/Conflict Management

Fascinate your way through conflicts

“Fascinate?” you may wonder. In conflicts, people argue, fight, yell, accuse, threaten, push each other’s buttons…but fascinate? That doesn’t seem to fit into our typical paradigm of conflict behaviors.

Perhaps, it’s time for a mind shift. Triggers are not just those pesky things that we become all worked up about and that send our brains into the fight-or-flight response. According to Sally Hogshead, the author of “Fascinate: Your 7 Triggers to Persuasion and Captivation,” triggers can be fascinating. The triggers that Sally Hogshead identifies can help you grab attention and be more persuasive. They are:

  • Power
  • Trust
  • Mystique
  • Prestige
  • Alarm
  • Rebellion
  • Passion

Watch this TEDxAtlanta video in which Sally Hogshead explains how the seven triggers of fascination can help you get others to fall in love with your ideas.

We all have our preferred triggers of fascination that influence our relationships. You can take the F-score test to find out yours at http://sallyhogshead.com/fscoreq1/.

My primary trigger happens to be passion, characterized by “a warm and open style of interaction,” intuitive approach to information and decisions, and probably “a strong creative streak” among other things.  “Even when you mask your emotions, you feel passionately about your opinions.”  Now I know why I was inspired to write about “Boosting creativity through passion, novelty and pleasure.”

My secondary trigger is rebellion: “A personal sense of freedom is near and dear to your heart; anyone who tries to force you to play by the rules might just end up losing you.”

I wonder how the triggers of fascination play out in conflicts, or more specifically, how we can make a better use of the triggers of fascination to move beyond the predicable sequence of arguing into the state of creative dissonance where we can effectively leverage our differences and open our minds to creative solutions.

Will the passion trigger make me supersensitive and defensive in conflict or will it allow me to show the warmth and empathy needed to break through the impasse? Will my rebellious nature make me less compromising or more resourceful? What makes conflicts fascinating? What do you think?

By | 2011-06-01T18:31:51+00:00 June 1st, 2011|Books, Communication, Conflict Management|1 Comment

Resilience is empowering, but so is revenge

“Tomorrow is a new day; begin it well and serenely and with too high a spirit to be encumbered with your old nonsense.”
~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

There is power in the ability to take action and make a choice. Our brains like the sense of autonomy and control, after all, we want to feel comfortable in our environment. However, this human desire for autonomy and control can be expressed in a variety of ways, some of which may lead to more tension and longer conflicts.

In two recent discussion threads at The Conflict Coaching Guild on LinkedIn, we pondered the topics of resilience and revenge. Being resilient means being able to bounce back from life’s challenges, learn from different experiences, maintain a positive outlook despite setbacks and disappointments. Resilience requires a proactive, positive attitude and energy. It is hard to be resilient if your health is poor or you are depressed.  Resilience is empowering. But so is revenge.

It can feel good to fight back when we are attacked even when we know that the revenge may cause more escalation. It turns out that our reactions to the punishment of bad social behavior range from reduced sympathy towards perpetrators to pleasure. The Prisoner’s Dilemma experiments show that even though the subjects are able to empathize and feel the pain of others, the activity in the pain-related areas of the brain slightly decreases when the participants feel the other side deserved a punishment. Moreover, when men (but not women) in the study watched a defector get punished, they showed additional activation in the pleasure circuit of the brain.  Retaliating may feel so sweet because of the added sense of control we derive from our own actions.

The biological impulse to retaliate is strong. Conflicting parties are likely to be stuck in the continuous cycle of violence and revenge unless they find alternative ways to express their autonomy and choice of action.  In essence, one side feels autonomous and fulfilled by punishing the other side, and vice versa. Remove the crutch of revenge, and the parties may feel lost and helpless. The challenge is to move beyond our biology and channel the need for autonomy into creative action and true resilience.  Here are the choices:

Revenge Resilience
Blaming Sharing responsibility
Defending Acknowledging
Attacking Forgiving
Stonewalling Connecting
Threatening Harmonizing
Resisting Accepting
Listening selectively Listening reflectively
Ignoring Inquiring
Withholding Sharing
Assuming Clarifying
Catastrophizing Reframing
Reacting Anticipating
Judging Witnessing
Victimizing Empowering

 

When we let go of revenge and embrace our own resilience, we regain the inner source of power.  We no longer need an adversary to validate our significance.  Instead, we begin relying on our own strengths to carry us forward.

Your Brain or Mine? Collective Perceptions and Group Conformity

agreementMetaphors often reveal the hidden connections between our perception of the physical world and our mental constructs.   The expression “eye to eye” means “in agreement.”  It turns out that seeing eye to eye in the physical sense may explain our tendencies to conform and “follow the crowd” under  peer pressure.  Put differently, what others say may change what you see.

In the 1950’s, Solomon Asch, conducted a series of experiments designed to understand the phenomenon we know as conformity. In his experiments, a group of participants were seated in a classroom and asked to compare the length of vertical lines. They were then asked to tell the group which vertical line, A, B, or C, matched the test line. The catch was that all of the participants except one were Asch’s aids . The aids first gave the correct answers, but eventually all began to give incorrect responses. Amazingly, the test subject began giving the same incorrect answers as the aids. Overall, after 18 trials, only 25% of the subjects never gave a false answer, and 75% of the subjects conformed at least once.  However, in follow-up trials where one aid openly disagreed with the rest of the aids voicing the wrong answer, the test subjects easily identified the correct answer. So, it took just one dissenting voice to destroy the conformity spell.

Psychiatry professor Gregory Berns, the author of the book “Iconoclast:  A Neuroscientist Reveals How to Think Differently,” wanted to find out if people conformed because the peer pressure influenced their decision-making or because the group’s opinions affected their physical perception.  The use of fMRI, registering different brain activation patterns, allowed the researchers to distinguish the “seeing” stage from the “deciding” stage.  The experiments revealed that the peer pressure may actually shape the way we see things.  Moreover, those subjects whose perception remained unaffected by the opinions of others and who went against the group showed more activation in the amygdala, the part of the brain associated with fear responses and emotional control.  It takes courage to disregard the fear and discomfort and go against the group.

So, how do we know whether we truly see eye to eye or we look at the world through the peers’ eyes?   What do we do to avoid false agreements?

Reflections on the 4th Annual Mediators Beyond Borders Congress, Part 3: Compassionate Listening

“Listening creates a holy silence.  When you listen generously to people, they can hear truth in themselves, often for the first time.  And in the silence of listening, you can know yourself in everyone.  Eventually, you may be able to hear, in everyone and beyond everyone, the unseen singing softly to itself and to you.”
~ Rachel Naomi Remen, MD

Have you ever tried to listen to someone intently for three minutes without interrupting and interjecting, without letting your attention be diluted by questions and observations popping up in your head?  It sounds simple, but not easy.  This was one of the exercises we did at a workshop entitled “Compassionate Listening: Powerful Practices for Healing & Transformation” presented by Susan Partnow and Ilene Stark of The Compassionate Listening Project.

I wrote in my earlier post about seven common barriers to active listening. The inner workings of the brain may hinder our listening capacity.

First, the brain is a prediction machine.  In a conversation, it is always in a rush to figure out what comes next, causing us to jump to conclusions and complete other people’s thoughts.

Second, the brain has a limited attention span and working memory capacity.  Our prefrontal cortex, the brain region implicated in planning complex cognitive tasks, decision making, and moderating correct social behavior, is easily overwhelmed.  We can process just about seven pieces of information in our conscious mind at any given moment.  It makes it impossible to attend to several things simultaneously that require our concentration.   It’s not easy to pay focused attention to the other person’s words.

In addition, the brain has a negativity bias.  For our own survival and protection, the brain is wired to constantly scan the environment for threats and things that may go wrong.  At the sign of a perceived threat, the amygdala triggers the “fight or flight” mode.  As a result, our mind “freezes,” and we  either launch verbal attacks or withdraw from the dialogue. Strong feelings and emotions affect our listening, reasoning and judgment.

Finally, the brain is good at conserving mental energy and resources.  It filters out information that doesn’t comport with our own beliefs.  Once we’ve made a decision, the brain is happy to look for evidence that supports our decision, conveniently ignoring contradictory information.  In other words, we hear what we want to hear.

The goals of the compassionate listening workshop was to help the listeners and speakers overcome “defensiveness and reactivity” and connect heart to heart.  There is a lot that goes into the practice of compassionate listening.  Anchoring yourself in the heart rather then the head is not always easy.  Among other things, compassionate listening means:

  • being present;
  • “accepting, but not necessarily agreeing”;
  • looking for the common ground;
  • valuing opposing views;
  • seeking the good in conflict;
  • practicing forgiveness;
  • respecting yourself and others;
  • staying centered even when the emotions become intense;
  • being self-aware;
  • suspending assumptions and judgment;
  • being comfortable with uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity;
  • resisting the urge to offer opinions, advice, interpretations unless asked;
  • trusting each person’s capacity to solve their own problems.

For more information on the practice of compassionate listening, visit The Compassionate Listening Project.

Related posts:

Reflections on the 4th Annual Mediators Beyond Borders Congress, Part 1: Collaborative Informal Problem Solving

Reflections on the 4th Annual Mediators Beyond Borders Congress, Part 2:  Cross-Cultural Communication

By | 2011-03-20T22:08:35+00:00 March 20th, 2011|Attention, Communication, Conflict Management|1 Comment

Reflections on the 4th Annual Mediators Beyond Borders Congress, Part 2: Cross-Cultural Communication

MBB CongressI continue with my reflections on the 4th Annual Mediators Beyond Borders Congress and offer a few more take-aways from one of the workshops I attended, entitled “Essentials in Relating Across Cultures” by Ed Ladon and Alan Gross.

We began with the discussion of culture as an iceberg metaphor.  Only about one-eighth of an iceberg is visible above the water.  A larger section of an iceberg is concealed below the water. Similarly, we can observe some aspects of culture, but a big part of it remains almost imperceptible.  It can only be suspected, guessed, or developed as understanding of the culture grows.

We shared examples of how cultures differ in their perceptions of time, intrinsic human nature, social relations, attitudes towards Nature, among other things.

My take-away is to approach cross-cultural work with an open mind as a learning experience. You need to do your reading and get a network of local informants who can help you navigate the more subtle aspects of the culture. Even still, you are likely to make mistakes and embarrass yourself occasionally.  What helps here is a sense of humor and humility, and open communication.  Setting expectations from the start that miscommunication may happen, things may get tough, and people may get angry, but it is all manageable if there is mutual respect and the desire to work together.  As Ed Ladon put it, “Anything worth doing is worth doing poorly, at least, at the beginning stages, i.e. to learn.”

When you are in the host country, it pays to observe, ask a lot of questions, and listen. Become a people-watcher.  Flexible approaches help when you work on a cross-cultural project while assumptions hurt.

On a side note, I can’t help but think about the influence of cross-cultural experiences on the brain.  Research shows that culture shapes the brain:

East Asians tend to process information in a global manner whereas Westerners tend to focus on individual objects. There are differences between East Asians and Westerners with respect to attention, categorization, and reasoning.  For example, in one study, after viewing pictures of fish swimming, Japanese volunteers were more likely to remember contextual details of the image than were American volunteers. Experiments tracking participants’ eye movements revealed that Westerners spend more time looking at focal objects while Chinese volunteers look more at the background. In addition, our culture may play a role in the way we process facial information. Research has indicated that when viewing faces, East Asians focus on the central region of faces while Westerners look more broadly, focusing on both the eyes and mouth.

Here are some additional resources on culture and the brain:

“Cultural Neuroscience – Culture and the Brain” by Daniel Lende provides a good summary of the current research.

“Culture and the Brain” by Nalini Ambady and Jamshed Bharucha is the research review paper [PDF].

“Culture and Systems of Thought: Holistic Versus Analytic Cognition” by Richard E. Nisbett, et al is another paper on the topic, including cultural, historic, and business perspectives [PDF].

“Cultural Borders and Mental Barriers: The Relationship Between Living Abroad and Creativity” by  William W. Maddux and Adam D. Galinsky is a paper on how living overseas boosts creative thinking [PDF].

“Culture and Attention: Comparing the Context Sensitivity between East Asians and Westerners” by Takahiko Masuda is a slideshow presentation with the summary of the current research.

Related posts:

Reflections on the 4th Annual Mediators Beyond Borders Congress, Part 1: Collaborative Informal Problem Solving

Reflections on the 4th Annual Mediators Beyond Borders Congress, Part 3:  Compassionate Listening