Page 188 - Essentials of Human Communication

Conflict Management Strategies 167

superiority When you present yourself as superior to another person, you put the
other person in an inferior position, and this is likely to be resented. Such superiority mes-
sages say in effect that the other person is inadequate or somehow second class. A superior
attitude is a violation of the implicit equality contract that people in a close relationship
have. The other person may then begin to attack your superiority; the conflict can quickly
degenerate into a conflict over who’s the boss, with personal attacks being the mode of
interaction.
Certainty The person who reflects an attitude of certainty—who appears to know it all—
is likely to be resented and often sets up a defensive climate. After all, there is little room for
negotiation or mutual problem solving when one person already has the answer. An attitude
of provisionalism—“Let’s explore this issue together and try to find a solution”—is likely to
be much more productive than an attitude of closed-mindedness.
The following suggestions will help you foster supportiveness rather than defensiveness:
● Talk descriptively rather than evaluatively.
● Focus on the problem rather than on personalities. Take a look at “Interpersonal Com-
● Act and react honestly and spontaneously, rather than strategically. munication and . . . ” at tcbdevito
● Empathize with the other person. .blogspot.com for a discussion of
● Approach the conflict resolution process as an equal and treat the other person as an interpersonal conflict training.
Would interpersonal conflict train-
equal. ing be useful to people in the pro-
● Be provisional; suggest rather than demand. fession you’re in or hope to enter?

faCe-attaCking anD faCe-enhanCing strategies
In the discussion of politeness in Chapter 2 (p. 44), the concepts of face and face-threatening
acts were introduced. The concepts of face and face-threatening acts have special relevance to
interpersonal conflict. Face-attacking conflict strategies are strategies that attack a person’s
positive face (e.g., making comments that criticize the person’s contribution to a relationship
or the person’s ability) or a person’s negative face (e.g., making demands on a person’s time
or resources that attack the person’s autonomy). Face-enhancing
conflict strategies, on the other hand, are those that support and
confirm a person’s positive face (e.g., praise, a pat on the back, a sin-
cere smile) or negative face (e.g., giving the person space and asking
rather than demanding).
One popular but destructive face-attacking strategy is beltlining
(Bach & Wyden, 1968). Much like fighters in a ring, each of us has an
emotional “beltline.” When you hit below it, you can inflict serious
injury. When you hit above the belt, however, the person is able to ab-
sorb the blow. With most interpersonal relationships, especially those
of long standing, you know where the beltline is. You know, for ex-
ample, that to hit Pat with the inability to have children is to hit below
the belt. You know that to hit Chris with the failure to get a perma-
nent job is to hit below the belt. This type of face-attacking strategy
doesn’t help move a conflict toward resolution, and often has the
opposite effect of intensifying it. Keep blows to areas your opponent
can absorb and handle.
Another such face-attacking strategy is blame. Instead of focus- ViewpOints
ing on a solution to a problem, some people try to affix blame to the Online Conflict
other person. Whether true or not, blaming is generally unproductive One study found that, generally at least, people are more posi-
for at least two reasons. First, it diverts attention away from the prob- tive in dealing with conflict in face-to-face situations than in
lem and from its potential solution. Second, it creates resentment that computer-mediated communication (Zornoza, Ripoll, & Peiro,
is likely to be responded to with resentment. The conflict then spirals 2002). Do you notice this in your own interactions? If so, why do
into personal attacks, leaving the individuals and the relationship you think it’s true? In what ways might you make your own
worse off than before the conflict was ever addressed. online conflicts more positive?