It helps in our efforts to become conflict masterful to be prepared when we anticipate conflict could erupt. This might occur for reasons such as when we know we have offended someone and that she or he has asked to talk to us. We might ourselves want to raise an issue we know will be difficult for the other person, possibly leading to a conflict. This could be due to an event, action or words in which she or he expressed something or acted in a way that upset us. Or, it could be that the other person is unaware we are about to introduce a matter which she or he does not expect.

How to respond to or initiate difficult conversations can arouse unsettling feelings – such that we might put them off indefinitely, soften our words to the extent they lose their meaning and intent, accommodate the other person by taking on the responsibility that is not ours to own, and so on.

I will refer to Plan A as the initial methodical way of preparing what we want to say and how, as well as how we want to respond to the other person’s possible words and reactions to us. It’s a good exercise and one that helps build confidence and comfort for the anticipated challenges. It also builds insights by stepping into the other person’s shoes to effectively anticipate what she or he is likely to say.

Plan B is still a methodical way of preparing ourselves. It contemplates if things do not evolve the way we hope Plan A is intended.

This week’s Conflict Mastery Quest(ions) blog invites you to consider Plan A and B about a difficult conversation ahead for you – which you are initiating and/or responding to.

• What situation comes to mind that you anticipate will be a challenging conversation? Will you be initiating it or on the receiving end of someone else doing so?
• What are you most worried about?
• What are the messages you plan to convey in either case (as initiator or on the receiving end)?
• How do you want to be and be perceived?
• What else does the preparation for Plan A entail?
• What makes Plan A the optimal way for the initial interaction?
• If Plan A goes the way you intend, what is the anticipated outcome?
• What challenges are there with Plan A that you have yet to work out?
• What is Plan B, if Plan A doesn’t work as you hope?
• What are the pros of Plan B? What are the cons?
• What more do you need right now before either Plan A or B unfolds?
• What else occurs to you as you consider these questions?
• What insights do you have?

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?