In many interpersonal disputes we tend to keep the associated tension alive with ongoing arguing about the same issues over and over. That is, it’s clear things are not getting resolved and yet, we continue to raise them, fight about them and agonize about them.

There are many reasons for this observed in my experience as a coach and mediator and well…personally. Some reasons for sustaining the conflict have to do with our hopes and expectations of changing the other person’s mind. Other reasons may be due to feelings of hurt, disappointment, betrayal and strong emotions that are keeping us from reconciling matters in our hearts, precluding us from moving on. Some of the time we are unresolved about the apparent outcome, finding it very hard to accept. At times, being in conflict is the only way to stay connected to the other person.

These and other reasons can pervade and make our lives miserable, as well as the persons’ with whom we are in dispute. Even those who hear our ongoing struggle are impacted. It even seems that we cannot get enough of the angst, or don’t know when enough is enough!

If you are in a continuing battle with someone and the above resonates for you, here are this week’s Conflict Mastery Quest(ions) to help you process the dynamic:

• What was the dispute about?
• What was your desired outcome?
• What is most important to you about that (your answer to the previous question)?
• What do you think the other person wanted as an outcome?
• What may be most important to her or him about that outcome (your answer to the previous question)?
• What is your specific part in keeping the dispute active?
• What is the other person’s part?
• What usually has to happen for you in a dispute when you can finally say “enough is enough”?
• How will you know in this one when enough is enough?
• What will you need for and from yourself to be able to move on?
• What else occurs to you as you consider these questions?
• What insights do you have?

I recently returned from a very interesting holiday in Myanmar (formerly Burma). It was fascinating in so many ways, including the many visits to amazing Buddhist temples that pervade the countryside and cities where I travelled.

At one pagoda there were a series of statements surrounding a structure in the courtyard and one of them said ‘May You Be Free From Five Enemies’. The picture here shows the writing in English and Burmese. I smiled when I saw this, and at the woman beside me who asked, ‘what if you have 6 enemies?’ In any case, I felt like the saying came as a reminder that my next blog would be due shortly after my return – and here was a perfect topic!

So, as you contemplate whether you believe you have enemies and who they are, consider the following etymology and definition for enemies:

The etymology of the term enemy is from Latin language for ‘bad friend’ (Latin: inimicus). As for definitions, there were several, including that an “enemy or foe is an individual or group that is seen as forcefully adverse or threatening”. And, an enemy is “a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent”.

Here are this week’s Conflict Mastery Quest(ions) on this topic:

• If you believe you have enemies, who are they (by name)?
• For what reasons do you consider each of these people enemies?
• Do they know you consider them enemies?
• If you answered ‘yes’ to the above question, how do they know?
• If you answered ‘no’ to the same question, what do they NOT know about why you view them as enemies?
• What do you like about being enemies with these people? What don’t you like about it?
• Which one(s) of these people would you rather not be enemies with, if any?
• Why do you feel that way about the people you referred to in your response to the above question?
• How might you interact differently with the people you don’t want to be enemies with to improve the relationship? What specifically might you say or do?
• What other shifts in your thinking or feelings may you make to rebuild the relationships with those with whom you’d rather not be enemies?
• What else occurs to you as you consider these questions?
• What insights do you have?

While avoiding conflict is often perceived as an inappropriate way to manage our interpersonal conflicts, there are times walking away is the optimum approach. The idea of walking away presented here refers to not engaging in a dispute with another because we are not strongly vested in the subject or outcome. Or maybe, the issues are overly contentious and we just don’t want to challenge the relationship – which may be tenuous in any case. Such reasons and others often inform whether we walk towards or away from conflict.

It is suggested that the factor to consider in distinguishing avoiding and walking away has to do with whether we are actually avoiding the conflict – because we don’t feel confident and comfortable standing our ground. This is as opposed to walking away because it’s not important enough to us to assert ourselves, undermine the other person, or cause unnecessary conflict.

The Conflict Mastery Quest(ions) blog this week asks you to consider a dispute and whether it is avoiding or walking away you are doing – according to the description here.

• What is the dispute about that you are (thinking of) walking away from?
• On a scale of 1-10, 10 being very important to you and 1 being unimportant to you, what rating would you give the level of importance of the issues to you? How would you rate the importance of the relationship?
• On a scale of 1-10, 10 being very important and 1 being unimportant, what rating might the other person give the level of importance of the issues? How may she or he rate the importance of the relationship?
• If you walk away, what would you walk away from?
• What would you walk to?
• If you think you are avoiding the conflict, what are you avoiding?
• What are the pros and cons of walking away for you?
• What are the pros and cons of walking away for the other person?
• What is the difference for you between walking away and avoiding?
• Whether you are walking away or avoiding, what do you suppose you are missing out on learning?
• What else occurs to you as you consider these questions?
• What insights do you have?

It’s only recently that I heard the term “denialism”, defined by Wikipedia as:

“In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person’s choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth.  In the sciences, denialism is the rejection of basic facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a subject, in favor of radical and controversial ideas.”

I am not sure why it’s a new word for me. In any case, taking the first sentence particularly, it is a good descriptor of what happens to many of us when we are in conflict. This may be evident, for instance, when we hold tightly to our position and do not let in the other person’s truth. We could be denying the situation is dire for us as a defense, i.e. to avoid facing the schism that has grown between us. Then again, we might be obstinate, unrealistic, overly optimistic, or any number of other traits that preclude us from acknowledging the reality of the conflict and its impact.

This week’s Conflict Mastery Quest(ions) blog invites you to look closely at a dispute you are having and check out the denialism that may be going on.

• What is the dispute about from your perspective?
• What might the other person say her or his perspective is on what’s going on between you?
• If a third person was listening to and watching you, what might her or his version be of what’s happening?
• What is the truth you are denying about the dispute?
• What compels you to deny that truth?
• What truth about you does the other person not know?
• What truth might she or he be denying?
• If you knew the other person’s truth (your answer to the above question), what difference might that make to you?
• If the other person heard your truth, how might that impact her or him? How might it impact on the outcome of the conflict?
• How does denying help you? How does denying not help you?
• What else occurs to you as you consider these questions?
• What insights do you have?

It occurs to me that there are common “interpersonal dispute equations”. Here’s one of them. It is straightforward and yet, complex in its seeming simplicity. It goes something like:

You hurt me + I hurt you back = Dispute

A more specific example might be: “You blamed me for making a mistake that cost us money” + “I accused you of being a bully and taking no responsibility for your part” = dispute.

Or, of course, it could be reversed – I hurt you + you hurt me back = dispute.

For instance: “I didn’t include you in the get together” + “You hurt me back by telling me I was inconsiderate and selfish” = dispute.

Not only is it challenging to step back (Stepping Back in Conflict) before reacting when we are offended by what someone says or does. It is also difficult to maintain grace and composure and not become defensive in the moment. The need to be right, to retaliate and many other variables seem to preclude an equation that adds a positive part, leading to a more positive result – like problem solving.

An example – referring to the first equation above – may be instead: “You blamed me for making a mistake that cost us money” + I say “You are right. I thought I was helping the situation. How can I rectify this?” = problem solving.

With this in mind, this week’s Conflict Mastery Quest(ions) blog asks you to consider a situation in which you added to the dispute equation by reacting and initiating a conflict.

• When you bring to mind a dispute in which you reacted negatively to something someone said or did, how would you describe the dispute equation?
• What might you have said differently to express your reaction that may have been better received and led to problem solving?
• What might the other person have said differently to express what provoked her or him about you – that you may have received better?
• Looking at another dispute – one that you initiated – how would you describe that equation (starting with what you said or did that started things)?
• How might the other person describe the equation – considering her or his perspective on your part?
• What did the other person read into your intentions that seemed to upset her or him most?
• How might you have more effectively raised the issue that resulted in the dispute equation you described?
• What do you think the ingredients are of a problem solving equation instead of a dispute one?
• What other tips do you have about ways to keep the equation a problem solving one rather than a dispute initiating one?
• In what ways does this notion of examining the equation resonate for you?
• What else occurs to you as you consider these questions?
• What insights do you have?