1.1   The Four Essentials of Conflict

 Conflict has been variously defined by different experts, but all definitions land on the notion that conflict arises from incompatible actions or goals between two people that result in one person’s gain being the other person’s loss. This definition is a helpful starting point, but it is not detailed enough for our purposes. In this book, I define conflict as any situation in which what one person does:

1.    causes a loss of something for the other person, whether that loss is tangible or psychological or both, and

2.    looks like it was done intentionally, and

3.    violates the “rules” of the relationship, and

4.    is something that either one or both people can be held responsible for.   

I call these the four essentials of conflict because all four of them – loss, intent, violation, and responsibility – must be present for there to be a conflict. If any one of these essentials is missing, there’s either less potential for conflict or no conflict at all.

·       If what someone does (or doesn’t do) costs you nothing and you haven’t lost anything (either psychologically or tangibly) then there’s no reason for conflict.

·       If what someone does causes you to lose something, but whatever they did, they did unintentionally (i.e., it’s clearly accidental, not deliberate or the result of a misunderstanding of some kind), then the potential for conflict dissipates quickly.

·       Even if you’ve lost something, if it was lost fair and square according to the rules you both abide by in whatever kind of relationship you’ve in (e.g., there’s been no cheating or unfair advantage), then there’s no conflict either – you may be in a rivalry, a contest, or a competition, but not a conflict.

·       Finally, if you can’t blame the other person outright for your loss, or if neither of you can be blamed for what happened, then the potential for conflict is considerably lessened.

Keep in mind that all four essentials depend to varying degrees on interpretation and perception; that is, how you see each one. To be specific: How you see what’s been lost and how big a loss it is; what you think the other person intended in doing what they did to cause your loss; what violation occurred and how serious this violation is and who you see as responsible or at fault (and to what extent). More on this later in this chapter; in the meantime, let’s take some time to examine what constitutes loss, intent, violation, and responsibility in more detail. As you read this section, I invite you to reflect on one or more past conflicts or one that you are experiencing now.

Want an easy way of remembering the four essentials? Think LIVR. Loss + Intent + Violation + Responsibility (LIVR) = Conflict

1.       Loss

The first essential or necessary condition for conflict is loss. You experience a loss under one or more of three conditions: First, if someone takes something you value away from you without giving you enough – or anything – in return; second, if someone does something to you that you don’t want to have done to you; or third, if someone withholds, refuses, or neglects to give you something that you do want, expect, or believe you are owed or deserve. Note that in all three scenarios, the loss comes at some cost to you, for example:

·       When someone takes something of value away from you, it can cost you something to get it back or replace it.

·       When someone does something to you that you don’t want to have done to you, there’s not only an emotional cost to you (e.g., you feel betrayed), but it can also cost you time, money, or effort to recover from what was done.

·       When someone withholds, refuses, or neglects to give you something that you do want, expect, or believe you are owed or deserve, it costs you something to live without it or make up for the loss.

You know there’s a loss when there’s a cost.

Your losses and costs can be tangible, psychological, or both. Tangible losses include the loss of money, personal property, and time (e.g., the time and money it will take to repair what’s been damaged or recover what was taken from you). Physical injury or a downturn in your health and well-being are also tangible losses. The loss of a chance at something (e.g., not being told about a job opening) or not receiving money or property you’re entitled to are also tangible

Psychological loss refers to the emotional cost to you of what someone did. This includes the cost of having to endure such feelings as shock, dismay, anger, resentment, frustration, sadness, disappointment, embarrassment, or grief. Psychological loss refers not only to the emotional toll of enduring such feelings but also to the effort in mental energy of trying to cope with, resist or push these away – which can be exhausting after a while.

 Note too that sometimes psychological loss can become tangible, as when, because of the stress of a conflict, for example, you start to suffer physical symptoms such as trouble sleeping, losing your appetite, getting headaches, and the like.

 Psychological loss almost always accompanies a tangible loss (i.e., the pain and suffering from a tangible loss) – or vice versa – as noted above. But psychological loss can also be experienced without tangible loss, for instance, when someone puts you down, snubs you, or tries – but fails – to do something that could have resulted in a tangible loss. Psychological loss also stems from having to deal with a change in the way people see you because of what someone has said about you (e.g., by spreading rumors or lies).

Finally, psychological loss without tangible loss can also be felt when you want, expect, hope, or wish someone treated you a certain way, but they don’t. This often feels like a loss even though, strictly speaking, it is not a loss if nothing was ever promised to you or, for that matter, taken away from you. Not getting what you want – or are longing for – from someone is not the same thing as losing what you already have. But dashed hopes (e.g., unrequited love) and unfulfilled hopes or expectations, even if they are unfounded, often feel like a loss – sometimes a very big one – and lie at the heart of many a conflict.

Before moving on, what can ease psychological loss, regardless of whether it is tied to a tangible one or not? Several things can:

·       First and foremost, both love and liking for the other person have the potential of lessening psychological loss, at least up to a point.

·       Psychological loss can be lessened if there are enough good things about the relationship that make up for whatever the loss happens to be.

·       Psychological loss can also be reduced when you feel – rightly or wrongly – that it is your role in the relationship or that you have an obligation to endure the emotional cost to you of whatever the other person does.

·       Psychological loss can also be eased if, for whatever reason – again, rightly or wrongly – you believe you deserved it, or “had it coming,” or that you owe the other person something.

·       As they say, time heals all wounds. All emotions fade over time, and, like any emotion, the sense of loss also diminishes. Although time can and often does reduce psychological loss, in some cases – depending on the loss – time may never completely erase it.

·       Another factor that can mitigate psychological loss is that you’ve gotten used to it; that is to say, you’ve gotten used to living without whatever it was you once had.

Getting used to a loss and being immune to the effects of that loss are two different things. Just because you may have gotten used to having lost something, or more simply, have gotten used to living without it, this does not necessarily mean that you’re immune to the effects of living with that loss. As an example, if the loss is significant enough, you can still feel sad, hurt, or resentful every time you’re reminded of what it was that you once had.

What can worsen or intensify psychological loss? Usually, it’s the size of the tangible loss; that is, the greater the tangible loss, the greater the psychological loss is likely to be. However, in addition to whatever the magnitude of a tangible loss is, there are several ways by which psychological loss can be made worse.

·       Psychological loss can be worsened if, plainly and simply, you’re having a bad day, you’re stressed out or feeling on edge, feeling drained or depleted, or just fed up and exasperated because there is a history of conflict with the other person that goes back a long way, etc.

·       Psychological loss can also be worsened the more the other person benefits from whatever it was that they gained at your expense. This is especially so if they’ve gotten away scot-free!

·       Psychological loss can be magnified when, even if you’ve both suffered losses, you don’t feel you’ve yet evened the score or that you may never be able

·       Another way psychological loss can be made worse is if what the other person did comes like a thunderbolt “out of the blue” and therefore is a complete shock and surprise to you and feels like a complete betrayal. It’s even worse if you’ve been a good friend and done the other person many favors, and they are indebted to you (i.e., they owe you something to begin with).

·       Psychological loss also tends to be magnified if the other person denies, minimizes, or dismisses your loss (e.g., “What are you so upset about? It’s no big deal.”) or suggests there is something wrong with you for feeling a loss in the first place (e.g., “You’re being too sensitive.”).

·       Psychological loss can be greater when there is an audience, or witnesses, to what happened (e.g., being embarrassed in front of others or knowing that everyone will hear about what happened). Children and teenagers are especially sensitive to this. An audience can not only be in-person but can also be online, and loss can be intensified if the person knows that someone is recording what is going on and that their recording could be posted on social media.

·       Loss can also be made worse when it directly or indirectly also impacts the people you love, or for that matter, anyone you care about.

Even if you don’t personally and directly experience a loss, if a loss occurs to someone you love or care about, there’s potential for conflict with whoever you’re sure is responsible.

·       This may sound a bit odd to you, but psychological loss can be worsened when you care about the other person so much that you suffer by seeing them suffer – even if it’s all because of a conflict they started.

·       Finally, loss is magnified when you’ve got such an accumulated sense of loss (e.g., you feel a lot of anger, resentment, disappointment, etc.) from previous conflicts with the other person that you are plainly and simply fed up. You might be fed up with all the conflict you’ve been having, as well as sick and tired of the relationship and all that it’s costing you emotionally.

What can happen then is that when that person causes yet another loss for you, it feels like a much greater loss than it would have otherwise. In other words, as the saying goes, it’s the “straw that breaks the camel’s back.” So, what happens? There’s a good chance that you “snap” … you “lose it” … you “go ballistic” – an experience that I’m sure each and every one of you reading this book can relate to.

■Why Loss is So Central to Conflict

There are two related reasons why loss is so important to conflict. The first is because loss brings unfairness and inequity to any relationship, which most people find nearly impossible to tolerate and feel compelled – sooner or later – to set right. This, of course, then paves the way for escalation; so, in a nutshell, loss, inequity, and unfairness form the birthplace of conflict. Note that ordinary language reflects our sensitivity to loss, debt, inequity, and unfairness, as when we hear people say:

“I am in your debt.”

“What can I do to make it up to you?”

“Don’t get mad, get even.”

“You’re going to get yours!”

“This will cost you!”

“You’d better take back what you just said to me!”

“What have I done to deserve this?”

“You owe me an apology.”

The greater the loss, the greater the inequity,

and the greater the inequity, the greater the potential for conflict!

The second thing that ties loss so closely to conflict is that losses throw the plusses and minuses of your relationship out of kilter. There are many aspects to any kind of relationship and many ingredients that go into the making of a successful one. At the most fundamental level, however, and from the point of view of understanding the impact of loss, there are three ingredients that need to be present for many kinds of relationships to work. This includes romantic relationships, friendships, and business relationships. First, there must be plusses to the relationship for both of you; second, the plusses must outweigh the minuses for both of you; and third, you both must feel an overall sense of fairness about your relationship; that is, both of you must feel that each is contributing their fair share and getting their fair share in return.

Of course, far more goes into the making of most relationships – especially close ones – than plusses, minuses, and fairness (love or liking as well as trust, respect, commitment, communication, and honesty are just some ingredients that spring immediately to mind). I know that talking about relationships in terms like plusses and minuses (or pros and cons, costs and benefits, and the like) can sound a bit cold and oversimplified. Indeed, most of the time, most people don’t think of their relationships in these terms; however, when in conflict, relationship plusses, minuses, and fairness are exactly what come into question and what both people home in on.

To illustrate, with respect to the importance of plusses, just think for a moment how long you’d stay at a job if your boss stopped paying you; or how long you’d keep doing someone favors if none were ever returned; or just how long you’d want to stay in a romantic relationship with a partner who neglected you, ignored your desires and trampled on your hopes and dreams? In other words, both of you must get something out of any kind of relationship to want to stay in it.

With respect to minuses, being in any relationship has its costs (time, money, and effort, to name a few). Why? Because no one is perfect: There are no perfect families, no perfect romantic partners, no perfect friends, and no perfect places to work or people to work with, so no match is perfect. What this means is that give and take will always be required by both people in any kind of relationship to make it work. If you feel that what you must put into (or put up with in) a relationship (which adds to its minuses) is not worth what you’re getting out of it (its plusses), then it’s only natural that you won’t want to stay in it for long.

I’ll delve into relationship minuses and plusses and their connection to both tangible and psychological costs and benefits in much more detail in Chapter 5.

Finally, when it comes to relationship fairness, if you feel that you’re not getting your fair share out of the relationship and at the same time feel that you’re putting more than your fair share into it, you’ll feel short-changed. For example, if you’re the one who’s been doing most of the giving, continually self-sacrificing to give the other person what they need or want at your expense (i.e., over-accommodating), and making a much bigger effort to keep the relationship afloat, then sooner or later it’s only natural that you will feel angry and resentful.

So, to sum up, because of loss, it’s likely that you’ll get less out of a relationship than you did before. Also, depending on how the conflict unfolds and whether it is resolved, the relationship may now cost you more than it did before (i.e., there will be more minuses that you have to endure). Furthermore, if it looks like you’re going to have to make more of an effort to keep the relationship going, this adds to the unfairness of the relationship, and understandably, your resentment and anger will likely grow, as will the potential – sooner or later – for conflict.

If a loss is the root of conflict, then the three other essentials – intent, violation, and responsibility – are its soil.

2.       Intent

The second essential or necessary condition for conflict to arise is that you believe that what the other person did was both deliberate and aimed at you personally. The potential for conflict is considerably reduced if you believe that what the other person did was accidental or unintentional and that no harm was meant.

Determining intent can be tricky because it is sometimes hard to know for sure what someone’s intention was despite what they tell us. For example, if you can’t say “I didn’t do it” (because it’s obvious you did), at least you can say “I didn’t mean it.” We all know this is easy and tempting if you want to wiggle out of a conflict or some other awkward situation. Sometimes we can give the other person the benefit of the doubt, and sometimes we can’t; when we can, the potential for conflict is lessened.

Neglectfulness, thoughtlessness, and even forgetfulness are a case in point. For instance, let’s say your best friend doesn’t offer to help you with something important. You’d be disappointed, you may well feel hurt, and you might also feel angry and resentful, especially if you’d have happily offered to help them if it were you.

Presumably, this lapse wasn’t deliberate. Or was it? Did they completely forget about it? Or did it cross their mind, and did they decide to not offer their help (hoping you would not ask)? You just don’t know. Sometimes you can give the other person the benefit of the doubt, and sometimes you can’t. If you can, the potential for conflict is nearly zero or zero. If you can’t give them the full benefit of the doubt, the potential for conflict is reduced to the extent that you can.

The potential for conflict can also be somewhat lessened if what was done was done purely on impulse and not premeditated, providing it was not too serious a violation in the first place and an apology for it came quickly. Conflict can also be mitigated if what the other person did was well-intentioned but came out wrong (e.g., well-intentioned criticism that sounded harsh; well-intentioned advice that sounded a bit condescending, nosey, bossy, or preachy). Conflict can be diminished as well when there was a well-founded, balanced, and well-intentioned reason motivated by a sincere rationale for doing whatever caused the loss (e.g., “I didn’t tell you because I didn’t want to hurt your feelings.” “I didn’t want to worry you.”).

Finally, when there’s no ill will at all, and it’s not personal, even if there’s psychological or tangible loss (e.g., a layoff at a business because of an economic downturn), then the potential for conflict is considerably lessened. So as long as it’s not personal, even if there are hard feelings, there’s a lesser chance of a conflict erupting.

The impact of intent is worse when something was clearly done with malice or provocation in mind and likely with forethought as well, to inflict tangible or psychological loss. Indeed, the greater the ill will behind the intent, the greater the potential for conflict. As it does with loss and inequity, everyday language reflects our sensitivity to someone’s intent:

“I didn’t mean it.”

“I didn’t want this to happen.”

“I meant no harm.”

“I meant well; it just came out wrong.”

“It’s nothing personal – this is purely a business decision.”

“I was just kidding.”

“I was only trying to be funny.”

“I was only trying to help.”

“It was an honest mistake.”

3.       Violation

The third essential and necessary condition for conflict to arise is when the other person does something that violates what you’ve assumed to be one of the rules you agreed to about what’s OK to do and what’s not OK to do in your relationship. All relationships have stated as well as unstated boundaries, rules, and expectations. These boundaries, rules, and expectations are typically based on shared social customs, norms, values, or codes of conduct, whether formal (e.g., a professional code of conduct) or informal (e.g., “bro code”).

Conflict can stem from mistaken assumptions or misunderstandings over how you’re supposed to treat one another and what has – or has not – been agreed to in this regard. This situation can arise when you don’t know each other well, or at least well enough, to know exactly what each other’s customs, values, or relationship rules and expectations are.

As everyone knows, early on in any relationship, whether it be a business relationship, a friendship, or a romantic relationship, a good deal of time is spent looking for things that you have in common as a way of checking for compatibility. There are many aspects of compatibility, and most of them depend on the nature of the relationship; however, one very important aspect of compatibility in most relationships is shared values.

 Although you might not ask directly about values, you might do so indirectly by asking about each other’s backgrounds, life experiences, passions, interests, opinions, as well as likes (e.g., do you like the same movies?), and dislikes (e.g., do you complain about the same things? Or the same people?). Questions like these shed light on what one another’s values are and possibly more; for example, what each other’s contributions and expectations might be in any future relationship you might have.

Violation can also occur when two people don’t see the nature of their relationship in the same way (e.g., one person sees the relationship as a budding romance, while the other views it as a budding friendship). This situation is made worse if they don’t know that they don’t agree because they’ve never openly talked about it (or if they did, the message – one way or the other – did not get through). What can happen then is that because the relationship is viewed differently by both people, what is seen as being OK to do (and even expected) from the point of view of one person is not OK from the point of view of the other.

Violation can be mitigated (in some cases completely) when one person did not and could not have known that their action violates one of the other person’s rules or expectations in the first place. This commonly arises when children misbehave and simply don’t know that what they did is misbehavior or when someone commits a social gaffe, not realizing that what they did was, under the circumstances, a faux pas.

We all have lines we will not cross. We also all have lines we do not want anyone to cross against us.  

What makes violation worse? Sometimes rules can be bent, boundaries can be crossed, and expectations changed, but only with the other person’s permission (e.g., “May I ask you a personal question? “Can I ask you for a favor?” or “Can I tell you what I really think?” So, the first thing that makes violation worse is when permission was not asked for, or, if asked for, not granted.

Violation is also made worse when it is obvious that the other person knew their action was a violation of the rules and expectations of your relationship (made even worse if it’s not the first time it’s happened). Another way that violation is made worse is when the rule or expectation that was violated is grounded in a value you hold deeply; for example, fidelity (we will be faithful to one another), honesty (we will never lie to one another), or support (we will always have “each other’s back”). Violating a deeply held and cherished value can be a grievous breach of trust that can inflict an especially painful emotional wound.

Finally, violation is made worse when it is discovered rather than admitted to. For instance, all things being equal, it is easier to forgive someone who admits to having lied to you than it is to forgive someone whose lie you uncover on your own or find out about from someone else.

As with inequity and intent, ordinary language reflects our sensitivity to violation; for example, when we hear people say:

“How dare you speak to me in that way?”

“That was totally out of line.”

“That’s no way to treat your…!”

“That’s not what we agreed to.”

“This is not what I signed up for.”

“That topic is off limits!”

“What gives you the right to…?”

The words violation and violence share the same root.

 4.       Responsibility

The fourth essential condition for conflict to arise is that whoever caused your loss can be held personally responsible for it. While it is often obvious who caused your loss, the question of the degree to which they are responsible for what they did (i.e., are at fault and can be blamed) is sometimes difficult to answer definitively. One reason for this is that we assign blame or responsibility based on how much control or choice we believe the other person had over what they could and couldn’t do. That is why, for example, the person who was simply following their boss’ orders cannot be held as responsible for their actions as the boss who gave the orders, or why it’s easier to excuse a 4-year-old’s temper tantrum than it is a 40-year-old’s.

The ­­question of responsibility is often complicated and nuanced. How much a person can or should be held responsible for their actions tends to be a matter of degree, with extenuating circumstances that should be considered. In any case, as I said earlier, if you can’t blame the other person outright for all your loss, or if the two of you can share the blame for it, the potential for conflict is considerably lessened.

Just like the language around loss, intent, and violation, ordinary language reflects the importance of the question of personal responsibility, as when we hear people say:

“I didn’t do it!”

“You made me do it.”

“You started it!”

“I don’t make the rules.”

“I totally ‘lost it’ – I didn’t know what I was doing!”

“I was left with no option – what else could I do?"

“I’m only doing my job.”

“It was the liquor doing the talking.”

“Rules are rules, and I have no choice but to follow them.”

“Whose stupid idea was this anyway?”

“You got us into this mess – you get us out!”

1.2   The Four Essentials of Conflict Resolution

 How can you use the four essentials of conflict to resolve a conflict? How can the four essentials of conflict become the four essentials of conflict resolution? First, consider taking a few minutes now to reflect on a past or present conflict.

·       What was or is your loss (i.e., what did it cost you emotionally or tangibly)?

·       What was or is the other person’s intent?

·       What rule or rules (e.g., boundaries) did the other person violate?

·       Can the other person be held responsible for what they did?

A worksheet for this exercise is available free to download from

www.theconflictresolvingnetwork.com

There’s a good chance that for this or every conflict you’ve ever had with anyone, all four essentials were met; that is, there was a loss, there was an intent, there was a violation, and it was clear who’s to blame for what happened.

As I mentioned earlier, all four essentials depend to varying degrees on interpretation and perception, or in other words, how you both see each one. Sometimes the perception of loss, intent, violation, or responsibility is based entirely or, to some extent, on a misunderstanding, a mistaken assumption, a mistaken expectation, or on a fact that one or both of you have gotten wrong. The reason I call loss, intent, violation, and responsibility the four essentials of conflict is because all four of them must be present for there to be a conflict. If any one of these is missing, there is either less potential for conflict or no conflict at all.

Misunderstandings, mistaken assumptions, and unfounded expectations are fertile grounds for conflict.

What this means is that if both of you are willing to re-examine the basis of your conclusions about one another’s loss, intent, violation, and responsibility, it may be possible to “knock out,” nullify, or at least put in doubt, one of these essentials of conflict and in so doing nip your conflict in the bud, stop it cold, or at least de-escalate it a notch or two! Note that I’ll cover this conflict resolution strategy in detail in Chapter 6.

It should also be pointed out that sometimes, even when you can conclude that there was no intent or violation behind what the other person did and that they cannot be blamed for your loss, the feeling of loss can still take some time to get over.