Connecting Communication
by Dan Joseph
All of us experience relationship conflicts. Perhaps there comes a day when your spouse accuses you of being insensitive. Or a friend says something to you that feels unkind. Or a coworker blames you for a problem that is outside of your control.
You feel defensive, angry, and hurt. You don't know what to say.
Perhaps you argue with the person, trying to help him or her see
things your way. Perhaps you withdraw in silence. Either way, the
relationship begins to become strained.
If a pattern of conflicts begins to repeat, it's only a matter of time before the relationship may weaken and splinter. Eventually you or the other person might lose interest and walk away from the whole thing.
Sadly, this happens over and over. In my work as a human resources consultant — and more recently, my work in the counseling field — I've been amazed to see how many problems stem from relatively minor interpersonal conflicts that are not resolved.
Some conflicts are unavoidable, of course — and actually, some degree of conflict in a relationship can be quite growth-producing. But patterns of chronic disharmony will stress any relationship to the point of breaking.
Thankfully, there are some basic communication strategies that can have an enormously positive and strengthening effect on relationships. I often wonder why they don't teach these types of communication skills in school; my guess is that better communication would resolve a great deal of the world's conflict.
Before discussing some communication strategies that promote harmony, let me first explore what doesn't work.
The Conflict Style
No one likes to feel accused or misunderstood. Unfortunately, when you're caught in an argument with someone, there's typically a lot of accusation and misunderstanding flying around. Sometimes the emotional pain of this can become intense.
In a desperate attempt to end the conflict or argument, the following often takes place:
- One person becomes determined to make the other person see things his way.
- He begins to attack the emotional state, confidence, or personality traits of the other person in an attempt to weaken the other's position.
- He then attempts to steer the other person's behavior in a particular direction in order to "resolve" things in a "harmonious" way.
The problem with this approach is that even if you win the battle, you lose the war. Each victory is a pyrrhic one; each "win" weakens the relationship. The loser in the conflict inevitably feels resentful and disrespected, and he or she usually begins to plot an exit from the relationship.
And of course, when two people are engaging in these strategies with equal fervor — and each person refuses to "lose" — things often escalate. There are many examples of minor disputes leading to violent confrontations.
So this approach doesn't work, despite its nearly-universal use. Let me outline an alternative that parallels each of these three steps.
The Connecting Style
The following alternative approach might seem like common sense. However, it's remarkably rare for people in the midst of a conflict to shift into this style of relating. It does, in fact, take quite a bit of practice before this becomes a habit.
In the following "connecting" style, you don't begin by setting yourself at odds with the other person. Instead, you begin by:
- Deciding that your primary goal is to connect with this person in a cooperative, harmonious way. You might actually state this to the person.
Contrast this to the adversarial approach that I outlined above. In that approach, the goal was to convert the other person to your point of view — essentially, to "win" the argument or conflict.
Here, though, you're making a firm, strong stand for connection and harmony. That is your goal. That is what you want. My guess is that anyone who shifts toward this new goal will find that conflicts begin to naturally dissolve.
Setting (and perhaps stating) the goal sets the forward motion of the conversation. It is a powerful beginning. However, speaking practically, a next helpful step when you find yourself in a conflict is to:
- Report what is going on for you in a non-blaming, non-manipulative way. You are simply sharing your experience.
Many theories of positive communication focus on this step.
A classic, proven technique at this step is to use "I feel..." statements. The key is to simply report what you're experiencing in a non-manipulative way. We cannot read each other's minds accurately. Understanding this, you're simply sharing what is going on for you. You are laying your cards on the table.
Note the contrast between this step and the step two in the battling strategy. In the previous approach, you focused on the other person's argument, character traits, emotional state, and so forth. In this approach, by contrast, you focus on your own experience.
This can be quite challenging. There is usually a strong temptation to "lash out" and attack the other person. But here, you are stepping back from your own experience enough to observe and report on it.
Again, most communication training programs focus on this step. Much has been written about how to do this skillfully. I'll plan to write more about this in the future.
However, let me now move on to an extremely important third step. Having set your goal for connection in the first step, and reported on your experience in the second step, you now:
- Try to find a win-win solution to the conflict that works for both of you.
It is remarkably rare for people to seek "win-win" solutions that benefit both parties. At least, it's rare to shift into this mode while in the midst of a conflict. However, it's a powerful step.
Instead of attempting to "steer" or manipulate the other person's behavior unilaterally, you are asking for help in finding a solution that works for both of you.
To be clear, you are not sacrificing your needs in this approach. You are not tolerating behavior that feels painful to you. However, you are also not demanding that the other person conform to your specific plans.
Instead, you are attempting to create a behavioral shift that works for both people — and contributes to the health of the relationship.
Again, this is a very rare approach! And yet it's extremely powerful.
In these three steps, you set the goal for harmony and connection, report about your experience, and seek a win-win solution. It's a simple — but very different — communication style.
In order to help illustrate this approach, let me give a hypothetical example of how it might look
Mary and Mike
Let's say that Mary and Mike are young adults in their 20s who have been in a romantic relationship for nearly a year. One recurring theme in their relationship involves a conflict about how much time to spend together. Mary feels that Mike is sometimes distant; Mike feels that Mary is sometimes controlling.
Recently they had an exchange like this:
Mary: So what's the plan for tonight?
Mike: Oh, I thought I told you. I'm going out with some of my friends.
Mary: You're going out with them again? I thought we talked about doing something tonight.
Mike: Well, you and I spent last night together. I wanted to see the guys this weekend too.
This is the beginning of a typical conflict pattern for Mary and Mike. Mike usually begins to feel pressured at this point; Mary begins to feel unappreciated. As the conversation unfolds, both try to help the other person redefine what a "healthy" relationship looks like, and both try to steer the other's behavior in a new direction. Resentment — and sometimes an argument — ensues.
But let's say that, in this case, Mary decides to initiate a new direction. She begins by setting the goal for cooperation and connection. She says:
Mary: You know, we often get in conflicts about this. Maybe we can try to figure out a way to work this out so that we both feel good. You know?
Mike: Yeah. Sure. That does sound like a good idea.
It's pretty difficult to battle with someone when they state that they'd like to find a harmonious solution. It's a very disarming goal. In this case, Mary suggested that they move toward harmony; Mike agreed. That new goal will begin to turn the conversation in a whole new direction.
Mary then moves on to step two. She reports what is going on for her in an honest, non-blaming way.
Mary: I really like to spend time with you. Sometimes when you go out with your friends and I'm stuck at home, I feel alone. But I also understand that you like to spend time with your friends. So I feel some conflict between those.
Mike: Yeah, I hear you. I like spending time with you too. But I just need some "guy time" every so often. It lets another side of my personality come out. You know?
Mary: Yeah, I can understand that.
As you can see, both Mary and Mike are focusing on their own experience in this exchange They aren't attacking the other person's position, perspective, or personality. Instead, they are simply putting their cards on the table and sharing what is going on for them. They are doing this without blame or attack.
The goal at this step is simply to allow the other person to understand what is going on for you. You become transparent. You allow the other person to see what is happening within you. Again, this can be very disarming.
The final step involves seeking for a win-win solution. The goal at this step is to find a resolution that both people feel comfortable with. Sometimes this can require a significant degree of creativity and open-mindedness. Here Mike says:
Mike: Well, would you like to join us tonight? I'm sure that the guys would like to see you.
Mary: I don't know... it feels like a guy thing. But how would you feel if you and I had dinner early, and then you met up with them later?
Mike: Oh, that would be fine. Actually, I didn't have any plans for dinner anyway. Maybe you and I could do dinner at 7, and then I'll meet them at 9:30.
Mary: That would be great. I wanted to get to sleep early tonight anyway.
The key at this final step is flexibility and the willingness to cooperate in finding a solution. It's really remarkable how rare this is. When we're in the midst of an argument, there is usually a tendency to "dig in" and defend our own preferences. This, of course, just leads to more conflict.
But in this case, Mary and Mike found a solution that suited both of them. They didn't have to "compromise" in a self-sacrificing way — instead, they found a course of action that felt fine to both. This sometimes requires a significant amount of open-mindedness. (And sometimes a win-win solution doesn't immediately become apparent. However, even in that case, the simple effort of looking for one leads to a greater experience of connection.)
Now, I'll be the first to admit that this new communication style doesn't always work. When you're interacting with someone who is being intentionally belligerent, all your efforts might be met with hostility.
However, I do find that this approach greatly increases the chance of positive connections. It can shift old, unproductive patterns, and clear the slate for harmonious new connections. Those new connections can set a new course for the relationship — and, in turn, lead to a greater experience of inner peace. The rewards can be great.
~~~
Let me share a couple of post-scripts to this article.
First, although I wrote that "an increasing number of psychotherapists are realizing how important it is to address interpersonal dynamics," the fact is that Alfred Adler — a contemporary of Freud's over a hundred years ago — focused much of his approach to psychotherapy on interpersonal connection.
Adler believed that a core part of therapy involved helping clients to develop "social interest," or what we might call altruism. Adler believed that this was a key element of personal happiness. It is remarkable to think how differently Western psychology would have evolved if Adler's, rather than Freud's, approach to psychotherapy would have become dominant.
I also wanted to give a quick thanks to David Burns for introducing the "win the battle, lose the war" metaphor within the context of relationship conflicts. Dr. Burns sometimes encourages his clients to lose the petty relationship "battles" on purpose, in order to win the "war" (in other words, attain peace and harmony).
Regarding further reading: I can recommend Marshall Rosenberg's Non-Violent Communication (excerpt) as a very interesting system of communication that has inspired many of my thoughts on this topic. In addition, Roger Fisher and William Ury's Getting to Yes is one of the seminal works on aiming for win-win solutions.
A Course in Miracles weighs in on this topic as well. The Course frequently encourages us to see other people's interests as aligned with (rather than in conflict with) our own. It teaches that Divine solutions to problems are structured so that "no one loses," and "everyone may gain."
And as many students of the Course know, the writing of A Course in Miracles began when two professors of psychology at Columbia University decided to aim for interpersonal harmony in their own relationship. They grew tired of conflict, and decided to seek "another way" — a more harmonious and cooperative way — of relating. The results of that simple shift are still echoing today.
To subscribe to the Quiet Mind newsletter, in which this article first appeared, please click here.
