Naming the issue

Naming a problem is often the first step to resolving the problem within conflict dynamics.

When we give an issue a name then we identify the problem as something specific.  This is powerful in two ways.

Firstly, it lifts the problem off our colleague, friend, husband or wife.  We are too often ready to perceive a grievance as being a characteristic of the other person.  If someone is late, then we say it is because they are unreliable.  If they do not perform parts of their role within the workplace then they are seen as being lazy or unreliable.

That in turn leads us to communicate about the problem in ways which attack the other person.  The other person then either disengages from the conversation or adopts a defensive or counter-attacking stance.

Not helpful.

Once we have named the problem as something specific then it is no longer something about you, or something about.  instead it is a third entity within this situation.  You and I may now be able to collaborate as we tackle the newly named and externalised problem.

The second point about naming a problem is that we call the problem into being, in linguistic terms.  While a problem remains un-named it is merely a notion.  Giving it a name, or label, enables us to talk about and challenge the issue.

A good example of this can be seen in the naming of the problem we now know as sexual harrassment.  Before it was named, this problem was hard to tackle.  Once it had been given a name then it was possible to speak out about it, to refer to it and engage in solving the issue.

Giving names to problems therefore makes it safe to talk about an issue without being seen as attacking the person we are rainsing it with, and it also creates a spoken framework and reference that enables engagement, discussion or debate and, hopefully, resolution.

Conflict is found in the defence, not the attack

Conversational Riffs explores how we start out with just a few responses to conflict situations, namely the attack, the defence and the counter-attack, and how those reactions damage relationships in the office or at home.

It occurs to me that conflict is not always guaranteed in the attack, but rather in the defence.  That might be surprising but it bears scrutiny.

At the time when we perceive we are being attacked by something that someone has said we still have a choice as to how we will respond.  If we join our colleagues in playing into conflict led patterns of communication, namely attack followed by defence then we become complicit in that argument.

We need to remember that the choice is ours.

When we feel under attack we can choose to defend ourselves, or go on the counter-attack.  Alternatively we can take stock and quickly appraise the situation we find ourselves in

“Am I at risk here?”

“Is this really about me?”

“Just how much of a threat is this?”

“Might there be something else going on?”

“I wonder why they think that?”

If we can take a moment to become curious about what is behind the other person’s attacking stance then we open ourselves up to other responses, responses which are likely to help us to strengthen those relationships instead of damaging them. It is up to us to change the conflict dynamics instead of just surrendering ourselves to an inevitable fight.

Perhaps we can encourage our workplace colleagues to give us more information.  What would happen if we chose to acknowledge their position?

The point is that non-typical responses will switch that confrontation onto a very different, more collaborative track.  The alternative end destination can be unrecognisable.

So let us stop blaming each other for going on the attack at the outset.  We are still responsible for how we choose to respond, or allow ourselves to react.

Conversational Riffs Theory From the Football Terraces

Conversational Riffs explores how we attack or counter-attack when we find ourselves in conflict situations.  An example of this conflict dynamic can be seen on thefootball terraces and messageboards of Portsmouth FC.

Portsmouth Football Club is having a torrid time.  In fact, by the time I get to post this article they may well have ceased to exist.  They are being pursued through the High Court by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Excise regarding an unpaid tax bill of £11 million.

Portsmouth’s great rivals are Southampton.  There is a certain amount of glee in some parts of Southampton at the likely downfall of Pompey.  Southampton had long been the better team, mocking their neighbours as they wallowed in the lower leagues.

In recent years the roles have been reversed.  Southampton have had their own troubles and plummeted down to what, in the peculiar vernacular of the football hierarchy is called “League One”

That is a misnomer.  It is the third division of English Football.  The title, League One, is an abject nonsense.

Meanwhile, Pompey have, or rather had, established themselves as premier league competitors, signing international stars and even winning the FA Cup in 2008.  All of that was enabled, it has now emerged, by massive over-spending on players wages and transfers.  Hence the current difficulties with debt.

Reading the fans forums online for any football club reveals all manner of colourful conflict dynamics, but the one that I want to highlight is the counter-attack.

Some Southampton fans cannot resist the temptation to gloat at their neighbours, revelling in their predicament and very likely demise.   That is, without a doubt, the attack.

The response, or the next move in the game, is very often the counter attack that the original poster cannot be “A real football fan.”  The logic is two-fold.

Firstly, there is an idea held onto by the maligned party that any “Real football fan” could not possibly want to see their strongest rivals disappear.

I think this is misguided.  Many fervent football supporters I know would be nonplussed at least, and maybe even pleased, to see a football club go out of business, especially a rival club.  That is not a reflection of their integrity as a football supporter.

The second aspect ties in with the conflict dynamic.  The intent behind the “Not a real football supporter” is designed to undermine the very platform from which the attacker is speaking.  If we go on the counter-attack and argue that they are not a real football supporter then we seek to diminish or invalidate their voice.

The result?  A tedious and predictable attack/defence dynamic with both parties trying to justify themselves and reduce one another.

Home and away attendance figures, trophies won, which club owner is the richest and so on and so forth.