Conflict Competence

At a recent mediation, two parties described the events that created their conflict. One (let’s call the first person A) had handed the other (that would be person B) a letter containing information that deserved priority attention. After that, the two versions were very different in intention although they could agree on the basics.

Person A said that Person B treated the letter Person A had delivered to B with disdain even though it was important, threw the letter to the ground, and then, ignoring both Person A and the letter, went back to work as if Person A were an irritant to be dismissed without a word. This rudeness was inexcusable to Person A, who believed that was the moment the conflict took flight. Person A left the office feeling belittled and offended.

Person B’s version was that Person A had stormed into the office without knocking, threw the letter in Person B’s face even though B was at work, then stood there huffing as if Person B should immediately stop all other work. Person B pushed the letter aside to deal with once Person A had gone, and it might have accidently slipped to the floor from the push. Person B believed the conflict erupted when Person A entered the room as a rude interruption, and thus, B felt justified in continuing to work because, to do otherwise, would reinforce Person’s A belief that such behaviour was acceptable when it clearly was not.

So, each agreed on the basic facts. One person entered the office with a letter that must be brought to the other person quickly. The first person had transferred the letter to the second person’s desk. The second person pushed at the letter. The letter had fallen from the desk to the floor. 

After that, everything else was subject to interpretation. Either A had entered B’s office rudely, or not. B had reacted rudely or not. The letter had been pushed with emotional force or not. The letter’s fall to the floor had been accidental or not. There was huffing involved or not. 

Two people, one set of facts, two very different interpretations, depending on whether the addition of a hostile adjective served the purpose of making the other person wrong, or not. Since we are very poor mind readers, we infer the adversarial or friendly intention of other people based on how we feel about them.

If, in our mind, someone is friendly, we see their actions as friendly and their intention as well meaning. However, when we perceive someone as adversarial in relation to ourselves, their actions will be perceived as adversarial whether they meant it that way or not.

When I inquired further into the history of their relationship, they revealed that the letter incident was just one of a series of events between them that was negatively interpreted. In other words, because of their history of animosity, each was prepared to believe that the other had a hostile attitude, and interpreted their actions through those belief systems. Once we were able to explore the reality of the belief, the letter incident took on greatly diminished significance.