During recent months heated exchanges that have been highlighted in the media have led some to describe a “coarsening” of our national discourse. The conflicts seem to point to polarization that could make collaboration unachievable.

In Becoming a Conflict Competent Leader, Tim Flanagan and Craig Runde introduced the concept of “intensity levels” of conflict.  On the lower end differences and misunderstandings are part of our normal experience and can be overcome by taking time to listen carefully to one another.  When these are not managed they can grow into disagreements which require more effort to resolve.

When conflict is avoided or concerns of others are ignored, conflicts can rise to the level of discord.  At this level conflict spills over from the original issue and begins to affect other interactions.  If this continues, it can turn into polarization which is characterized by severe negative emotions and behaviors and little hope of reconciliation.  At that point people are no longer willing to listen to understand one another.  Relationships are broken.

Has the country reached the polarization level?  The answer is not an easy one.  A large part of the population is still quite pragmatic and yearns for solutions to their real life problems more than ideological victories.  At the same time growing numbers of people, stressed by economic and social factors, are taking more strident stands.  The problem is not that they have strong feelings about issues, but rather that they are often unwilling to listen to those who have different views about these issues.  Differences are seen in terms of  a zero sum game – one side wins and one side loses.  So everyone gets busy trying to win.  This may include trying to disparage the other side’s position.  It rarely includes trying to understand it.

The media often focuses on the more sensationalized aspects of the conflicts which tends to make people dig in even harder.  Politicians often play into the conflicts and try to use partisan approaches to score points rather than find common ground.

At the same time there are many of all political persuasions who still seek collaborative solutions.  They recognize that there is more to gain from working together to find creative solutions to the issues raised by our differences.

Recognize common interests.  Rigorously debate issues of difference.  Develop creative solutions.  These approaches have served the country well for over 200 years.  They can serve us just as well today.

Craig Runde and Patricia Viscomi

When we ask people to describe conflict, they often use terms like stress or frustration. It is clear that conflict is trying for many people.  Conflict often leads to negative emotions which themselves can contribute to stress.  They also make it more difficult to use constructive responses to conflict.

The Conflict Dynamics Profile (CDP) puts a lot of emphasis on the emotional elements of conflict. It measures hot buttons – behaviors in others that cause us to become upset.  The CDP also looks at ways that people respond to emotional upset.  It measures the degree to which they hide, express, or act out emotions. The CDP helps people understand what triggers them in the first place, as well as how they manage the emotions once they occur.

New measures are emerging to help people deal with their emotions more effectively.  These include the use of reappraisal and reframing to help lessen reactions caused by particular interpretations of the facts surrounding a conflict.  They also involve the use of centering or mindfulness techniques to help disengage from cycles of negative thoughts and emotions.

One particular approach to managing the emotional side of conflict is coming from a field called positive psychology.  One finding from this field is that positive emotions can help serve as antidotes to negative ones, something of particular interest in conflict settings.  In now seems that positive emotions may also increase our resiliency and help us rebound from the stress caused by conflicts.

An article entitled Happiness Unpacked: Positive Emotions Increase Life Satisfaction by Building Resilience appears in the June, 2009 issue of the journal Emotion.  In the article, five researchers present results about a study they did looking at connections between positive emotions and resilience.  In particular, they found that positive emotions seem to increase people’s ego resilience, which in turn can help them better cope with stressors like conflict.

Growing evidence shows that cultivating positive emotions can play an important role in improving your ability to respond well to conflict and to help manage the stresses it brings.

Dealing with conflict is often challenging, but when the particular conflict also involves a sensitive issue, it can be even more difficult.  Here are some tips to keep in mind when addressing a sensitive topic.

• Decide if a conversation is necessary.  Some issues are simply not worth discussing because they’re of little consequence, or they seem to be resolving themselves without any kind of intervention.  For others, you might want to wait to bring them up until you’ve gathered more information or had a chance to reflect on what you want to say.  Some, though, need immediate attention because they’re causing big problems, and you anticipate those problems will only increase if not addressed soon.

• Understand that “sensitive topic” does not mean “We can’t talk about it.”  A common reason for a topic becoming “sensitive” is that people have been avoiding it for a long time.  Typical avoidance behaviors include:-Using jokes as a way of distracting from the real issue
  -Using evasive or noncommittal statements about the issue
  -Focusing on side issues instead of the major issue
  -Being too polite or non-confrontational
  -Pretending to be in agreement when you’re really not

It’s tempting to avoid a touchy subject, but so many times the problem continues to fester, and the relationship can get even worse.

• Ask permission.  Rather than just jumping right into details, saying “I have something a little sensitive to talk with you about.  Would that be okay?”sets the tone for the rest of the conversation.  Also, actually naming the issue “sensitive” and calling it as it really is can create a new norm where this particular issue won’t be so taboo in the future.

• Consider the communication environment.  Think about the appropriate time and place for your discussion.  Find a time free of interruptions, and do whatever you can to minimize any distractions.  Keep it as private as possible.

• Choose your words wisely.  Communicating your own reactions, thoughts, and feelings by using “I” statements helps lessen the potential defensiveness that might arise when dealing with a delicate issue.  Avoid using pejorative or inflammatory labels; simply describe behaviors without being judgmental.  Try not to use generalizations such as “always” and “never.”

• Be aware of non-verbal behavior.  How your message is received is greatly affected by nonverbal signals such as tone of voice, volume, body language, and word choice.  Think of how the other person might respond, and do your best to communicate in a straightforward, but warm, manner.

• Practice active listening.  Listening effectively is important in all conversations, but it is even more critical when dealing with an issue that is likely to evoke emotions.  A true demonstration that you’re really listening to the other person paves the way for a more authentic exchange and also helps both parties to regain emotional balance.

We like the quote by psychologist, John Gottman, “When you’re furious, you can’t be curious.”  Conflict is all about emotions, and when a person is off balance emotionally it becomes extremely difficult to engage in constructive responses to conflict.   You can lose sight of your objectives and become focused on how the other person has wronged you.  Retaliatory responses kick in and you are no longer interested in solving the problem as much as punishing the other person.

There has been considerable research in the area of emotion regulation over the past ten years.  We find the work of Daniel Goleman, James Gross, Kevin Ochsner, Richard Davidson, and Daniel Siegel among others to be helpful in exploring this new area.

New approaches for dealing with negative emotions show promise and these techniques hold great promise for improving responses to conflict.  Use of centering, reflection, mindfulness, and cognitive reappraisal appear to calm our inner tensions associate with conflict threats and provide us with a way of regain emotional balance so that we can become curious about why we are experiencing a conflict and how the other person may be seeing things so different than we do. Advances in positive psychology show promise in helping people develop more positive moods that can serve as an antidote to the negative emotions that can arise in conflict.  By managing one’s emotions, a person can improve their chances of using constructive behavioral responses to deal with conflict more effectively.

As most certified CDP users know, there are myriad uses of the instrument in a variety of settings.  One context which is becoming more popular is within institutions of higher education, both with students and also with college administration, faculty, and staff members.

Roger Sorochty of the University of Tulsa has found the CDP to be extremely useful at several different levels within the university.  As Vice President for Enrollment and Student Services, Sorochty heads up a multitude of divisions including undergraduate admissions, financial aid, and student support services such as housing, dining, fitness center, sororities and fraternities, etc.

Having worked at Eckerd College quite a few years ago, Sorochty was familiar with the CDP and thought it would be a great development opportunity for his staff.  He initially offered15 of his staff members at the Director level in his division to take the CDP-I and then participate in a two-hour, group feedback session about the results.  Since the response was so positive, he then expanded the program to include the full-time Residence Hall Directors.  These professional staff members have to work closely as a team and take turns being “on call” during the week and on weekends.  Additionally, they are often faced with conflict situations with students—everything from homesickness to roommate differences to excessive partying (Who can forget all the issues that arise in an undergraduate dorm!).  Again, participants said feedback from the CDP was extremely useful, especially in regard to knowing and understanding their hot buttons.

With the success of these two pilot programs, Sorochty then offered the course to 40 student leaders (from student government, orientation, Greek organizations, and other student clubs) on campus.  Given that these students have had little leadership training and there is constant turnover in these positions from year to year, he knew the CDP would provide an excellent opportunity to develop leadership skills.

“Students these days are used to Facebook and different kinds of social media so they are very forthcoming in sharing their feedback and gaining insights about their conflict management skills,” says Sorochty.  After reading the Development Guide and working through the Action Planning steps, the students think feedback from the instrument can definitely improve relationships.  “It is an eye-opening experience for many of them because they realize that some of the behaviors they are currently using don’t actually work to their advantage,” says Sorochty.  “The fact that the instrument focuses on behaviors rather than styles is ideal because students say, ‘I can work on changing that.’”  Sorochty also notes that the instrument helps the students develop a common language where conversation about concepts such as constructive/destructive behaviors and hot buttons becomes commonplace.

Some of the students’ comments about the experience are profound.  When asked to describe the most significant thing he learned about himself, one student said, “I always thought I didn’t experience conflict much, but I learned all I was doing was just avoiding it or yielding.”  In response to handling conflict differently in the future, another said, “I will definitely try to be more sensitive to the other person’s point of view and try to imagine what they must think of my position before judging them (even if I still disagree.)”  Several students concur they could apply the CDP concepts to their everyday life at college.

Lola  Mason, Director of Organizational Development at Carnegie Mellon and an adjunct faculty member at the Heinz Graduate School, has also seen the benefits of the CDP firsthand with her students.  As part of a seven-week conflict resolution class, graduate students take the CDP-I and then create an informal 360 report for themselves by interviewing four people from among family members, friends, or coworkers.  After explaining the CDP scales, the students share their results and ask for feedback including, “Can you give me an example of a time when you saw me using this particular behavior?”  After the interviews are completed, students submit a paper detailing what they learned and how they might handle conflict differently in the future.

Mason says there are lots of “ahas” from the assignment.  Having previously received feedback on the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory, students make multiple connections between their own personal styles and behaviors and how they connect with others.  One student shared a story of how she did her interview with a previous coworker who is now a friend.  They happened to have the discussion in a restaurant.  The student told her friend how she was surprised that she scored so high on Demeaning Others and asked, “I don’t think I ever do that” to which the friend replied, “You just did to our waiter!  When the waiter said they were out of iced tea, you promptly started to shout at him and berate him for something that wasn’t his fault.”  From this timely example came a very insightful exchange that increased the student’s self awareness tremendously.

Other students share similar stories where having the interviews/discussions about the CDP with people who know them well leads to closer relationships and improved conflict resolution skills.  Example:  “I have to admit that it is almost scary how accurately the instrument describes me in almost every situation.  And, the feedback I got from my interviews only provides me with more evidence to that effect.  To be completely honest, the past few weeks have been one of the strongest periods of internal reflection I’ve had in quite some time, and it has been very helpful in helping me understand a lot of my own behaviors.”

Interestingly, the word has spread about the benefits of the class, and there is a huge waiting list for registration.  The class draws students from many different majors, including highly technical fields.  Often, it is the first time such students have ever explored these kinds of conflict issues.

Another certified user who uses the CDP extensively is Dale Robinson, Manager of Conflict Resolution Programs at Virginia Tech.  Robinson oversees three primary areas for faculty and staff:  Mediation Services, Conflict Workshops, and Conflict Coaching.

Robinson and his staff of 20 trained mediators offer the CDP-I as a “post-mediation” service for participants to examine more thoroughly implications from the original dispute.  Feedback from the instrument is often helpful in illuminating how a person’s behaviors may have escalated a conflict.  Robinson says that not only do participants gain insight into what they brought to the situation, but they also have a chance to develop more constructive responses for the future through individual debriefing sessions.

In addition to Mediation Services, Robinson also conducts several conflict resolution training programs throughout the year for faculty, staff, and sometimes students.  These workshops are framed around the CDP-I and can last anywhere from two hours to a full day depending on the objectives and type of audience.  Robinson begins by explaining the CDP concepts, conducts a group debriefing on the feedback, and then spends the remainder of the time focusing on skill-building areas such as active listening and generating options.

As a follow-up, participants are offered the opportunity to schedule an individual feedback session on their CDP results which, in turn, often leads to additional coaching.  Robinson says these individual coaching meetings are perfect for devising new strategies and helping people to apply constructive resolution techniques to ongoing situations they’re dealing with in the workplace.

One reason the CDP is so useful, says Robinson, is that it “helps people realize that everyone uses both constructive and destructive behaviors when dealing with conflict.  We’re not alone when we don’t always respond as best as we could, but the CDP and the accompanying Development Guide give us encouragement and ways to improve.”

Because of the success of these programs at Virginia Tech, Robinson has been asked to help develop the curriculum for new programs at the Virginia Department of Employment Dispute Resolution.  The Department’s mission is to provide state agencies and their employees with a broad range of workplace dispute resolution tools.

At Eckerd College, the CDP is well known throughout the campus as it is used at the Leadership Development Institute, the Center for Conflict Dynamics, in academic programs on campus, and also with staff development opportunities.  Patty Viscomi, Associate Director of the Center for Conflict Dynamics and Norm Smith, Associate Dean and Director of the Center for Applied Liberal Arts have collaborated for many years using the CDP.

In a class for freshmen called Options for the Future: Career and Self Understanding, students take a variety of assessment tools in addition to the CDP including the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory, the Realise2, and the Strong Interest Inventory.  The discussions about the CDP feedback focus on issues with roommates, professors, and parents.  Students are surprised to learn how the concepts can be applied in so many different arenas.  “Why didn’t you teach us this in high school?” is a common reaction after students experience group exercises and lectures which highlight the different CDP scales.  Viscomi often uses starter activities from the CDP Trainer’s Tool Kit to kick off the program and help the students to think about specific topics related to human interaction and conflict resolution.

At New York University, staff and faculty are invited to participate in professional development offerings throughout the year.  One particular program that has been very well received is the Navigating Conflict course taught by Jamie Telegadis, President of JTA Consulting, Inc.  This half-day course includes Deans, Assistant Deans, managers, and supervisors from all different divisions of the university.

Telegadis uses the CDP-I as the focal point of the program.  After taking part in ice breaker exercises, walking through the CDP scales, and receiving feedback, participants then spend the remainder of the morning concentrating on two specific items:  Perspective Taking and Reaching Out.  As part of the Reaching Out content, Telegadis uses an exercise from Developing Your Conflict Competence by Craig Runde and Tim Flanagan which enables people to practice creating and delivering apologies.  Later, participants engage in a partner activity where they formulate action plans and apply lessons from the day to real-life conflicts.

Telegadis says it’s amazing how the program can change people’s perceptions about the value of conflict.  Once they examine the scales in more depth, they are able to take more innovative approaches to working through disputes.

As the CDP becomes more widely used within colleges and universities, the potential for the concepts to expand into different organizations increases.   As students graduate and establish careers in multiple fields, the hope is that they will bring more effective conflict resolution skills along with them.

When we ask people how they generally deal with conflict, they almost always that they tend to avoid it.  This is not surprising because most
people describe conflict in negative terms, and we try to stay away from things
that we do not like.  At the same time when they are asked whether avoidance strategies work, the same people say that they generally do not.  So what to do?

A first step is to understand why we avoid.  As was mentioned our attitudes
towards conflict are often negative.  When we ask people why, they respond in a number of ways.  Sometimes they say that conflict is emotionally distressing.  Others indicate that they are concerned about hurting others and disturbing their relationship with the other person.  Some mention that they lack good ways of managing conflict.

When people are concerned about the emotional aspects of conflict, we encourage them to reflect further on it.  What aspects of conflict upset
them?  We sometimes have them take the Conflict Dynamics Profile instrument to uncover their conflict hot buttons and the values that underlie them. Some people get angry when challenged but for people who avoid conflict they generally do so because they are afraid.

When fear causes avoidance, we recommend Tim Ursiny’s book, The Coward’s Guide to Conflict: Empowering Solutions for Those Who Would Rather Run Than Fight.  In it Tim provides some excellent approaches to overcoming fears (often irrational) that can arise in conflicts.  Another helpful guide to overcoming the tendency to avoid conflict is Managing Conflict Dynamics: A Practical Guide available from the Center for Conflict Dynamics.

It is understandable that people sometimes avoid conflict because they do not
want to hurt others or cause relationship problems.  In the short term they may feel relieved because they do not have to face the other person.  When we ask them if this actually solves their problem, they almost always admit that it does not.  Tensions simmer and eventually the problem comes back – often with a vengeance.

So it a person wants to change their approach and stop avoiding conflict, what can they do?  How can you engage effectively with the other person?  We recommend behaviors described in the Conflict Dynamics Profile as active constructive responses.  These include Reaching Out, Perspective
Taking, Expressing Emotions, and Creating Solutions.

Reaching Out provides a way of getting communications restarted.  It is
particularly helpful after avoidance has caused interaction to slow down.  A person can reach out by asking the other person it they would be willing to try to work through the issue.  At times it might involve an apology.

Perspective Taking focuses on trying to understand the other person’s viewpoint on the conflict. It involves listening carefully and trying to truly understand the other person’s thoughts and feelings.

Expressing Emotions includes sharing your thoughts and feelings about the conflict with the other person.  It is an authentic expression of how you view the conflict and involves open, honest discussion of how you see the conflict.

Creating Solutions concerns working together with the other person to discover collaborative solutions to your joint problem.  It helps turn adversarial exchanges into mutual problem solving.

These behaviors help improve engagement.  They also involve risk and
can be scary.  You might reach out to another person only to be reject.  You
might not like hearing what the other person has to say about you. It can be
intimating to share your true thoughts and feelings about a conflict.  At the same time, not doing anything – avoiding the conflict – usually causes it to get worse.  If you can use constructive behaviors to engage the other person, you are more likely to come up with better solutions.

There are times though when avoiding still makes sense.  When there
are threats of violence associated with the conflict, it may be better to let
things cool down or to get outside help before engaging in discussions.  Fortunately, these situations are the exception.  Effective engagement will
generally lead to better outcomes.

In his book The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, author Patrick Lencioni identifies the first dysfunction of teams as lack of trust.  When people are concerned that others might use what they say against them, then they stop talking.  This describes Lencioni’s second dysfunction of teams – fear of conflict. It is a very common situation.  When we talk with people they always tell us that they generally handle conflict by trying to avoid.  People don’t talk about their issues.  Communication dries up, and conflict festers.

So how to deal handle the twin factors of trust and conflict.  We suggest addressing trust first.  If it is lacking, the environment will not be ripe for effective communications.  Lencioni suggests addressing trust in part by helping people get to know one another as people.  Many people in workplace contexts have only a superficial knowledge of their colleagues.

Even simple exercises like having people sharing a unique fact about themselves can open things up.  It helps people recognize that the others in their group are people just like themselves.  We often open programs by having people pick a conflict quote among a number that we provide to them.  They share their favorite quote and tell why they like it.  Once again this exercise helps people get a better understanding of their colleagues and enables them to see the others as real people as opposed to just adversaries.

When working with teams we encourage team leaders to be willing to encourage open debate of issues by being vulnerable themselves.  If they are willing to share their thoughts and beliefs about issues, it can help encourage others to do the same.  This is particularly true, if they make it clear that their thoughts are not necessarily right and that it is important that everyone be heard.

When trust is high is becomes easier to share divergent thoughts and not be concerned that people will hold your thoughts against you.  Conversely, when trust is low people are very wary about sharing anything.  The best approach involves trying to prevent breaches of trust in the first place.  While trust cannot be legislated, it can be supported by the creation of norms that emphasize speaking directly to someone if you are upset with them and not talking behind people’s backs.

Even in the best of situations, breaches of trust will occur.  It is important that these breaches be addressed and efforts be made to rebuild trust.  We recommend Dennis and Michelle Reina’s book, Rebuilding Trust in the Workplace, as a great guide for doing this.  It is also critical to remember that while people may forgive once breach of trust they almost never forgive multiple breaches.