Would you call yourself a people-pleaser? If so, how does this lead to conflict in your life? If you are not a people-pleaser but find you get irritated with people who are, what specifically triggers you that results in conflict? These are just a few questions to consider with respect to this week’s Conflict Mastery Quest(ions) blog, if you are interested in exploring the concept of people-pleasing.

So, what is people-pleasing all about? This is another query that comes up for reflective people who want to shift their tendency to be so, or to better understand those who seem to spend a lot of energy trying to placate others. The reasons why some people-please may be to avoid conflict, to gain favour (to be liked, respected, needed), to get something, to make up for wrongdoing, or due to guilt – to name a few possibilities.

Where does conflict arise when it comes to this character trait? For some, when provoked by people-pleasers, it’s because it is experienced as disingenuous and phony. Some attribute other things to people-pleasers, such as being insecure and needy and that they must be trying to prove something. Others see people-pleasers as manipulative. As a consequence of these and other reactions to people-pleasing, conflict can ensue. For instance, we don’t know or misinterpret the real reason and react accordingly – leading to conflict. For those who people-please, there might be a tendency to react to direct or indirect criticism and not understand how good intentions, insecurities, reasons, etc. get misread.

Please consider if this week’s Conflict Mastery Quest(ions) blog questions give you more to think about regarding people-pleasing:

• If you are a people-pleaser, what do you think compels you to be so?
• If there’s a possibility you fear something, what are you afraid of?
• How does people-pleasing work for you? What doesn’t work for you about this trait?
• In what ways has being a people-pleaser led to conflict in your life?
• Considering one of these conflicts, what is the situation? What would you have preferred to say in that situation that you didn’t?
• For what reasons didn’t you, in that case?
• What were the consequences of not saying what you wanted to?
• Now let’s look at questions if you dislike people-pleasers. If that’s the case, what is it specifically you dislike?
• What has actually led to a conflict due to your perception and experience of the other person as a people-pleaser?
• What reason(s) might the person trying to please give you that would have made you less reactive?
• What else occurs to you as you consider these questions?
• What insights do you have?

For this week’s blog I am bringing back one that was popular a couple of years ago. So, this one is from the archives (originally posted November 29, 2016):

It is common to attribute the term ‘values conflict’ as the reason for dissension between us and another person and we may say such conflicts are not resolvable. That’s true for some disputes, but I don’t believe all, and this week’s Conflict Mastery Quest(ions) blog is about the sorts of differences that may seem irreconcilable.

In some research I did over 15 years ago, study group members identified that when they are provoked by something another person says or does they perceive a value, need or aspect of their identity is being undermined or threatened. The participants didn’t use those words per se but it was evident by the language they used that they felt that one or more of these aspects of their being was being challenged, and they reacted accordingly. As part of the research and ultimately, the development of the CINERGY® conflict management coaching model, the study group members also explored what aspects of the other person’s being they themselves might be challenging. Checking out the possible attributions – and assumptions being made – helped them (and continues to help my coaching clients) gain increased understanding of the conflict dynamic between the disputants.

The above research and its results indicated that having different values does not mean we cannot reconcile our differences. That is, if we perceive the other person is undermining our value of fairness, it doesn’t mean that our ideas of fairness have to be the same or of the same degree to be able to resolve our differences. Similarly, it doesn’t mean the other person is necessarily unfair or intends to be, but that we hold different perspectives on fairness.

Though having disparate values may not be reconcilable, it helps to explore what our respective beliefs are in relation to the issues in dispute and discuss how and in what way(s) they feel undermined. Doing so can result in an understanding that honours our differences – rather than operating on the basis that different values (apparently) necessarily make our conflicts irreconcilable.

If you are referring (or have referred) to a dispute you are having (or had) as a ‘values conflict’, consider the following questions:

• What are you and the other person disputing about?
• Which value (or values) of yours do you feel is (are) being challenged?
• What specifically is the other person saying that leads you to your answer to the previous question?
• Which value(s) of her or his do you see as disparate from yours?
• How do you know that is the other person’s value or values (referring to your answer to the previous question)?
• What value or values, if any, may the two of you share?
• What do you not understand or accept about the other person’s value(s) as it (they) pertains to your dispute?
• What might she or he not accept or understand about your value(s) in the dispute?
• If it isn’t necessarily a ‘values conflict’, how else may you frame it?
• What difference, if any, does that frame make (your answer to the above question)?
• What else occurs to you as you consider these questions?
• What insights do you have?