Conflict Resolution Training: When Resolving Conflicts, It’s The Little Words That Count

Resolving conflicts is largely a matter of paying attention to the little things, especially the little words. 

Indeed, you may be in conflict because you spend a lot of time
“butting” others rather than “anding” them.

For example, if I say,“I agree with you, but…” what I’m really saying is that I don’t agree with you at all. In fact, I’m suggesting that everything you’ve said prior to the word “but” is wrong.

On the other hand, if I say, “I agree with you and…” I’m suggesting
that what you are saying is true and what I am about to say is
equally true.

Another little word that seems innocuous and can have major
consequences for conflict resolution is the word “because.”  We use
“because” to explain a cause and effect relationship that, to us,
is a rational explanation for the events we observe. Consider that
conflicts occur when we attribute motivations to someone’s actions
and then respond as though our assessments are true while, at the
same time assessing our similar actions differently.

For example:
You are a team leader who is angry at one of your team members who
is late and you just know it is because she is selfish and doesn’t
care about the needs of the team. When you arrive
late for a meeting with your team, you excuse yourself with the
obviously rational explanation that you were late because you were
completing a conversation with another team leader. 

A coworker lets you down again. It’s obviously because he is
unreliable. When you let a coworker down again, it’s obviously because,

as your coworker must certainly know, you’ve been so overworked.

No one will let you into a line of traffic during rush hour. It’s
because other drivers are inconsiderate. When you won’t let other
drivers cut in front of you during rush hour, it's because too many

people have already cut in front of you.

A peer gives your boss a birthday card because he’s angling for a
promotion. When you give your boss a birthday card, it's because, as everyone
knows, you’ve been working together a long time and you really care
about him.

Your direct report asks for a raise and it’s because she doesn’t
understand the economic difficulties the company is experiencing.

When you ask for a raise, it's because you're worth it

since the work you do, as all can see, has a direct impact on the

bottom line of the company.

You don’t give someone feedback because you don’t want to hurt his
feelings. When he doesn’t give you feedback, you’re certain it’s
because he doesn’t want you to succeed.

Your spouse didn’t pick up the dry cleaning because she’s angry at
you. When you didn’t go to the grocery store, it's because, as might happen to anyone, you simply forgot.

The waiter is giving you slow service because he’s incompetent. When you
didn't immediately respond to a request, it was because, as everyone knows,

you are meticulous and you didn’t want to make a mistake.

In all these instances, suppose we substitute “and” for “but?”
Suppose instead of creating a “because” we simply asked? Suppose we
started from empathy rather than blame? Suppose we assumed that
people are just as reasonable as we are, just with different
reasons? Suppose, instead of demanding that people justify their
positions, we accepted their positions without justification?

One of the rules I encourage people to live by is to stop
pretending they know what motivates another person and to simply
ask.

  The goal of conflict resolution is not to change another’s view of
the world (a useless exercise if there ever was one). The goal is
to find a compromise agreement to which all can be committed.

Simply changing “but” to “and” while also asking instead of creating
“because” reasons won’t, of course, resolve a conflict.

Consider, however, that if we start from a different set of
premises than the ones we’re currently using, we will get very
different outcomes.