflict discussion by seeking acceptance and engaging in the process of change. The cycle 1 to 4 keep iterating during the negotiation. Normally the negotiation reaches a temporary conclusion and experimentation happens till the final conclusion is achieved. Then the search for meaning starts.

Any relationship is constantly hit by such smaller shocks. We constantly have to make decisions on whether we want to move ahead or move back and we invest or divest and how much we open or remain closed. But the true advancements follow the realization of incompatibility of the status quo with a changed us and we need to enter the change cycle. But such events are rather small and relationships evolve rather smoothly in between these events. It becoms more interesting when big changes happen like becoming far more serious — marriage, children, career changes, sickness, death or breakups.

Looking at how people go from the precursors of conflict and avoidance and mitigation tactics to entering the conflict, posturing, preparing, threatening, escalating, pushing and pulling, to the climax to the loss/win to the post fight grievance and acceptance and finally to conflict resolution and acceptance is important. It can take weeks to years. If people are mature and actively communicating, all conflicts remain rather small. But if they are ignored for a very long time and reach a quasi state of no-return where the relationship is already severely damaged, it becomes an actual full blown negotiation.

Full Blown Negotiations

The key part of conflicts is that both parts still want to stay in a good relationship and the situation is not hostile — as in a hostile negotiation during a very bad divorce for instance — but the situation is about cooperative bargaining and negotiation. The idea is that people stay together in a relationship and want to re-negotiate the terms among each other. This can be a fixed and renewed relationship, a simple and effective but overall cold managed relationship or a separation with forced continues touchpoints (co — workers, business partners, siblings, co-parenting)

A key element in any type of negotiation is BATNA — the alternative offers on the table — and threat potential. In legal battles, lawyers maximize the threat pool because the ruling will happen in any case and to use the threats to come to the table for settling amicably and at far lower damage and cost. This is also common in divorce proceedings when fighting over assets and children. And it happens in relationships when taking away communication (stonewalling, radiosilence, no contact), emotional support (becoming cold) or sex. Or even threatening to have affairs or starting affairs or creating the impression of having started an affair and creating options outside of the relationship.

If there is no forced final hearing in a court, the use of threat pools assumes there is little or no BATNA or the attempt to hurt and humiliate and threaten the other is an attempt to test the level of attachment and willingness to return to the table. These plays are typically very risky and attack the core confidence and respect level between two parties which is very difficult to reconcile. But at the same time, the threat itself is a sign of weakness and feeling vulnerable. The issue with this style of negotiation is that it moves away from showing how two parties function well together, by showing how much they can hurt each other and accept being hurt and disrected. People with strong values and boundaries and BATNA very often do not reconcile on such tactics. So accepting them also means that one is more forgiving and vulnerable for future attacks and manipulationattempts.

BATNA is often the far more mature negotiation lever and in relationships it typically is created by remaining in the relationship in good terms and being available. and supportive. But to become increasingly happy, groomed, expand friendships and being resilient to attacks, accomodating to weaknesses and accepting and forthcoming and supportive and guiding in the resolution. BATNA however requires the willingness and ability to use alternatives to create outcomes.

If the shock that leads to the need of change is severa and the change needs to happen and it does never happen because one partner does not change, there is often a commitment bias that leads to a loss of value among the parties if the entire conflict just ends without change. This is where many relationships start to break. People should only negotiate if they know there will be and should be a deal at the end.

Hostile Relationships and Negotiations in Abuse Cycles

In abusive relationships, negotiations happen very often and always when the abused is at the most vulnerable spot.

Part of abuse cycles is to reduce BATNA by desroying self-confidence, agency, support networks and keeping the person in permanent exhaustion and despair and inner conflict to create anxiety. The anxiety part of wanting to escape and not being able to, wanting to win love and not being able to, wanting to change the partner but not being able to, is what creates a permanent tension. The tensions lead to needs of reconciliation which are punished. Which leads to suppression of the needs . And ultimately to compulsion. And if a person even starts to violate its own code of conduct and loses control ober its own actions and becomes compulsive in outbursts which can be used to attack and hurt and sadistically debase the partner, the abuse cycle leads to a state of breakdown.

So the important part is in any case and situation to remain in autonomy and to then focus on the interaction among equals. Only then can we still see our own and the others normal behaviour and can we remain detached enough to feel and communicate and demand needs.

Back to communication

We went quite deeply now into abuse cycles and relationship issues. This was necessary to look into deeper and longer term dynamics and outcomes of conflicts. Conflicts happen in every day life and all the time and very often they are avoided.

They are the reason employees do not get ahead or lose their jobs. Why siblings fight over their inheritances. Why parents lose their children in years of miscommunication and hurt. Why relationships fall apart and why people lose their best friends over nothing.

Having a strong culture around conflicts as part of relationships is key to good communication. Because our view on reality and life changes constantly. We change constantly. And this requires a constant re-negotiation of our relationships and the effectuation of change. These issues are just easier to understand in these complex cases we discussed.

Final mark on conflicts inside of relationships

A very good framework on relationships is the 12 types of intimacy model. If every interaction with anyone forms a relationship and all relationships require constant communication and havr conflicts and evolve. Then they also happen in the spheres of these 12 types of intimacy and it is our job to understand where everyone in our small world stands in these areas of intimacy with their partners, co-workers, families and friends. Because unmet needs — remember the graphic above — will eventually express in some relationship in one dimension of these intimacy brackets with someone in their life. That is just how humans function.

Here is a link for ya: Meaning of intimacy in a relationship | Psychology of relationships (myheartexposed.co.uk)

Conflicts and Verbal Arguments

So I did mention in the beginning that I went to a art exhibition about verbal arguments and fighting in relationships. We covered communication aspects and the inner core of conflicts — psychodynamics, emotional regulation, power plays and negotiations.

So the exhibition had this great overview.

Stage 1: Finding and expressing disagreement

1. Discussion: A lively conversation where people share their views and opinions on a subject.Argument: An open disagreement where parties present — often emotionally — their divergent opinions and views of a situation. Discussions happen before opinions are formed and opinions lead to a conflict or issue.
2. Argument: Open disagreement with often emotional parts and divergent views and opinions on a matter. This happens after the opinions have been formed and the goal is to understand the opposing views and to deal with them hopefully in a fair and amicable way.
3. Critique: A conversation where one party judges or expresses a strong opinion on a particular matter and tries to apply specific, rigorous and formal as well as some personal criteria. The level of personal criteria can make it more of an artistic expression of taste than a formal critique.Debate: A formal way of arguing contrarian views on a subject to also consider the opposite side and find a common ground view in form of a synthesis. The goal is to show the other party that you understand their side well and that the conclusion naturally follows out of the contrarian views. This can be a strategy of arguing but also the opener for an argument where one party has already been upset, took time to assess the situation and starts the conversation with the opening pladoyer which is the critique. It can be usually attacked in a fair manner. It aims to be fair by giving the opponent a broad spectrum of points to argue against or to accept.

Stage 2: Working towards a solution:

1. Discourse: A collection of an exhaustive list of opinions on a matter to showcase how society and science or a group of people look at something and to extract an overall common ground and picture. If both agree on the validity of all the views, they may find a common ground in dealing with the issue. This is for exploring the matter.
2. Debate: A formal way of presenting both the side of one party and the other party to show that both sides are valid and to derive a natural synthesis from both sides to come to a conclusion to make a decision that will be valid for both parties. This is manufacturing an outcome for both.
3. Ruling; If there is a very strong power dynamic and one party has the stronger hand, it may simply rule over the issue and the other one has to accept the outcome.

Negotiating and creating an outcome

1. A controversy: A prolonged dispute on a particular issue and often involving strongly diverging views. This is the “agreeing to disagree” topic where no consensus or compromise is reached but the disagreement is considered a non-deal breaker for the relationship. It mostly goes to sleep and might resurface later. But having found the controversy and knowing it is there helps each party to steer around it and acknowledge the disagreement.
2. Agreement: If both parties have done their homeworks well and found a solution that works and both can grow from it and they both see themselves happy at the end, the outcome is an agreement. This is the perfect outcome.
3. A compromise: Typically one form of ending a conflict where both agree to have diverging views or needs, but aim to agree on common ground and leaving the ground where views are not shared in a “Agreeing to disagree” mode. A consensus driven approach. It is a mix of the agreement and the controversy where both are fine and sufficiently happy with the consensus reached to end the conflict.
4. A conflict: An active and strong disagreement expressed verbally and non-verbally with possible escalations. So there is no compromise in sight and no common understanding and each party consider their view as important enough to not deviate from it. They can also not accept the controversy and are not willing to end the conflict nor leave the relationship. The conflict will go on as long as there is no conclusion reached. As such, it is also an outcome.

Evaluation

Is businesses, people often have discussions to explore a topic and have a joint discourse. At some point, different opinions and experiences can not easily be discussed and the topics end in arguments. The discourse phase often is over and the topic enters a debate. Ideally ending in a workable compromise, sometimes in an agreement and in the worst case in a ruling by the hierarchy. Conflicts and controversies are not tolerated.

In friendships, discussions are the norm, agreements are often made quickly or controversies accepted. Conflicts are accepted as emotional regulation and hardly debated but more likely discussed and discoursed. There is usually no ruling or critique, because all parties are equals and independent.

In relationship, the outcomes are very often agreements and where they fail controversies. In the worst case they become compromises and are revisited later as conflicts when the parties have had time to recupercate. Critiques are more common because discourses are very difficult, arguments only open a topic but hardly conclude them. Each party often broods over the topic and prepares a critique that then has to be cut down and prepared for being accepted by the other person.

Communication

Like everything in life, things do not work very well when everyone is equal. The tools and frameworks here are meant to explain how to take accountability and responsibility to a new level by becoming more holistic in the understanding of conflicts and reading other people’s needs in communication acts.

It goes without saying that if two parties both equally are too empathic and too benevolent and mature in assessing each other all the time, the dialogues become too formal and obscure and somewhat overladen by formalities and nicities. Good relationships require one party to be in charge and ideally that party is neither toxic nor manipulative nor seeking advantage against the other. But there needs to be leadership of some form to regulate emotions, find ideal outcomes and create a good joint understanding of each other’s needs and degrees of freedom.

Usually the leader is the one that is required to be more flexible, more comforting, more accomodating but also the one with the higher need of growth and control and richness in the relationship. This is why in very good relationships, both parties switch in their leadership roles.

The male or dominant energy is usually however the one that is less nuanced and accomodating but more direction giving and stubborn. This is often to referred to also as male or female energies. Or yin and yang energy.