Conflict Stories

My work involves conflict resolution. If you have known me for very long, you might be laughing right now - I am incredibly conflict averse. But, I am capable of learning and growth and have fallen in love with this work.

This week, I had the dubious joy of watching an incredibly bad training on conflict resolution. It had a good template, which I will happily adapt, but was awful. In it, the trainer described a conflict between herself and another person, in which she made multiple assumptions, called the other person a bully, and insulted the other person's intelligence, all while saying she was modelling how to break down a conflict rationally and reflectively. 

It was... fascinating. 

One of the biggest things that I have come to understand about conflict from my work is that it is all about the stories we tell ourselves. And there are a few things that are common to how we* tell stories about conflict:
*It is important to consider worldview. Coming from a Canadian culture, our worldview is highly individualistic (similar to the US). This cannot be generalized to other cultures without reflecting on underlying values, beliefs, and ways of being.

• We all tell the story in the way that makes us look as good as possible. While conscious lying does happen, I truly believe that much of this is unconscious - we remember a story in the way that we can live with, and that's with us in as good of a light as possible. (Inversely, we also tell the story in the way that makes the other person look as bad as possible. 
• We are quick to assume we know the other person's intent, and we will default to the worst intent possible for them and the best intent possible for us. 
• Most people are fundamentally irrational, but we crave rationality as an explanation for others' behaviour.
  
• We assume that the person's actions are about us (i.e. we center ourselves).

In the fall, someone did something that harmed me. It was a small thing, inconsequential in the grand scheme of life, but it's a good example for considering stories of conflict. The core of the harm came from them doing something that resulted in my exclusion from a group without talking to me about it first. It stung, and I did not practice what I preach. Instead of approaching them and having a compassionate curiosity-based conversation about it, I let it fester. Not ideal, but handy right now because it allows me to look back and reflect on the three stories I told myself about this act and how they relate to unpacking conflict.

Story One: this person did this because they don't respect me and/or don't care about my feelings. 

The first version of this story was one that put the person in the worst possible light. It assumed that the action (or the omission in this case) was deliberate and purposeful. It centered me - it assumed the decision was based on thinking about me. 

To be honest, this story served me. For the time that I held it, it allowed me to feel the hurt and anger I was feeling. Practicing compassionate curiosity is not just for others, it is for myself as well. I needed this story for a bit while I let the initial metaphorical wound scab over. 

Story Two: this person did this because they are a chicken and were too afraid to talk to me.

Eventually, I reflected and moved into a second story. In some ways this story is kinder - it doesn't assume worst intent like the first did. It still assumes rationality, however, insisting that this was a conscious choice made to avoid a difficult conversation. It also applies a negative personality trait (cowardice) to the person. 

This story also served me. It allowed me to move past the initial anger into a place of semi-understanding. It was a step in de-centering myself and having compassion, but it was still flawed in it's assumption of rationality and related character judgement.

Story Three: most people will avoid uncomfortable conversations if they can help it, often by 'putting it off' until it's either too late or no longer feels necessary. 

I finally landed on this version of the story. I don't know if the other person made a conscious choice to not talk to me, if they put it off until it was too late, or if they were in denial about needing to. But it is very human to avoid tough conversations. Let's face it, I have done the exact same thing by not talking to them about this situation. I have told myself I was going to talk to them multiple times and then just keep putting it off.

This story no longer assumes rationality or intent on their part. It also recognizes that they were likely making decisions out of the impact on them (discomfort) rather than centering me and my needs. It also doesn't assume or apply a negative personality characteristic based on my perception. All of that said, this story still doesn't mean it wasn't harmful or that it was the right choice. If this story is true, the person displayed a lack of leadership in a situation where they are in a leadership role. That is a failing on their part. 



Does this mean that every action or harm done by someone is excusable? No. Does it mean you should put up with bad treatment from others? Also no. For me, reflecting on and revising the story I have told myself is less about the accountability of the other person and more about my own healing. At the end of the day, they still messed up and I still have the right to make decisions about my boundaries and future interactions with this person based on the harm. What exactly that looks like might be different with story three than it would have been for story one, but that's up to me. What matters more is the healing that comes with the realization that it was never really about me in the end.