|
|
 |
A brief introduction We decided to put this page together for a few reasons:
Negotiation: Readings, Exercises and Cases.That way, if you want to read more you need only borrow or buy one book. The book itself covers most of the important concepts and as a bonus, especially for an American text-book, is an excellent read. It is both engaging and informative, with a nice touch of humour at appropriate moments. This page is designed to be read sequentially (each section builds on what has already been said) and is broken into the following sections:
|
|
Working out what type of relationship you should aim for. |
|
 |
Left: The Dual Concern Model indicates the strategic choices you have about the type of relationship you should aim for given your levels of concern about
|
|
If you are not concerned about yourself, but are concerned about "helping" them you will respond by yielding. At times this concern may be genuine and you may have an instrinsic interest in the other's welfare. More often it is instrumental, and you help the other in order to advance your own (and sometimes hidden) interests. For example, dependence on another person often encourages efforts to build a working relationship with that person by trying to satisfy his or her needs.
If your aspirations are high, and you hold little interest in the concerns of the other party you will respond by contending. That is, you will compete with the other person and advance only your interests.
Problem Solving is encouraged when your level of concern is high about both your own interests and the interests of the other party. On these occassions you have an interest in both getting what you want and in helping the other person get what they want - and the best way to achieve this is to work together and solve the problems you both face. The solution thus found will be an integrative one, and will therefore form the basis for a on-going and mutually beneficial relationship.
Often the two concerns in the Dual Concern Model are erroneously reduced to a single dimension, with selfishness (concern about one's own outcomes) on one end and cooperativeness (concern about the other's outcomes) on the other. This is an improper simplification, because it is clear that both concerns can be strong at the same time. People can be both selfish and cooperative.
The Dual Concern Model instead gives us two ways of cooperating it the other party - by yielding and by problem solving - and it also gives us two ways of advancing our own interest - by problem solving or by contending.
Withdrawing is a distinct strategy, but it may at times be difficult to distinguish from contending or yielding. For example, if a parent was to withdraw from a controversy with their child over the use of the family car the parent will automatically win and has thus gained a contentious advantage. If the child was to withdraw they have essentially yielded to the parent's viewpoint.
Likewise, sometimes doing nothing (inaction) may indeed be a very contentious strategy should it subsequently allow an event to occur that will achieve your own aims and cause the other party a deal of problems. An example of this would a labour dispute within a hospital when inactivity by nursing staff on a simple task (like filling in the paperwork) would eventually cause the entire system to grind to a halt. Inaction can at times be enormously disruptive and can cause the other party - in that case the hospital administrators - a great deal of problems even though "nothing", as such, was done at the time to prevent patients from getting treatment.
|
|
Working out how you should behave. |
|
 |
Left: One has a number of unilateral strategies available when trying to resolve a conflict. Each of these choices is dependent of two factors.
One factor, the substantive outcomes, are those outcomes concerned with the physical result of resolution. It may be, as examples, achieving a product at a certain price or in getting someone to behave in a certain manner.
Alongside these are the relationship outcomes that alter how the two parties will interact in the future. Today's behaviour may, for example, either build trust or cause suspicion. It may build respect, or it may create a desire for revenge.
|
|
Although we looking at a unilateral strategy - unilateral because we are not considering the interests of the other party when making the choice - one should of course also run through a similar exercise and try to estimate what the other parties unilateral strategy will be. By doing this one has an idea as to how the other party may behave and this in turn may alter the style you adopt during discussions. Knowing what the other party may have as a strategy does not, however, alter what your own unilateral strategy will be - merely how you present your arguments or manipulate the process.
We do this unilaterally - without considering for the moment what the other person's concerns are - because only by doing this will you be clear about what you want to achieve. When you know this you can see more easily where the grounds for conflict may lie and this will assist in resolution of disputes. While this may be thought of as the "selfish" part of the preparation it ties together with the following Dual Concern Model to guide you away from actually behaving in a selfish manner when in discussion with the other party. Knowing that will occur in the next step, hopefully, will free you to think "selfishly" when deciding on your unilateral strategy.
"Trusting Collaboration"
In general, if both the relationship and the substantive outcomes are important one should consider trusting collaboration. The hallmark of this strategy is openness on the part of both parties. By encouraging cooperation as positions are asserted the strategy seeks a win-win outcome in which both parties gain from the exchange both in terms of what is physically done and in terms of a positive relationship.
Trustingly collaborative outcomes are easiest to use and most effective when both you and the other party are interdependent and mutually supportive. These circumstances normally create a trusting relationship in which both parties reciprocally disclose their goals and needs. In this climate, an effective problem-solving process and a win-win settlement typically result.
"Openly Subordinate"
If you are more concerned about establishing a positive relationship with the other party than you are about achieving particular substantive outcomes you should consider being openly subordinate.
By subordination we mean something different to accommodation. This second is a style of behaving, "giving in" if you will. Subordination is instead a deliberate strategy of yielding to the other persons substantive goals because they are actually of little importance to you relative to your desire to build a positive relationship.
Subordination, in this sense, does not imply a weakness on your part although many find their own ego stands between them and such a strategy even when the strategy makes perfect sense. It does not imply a lack of power relative to the other person but is merely a way of winning by yielding.
A good example would be when a manager decides to yield on the issue of the timing of staff holidays (a substantive issue) if it doesn't actually matter to to the manager when they are taken. In such a case the manager, although they hold the power in the relationship, decides to subordinate themselves to the employee and allow them the decision of when to take leave. Such a strategy sees the manager yielding on the substantive issue but in doing so knowing this will help build a more positive relationship with the employee.
You may also decide on this strategy if, for example, today's outcomes in any physical sense is less important than your being able to achieve some substantive goal in the future. To do this you may need to build a positive relationship first and it may make good sense to subordinate yourself to the other person during this round.
If you have little or nothing to lose by yielding to the substantive issues of the other person, open subordination can be a key way for you to dampen hostilities, increase support or respect and foster more interdependent relationships.
For a parent with a gay child who seeks first and foremost to establish a positive interpersonal relationship and for who trying to make the child behave as a heterosexual is of lesser importance this is a good strategy. In doing so you need not stop from trying to encourage good behaviour over specific issues - for example Safe Sex or heavy drinking - but it does mean having to allow the child to make their own overall decisions and being prepared to accept the decisions that the child makes. You may not agree with the decision, but you must find a way of working with it.
Such a strategy does not mean you must relinquish any negative personal opinions you may have, but you must be cautious about expressing them. Avoid, for example, a "I told you so" attitude should the child later realize they made a foolish choice. This would invariably be seen as insulting and work against a positive relationship. Instead, attempt to make some positive suggestions about a number of ways a problem can be overcome - and leave the choice of accepting any or even none of these approaches to the child.
It is also often a good tactic, when acknowledging a decision the child has made, to specifically repeat back what you have just been told and to state that you recognize the decision as one made by the other. By doing this you are reinforcing two important planks to the strategy - that you do not make choices on behalf of the child and that you keep the relationship open by listening and indicating you have heard what they had to say.
"Firm Competition"
At those times when the substantive outcomes are very important to you but the relationship with the other person is not one should consider firm competition. This situation often occurs when you have little trust in the other person or when the relationship was poor to begin with.
At such times you may want to exert your power to gain substantive outcomes and you may become highly aggressive in doing so - bluffing, threatening the other person or otherwise misrepresenting your intentions.
However there is one cautionary note for those feel that firm competition should be their strategy. When following such a strategy you are seeking a win-lose situation (you win, they lose) and you must be willing to accept a neutral or even a bad relationship. Adopting this strategy can further strain an already poor relationship or even cause it to be ended completely.
Further, one must be very careful that the choice of this strategy has not been caused by an spontaneous or emotional response to the other party. When one is ego-invested in certain courses of action or when your initial response is a visceral one the prospect of firmly competing may seem to be the only one available to you - but, it is not. Step back for one moment and re-consider your list of substantive outcomes and the relative importance you have placed on the relationship and ensure that this strategy does indeed fit your desired outcomes.
In some circumstances or between certain parties a strategy of firm competition may lead to very undesirable outcomes, and outcomes you perhaps never considered likely.
Parents in conflict with their gay child over the issue of homosexuality, or conversely a gay child considering their own strategy, should beware the dangers of firm competition. One is often tempted to use such a strategy simply because you are very concerned about a person you hold a deep and emotive relationship with, but in firmly competing you may well destroy the very relationship that gives rise to your deep concerns in the first place. You may believe a strategy of firm competition is a "good one" because you are actually taking the prospect of an on-going relationship for granted - and this, we suggest, is not something you should take for granted. Many have discovered, after the event, that they deluded themself in this regard. Parents and children can and do become utterly estranged from each other.
Tempting though it may be to "put your foot down" or "lay down the law" in doing so you risk causing enormous harm to what may be, ultimately, your own most desired outcome - an on-going relationship with your child. Their being gay may be a source of great personal anguish, but it may also pale in comparison to having no relationship or being in continuous conflict. In such a case it would be foolhardy to take the form or the very existence of the relationship for granted.
"Active Avoidance"
At those times when neither the relationship nor the substantive outcomes are important on should consider using a strategy of active avoidance. This option is a legitimate strategy that may be taken deliberately and need not indicate you are uncertain about what to do. Simply refusing to negotiate is the most direct and active form of avoidance - one may simply tell the other that they are not interested in or willing to negotiate. Such an action, however, will usually have a negative impact on your relationship with the other party. Moreover one must determine which issues are a waste of time to discuss.
|
|
Interactive strategies knowing your unilateral strategy.
Before using your unilateral strategy suggested in the section above, one should examine the negotiation from each party's perspective. The choice of a negotiation strategy should be based not only on the interests of yourself, but also on the interests of the other party.
One should anticipate the other party's substantive and relationship priorities and assess how the exchange is likely to progress when you both interact. This step is crucial because the unilateral strategies described above could lead to grave problems if the other party's priorities are different.
For example, when using either trusting collaboration or open subordination you are vulnerable to exploitation if the other party is only concerned about substantive outcomes.
The steps outlined in this section are designed to help you overcome such inherent difficulties.
On the chart below you will work from left to right - starting at the big, light-green dot. At each dot you will be asked to answer a question with either Yes or No, and the question is at the top of the column. First you will establish a suggested unilateral strategy based only on your own priorities. After that you will examine the other person's priorities and thereby establish an interactive strategy. The key-code for the strategies are below the chart.
Key-code.
Parents in conflict with a gay child over their sexuality will no doubt have already worked out the best Interactive Strategy. The substantive and relationship outcomes are more than likely important to both of you:
|
|
The Integrative SolutionAn integrative solution is one where both parties' needs are met. Obviously not all problems can be resolved in this way. Nevertheless, the integrative approach seems to offer a better alternative to the more common adversarial one practiced by most people.
What exactly is an integrative solution? Consider the following:
Two sisters have a single orange to share. They both say they want it all, but after a heated argument about who should have it they decide to compromise and divide the orange into halves. One sister takes her half and makes herself a small glass of juice. The other takes her half and uses the peel to make a small cake.An integrative approach would have allowed the sisters to realize that they need not compete - or compromise - on what was important to each of them. Had they realized, one could have had a full glass of juice and the other could have also made a larger cake. By not seeking an integrative solution each sister ended up with less than she may have had. But this type of approach is not always easy to achieve. For an integrative solution to work a number of preconditions must exist. First, both you and the other person must be motivated to collaborate rather than to compete. Both parties must perceive that they have a common stake in the situation and that there is more to be gained by negotiating than by not negotiating. You may need to do some work beforehand to persuede them to this view, and one way to such thinking is for each party to prepare by setting goals and objectives for himself or herself. Once the negotiation gets underway, superordinate goals can be emphasized; for example, that both you and the other person have the right to a decent and peaceful life. Usually there is little disagreement over such motherhood statements. It's only when discussing the means to these ends that there is disagreement. Therefore, generating many alternatives in a mutual problem-solving, "brainstorming" process may be motivating and may facilitate the negotiating process. Once the problems are separated from the personalities involved, both parties can then become involved in mutual goal setting and problem solving. Second, rather than downplaying the other parties needs and wants as unacceptable, each person must recognize the other's legitimate right to seek his or her own best interests. Finally, a spirit of mutual trust should be developed. This is difficult to accomplish but without it the integrative approach will fail. The absence of trust engenders defensiveness, withdrawal and suspicion of the other person's motives. To build trust it is important to share as much information about yourself as you feel prudent. Both people must state their needs and work at an understanding by listening to and clarifying issues. This doesn't mean being indiscriminately open and trusting. It does, however, mean that each should share their concerns and work toward a mutual agreement. The following are a few brief tips. Even if an integrative approach is not immediately apparent these "dos and don'ts" will enable you to be a more skilled negotiator and should also create the climate in which an integrative solution can at least be considered. Some things to avoid:
|
|
Transactional Analysis
This subject is often done to death but it does provide a useful understanding about how and why people sometimes react the way they do and provide some clues about how better to engage in discussions.
Transactional Analysis (TA, or PAC) divides the individual's personality into three ego states. An ego state is defined as a consistent pattern of thinking and feeling attached to a pattern of behaving. The three states are as follows:
ParentThat part of the personality dealing mainly with values, opinions, and how-to descriptions. It may be expressed in two ways. The critical parent state only accepts the individual if they follow instructions very closely. This state is the prime dispenser of negative strokes. The other is the nurturing parent state which is a supportive type of authority that accepts the individual unconditionallyAdult The rational part of the personality. Rather than be concerned with outdated parental dictums, the adult state acts as a computer by digesting current data for problem-solving purposes. The adult often plays the role of the manager of the personality, using parent and child data for decision making and permitting the activation of the other ego states where appropriate.Child Th emotional part of the personality. It may be expressed through the free child which is the source of straightforward feelings, creativity and spontaneity and the adapted child which expresses itself in rebellion or over-submission (the "yes man" in us all)We can often gauge which state is working by what people say and the way they react. These are a few verbal cues:
"I think I am gay" (Free Child) "No, you are not." (Critical Parent) "I feel this way, and I want..." (Free Child) "It is wrong, and I can't accept it. I won't have this in my house." (Critical Parent) "Maybe I'm not. I haven't done anything. I just wondered" (Adapted Child)Was the conflict resolved? No, the Critical Parent merely browbeat the Free Child into a submissive (but probably resentful) Adapted Child. The conversation would have turned even nastier should the Free Child have turned into a Critical Parent, or should the Free Child spoken back instead of turning into the Adapted Child: "You know nothing at all! It is you who are wrong!" (Critical Parent) "I hate you! You never listen to me!" (Free Child)Obviously, these two would be on a path to outright conflict and possibly a complete breakdown in their relationship if this type of exchange was to continue to occur. Consider how differently this conversation is when it is between two people both in an Adult state, but allowing the Nurturing Parent and the Free Child to add the emotions: "I think I am gay" (Free Child) "I see. What do you mean by "you think"?" (Adult) "I mean that I am attracted to other boys. But not to girls." (Adult) "You know that I will always love you regardless of whether you are or not. I have some concerns, but I will always be there to help you." (Nurturing Parent) "Do you mean you only like boys? How do you know you are gay?" (Adult) "Yes, only boys. I have felt this way for a long time, but I just didn't know how to describe those feelings. But then I read a description in our encyclopedia." (Adult) This exchange hardly has the vicarious excitement of the previous screaming match, but at least the feelings and the opinions of both people are getting out and being heard in a way that will allow the conversation to continue. It is often difficult to encourage someone to move away from being a Parent or a Child - not least of which is because it is often too tempting for you to jump off to either side and join them - but it is what you should aim for. It may actually take a great number of exchanges before the other person moves. That, frankly, is why you were given patience!
|
|
Power in relationships We shall not spend a great deal on this subject because it is a rather more complex subject than we could hope to explore here and also because by spending a great deal of time on it we could tend to over emphasis it's importance. Despite our societies obsession with what we regard as "power" it is in fact only a part of what negotiating and relationships are all about; at least, what we typically describe as being powerful is only a part. What we do hope to do is show you the many forms of power that we each may use should we so decide. In realizing this we many all see how many of our behaviours and attitudes are actually ways in which we seek to motivate or manipulate people. |
|
 |
Left: We can see three categories of power behaviour - Threat, Exchange, Love - that are composed of three basis for power - Destructive, Productive and Integrative.Power, from a negotiating standpoint, is the ability to get what we want.We often fall into the trap of thinking of it in a muscular or aggressive sense - having lot's of money, or a large army or a huge workforce - but this is a rather inaccurate way of looking at things.We all seem to know at least a few people that appear to have very little power of this sort, but who nevertheless always seem to get what they want. |
|
This is curious. How, if they have neither wealth nor direct control over groups of people, do these people manage to get what they want? What do they do? Apparently they do have the capacity to influence things and therefore have power - but where do they get it from?
The clue lies in stepping away from the stereotyped view of what makes someone a powerful person. What we tend to think of as power is not power as such but force. This is but one form of power.
Destructive power is our ability to destroy something. We can build a relationship, but we can also ruin it. We can grow crops, and we can also lay them to waste. In it's most negative sense this power to destroy is seen in violence and war.
It is ironic that warfare, which features so prominently in history books, probably occupies no more than 10% of human time and energy. The other 90% of the time we are busy building, growing and making things. Our ability to destroy things therefore appears to work rather more quickly than our ability to produce.
Keep that in mind when you behave in a way that will work against a relationship with someone. A small amount of destruction takes a great deal more of your time and energy to put right.
Productive power is our capacity to build. It is found in the fertilized egg, in the blueprint, in the ideas, in the tools and machines that make things, in the activity of our human minds and bodies.
Integrative power is what shall concern us most here. It may be thought of as the ability to build organizations, to create families and groups of friends, to inspire loyalty or to bind people together. It may be used in a positive sense, or it may have a negative sense - integrative power also may create enemies or alienate people.
The Categories of Power
Threat Power largely uses our ability to destroy. When we threaten someone we are telling them we will ruin something of value to them. It says "If you do not do what I want I will do something you do not want". We react to a threat in one of three ways:
|
|
Passive-AggressionWe gave an example, in the case of the hospital nursing staff refusing to complete paperwork, of how one may use inaction in a contentious manner.
There is a term for this type of behaviour - passive-aggression - and it is often thought of as a "female" way of acting out aggression. Rather than being actively aggressive through use of physical force one may often achieve the same outcome by simply doing nothing. For example, the hospital staff could have chosen to blockade the hospital with a picket line. This would have achieved the same eventual outcome as not doing the paperwork, but is obviously an active form of contentious behaviour.
One will also note that passive-aggression is also a very common strategy adopted by parents. The parent may not wish to use physical force against the child (hitting them for example) and may instead respond by threatening to be inactive or withdraw from future activities that the child wishes to engage in but which are also dependent on the future actions of the parent (such as, driving them to a school friend's party the following weekend).
Passive-aggression should be seen for what it is - a deliberate strategy of forcing compliance - and not simply accepted for the way it is often presented by the person behaving in that manner. "But I didn't do anything" is not the complete truth; because the person did indeed "do" something and that was to chose to be inactive knowing that this would result in certain outcomes.
A notable example of passive aggression was seen over the issue of segregation in the U.S. during the 1950's and 1960's. Most white people did not actively act to enforce segregation (by beating up black people who dared cross the segregation boundaries for example) but they also did not do anything to reverse or end segregation or the laws and official sanctions in force at the time. Segregation continued simply because most white Southerners chose to do nothing. They knew full well the consequence of such mass inactivity, but could satisfy themselves that they personally were not directly responsible for the arrest or the beating up of black people who refused to sit at the back of the bus.
Another example can be seen in cases when a parent with negative attitudes about their child's gay sexuality may chose to either withdraw from the child's life or will make no mention of any of the "normal" subjects that arise when children start dating and seeking out a partner. Sometimes this type of inaction is a good strategy if one is seeking to temporarily put off outright conflict and avoid a screaming match. It can often be the best way to behave - at the moment - if one hasn't quite their thoughts together or is apt to "fly off the handle". But this type of temporary inaction is not what we are discussing here. We are talking about an ongoing strategy of withdrawal or inactivity that does not solve the underlying conflict. It is not a good long-term strategy because ending the actual conflict requires resolution and this is impossible through avoidance.
Although it may appear the parent is "doing nothing" against the child - and although such parent's will usually deny behaving aggressively - this is not in fact the case. Completely cutting the child from your life, or only allowing contact under certain conditions that remove the child's sexuality from the field is not obviously "doing nothing". A parent already has a relationship with their child that they must end or alter in order to achieve this - and this requires the parent to do something. The result, as the parent well knows, will be powerful feelings of disapproval, loss and sadness within the child; and it precisely these forces that the parent is using in an aggressive and contentious manner.
Of course, gay children themselves can also be just as guilty of this form of behaviour and be acting with exactly the same desire to use feelings of loss in an aggressive manner. They can also do this through cutting their parents from their life or by deliberately creating artificial situations that will be guaranteed to upset or enrage the parent. Where it differs slightly is that often only through withdrawal can some gay children be permitted a modicum of peace in their life and an ability to pursue an adult life separate from their parents. (It is, of course, a way some parents are possibly only going to also achieve a measure of peace but they already have their own adult life). Heterosexual children, despite all the other reasons that may lead to parental conflict, do not find themselves in such a situation over their sexuality alone (actual sexual behaviour, as a heterosexual, may be cause for conflict but this is a different issue).
It is this ability by people to present themselves as blameless in such situations that makes passive-aggression an oftentimes insidious form of aggressive behaviour. It is why the person may not see how their behaviour as agressive. Nevertheless, it is important to realize when someone is indeed acting in such a manner because only by doing so will the true nature of many conflicts be bought out into the open and discussed.
When someone is acting in this manner, and it has bearing on the issue under contention, point out that you are aware of their behaviour and seek to include it in your discussion. In most cases they will deny they are acting aggressively, but such protest should be ignored and a way found to show why their behaviour is indeed a form of aggression.
|
|
Tactics for use across negotiation phasesOnce you have established your strategy you may now begin to think of the tactics you can use to progress that strategy. The strategy is what you intend to achieve whereas the tactics are the tools you use to push through that strategy using the assets you own (in the same way that "building a house" may be your strategy, "hammer, nails, saw" are your tools and "wood, glass, tiles" are your assets).The type of tactics you use will alter markedly what behaviour you must display. | |||
|
Negotiation phase | ------------------------- Negotiation tactics ------------------------- | ||
|
Competitive | Collaborative | Subordinate | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The No-Fault Formula: Five Easy Steps!It's Magic!This No-Fault Formula gets more of what you want, more often and from more people. This is a simple way to generally get the following results
|
|
Talking the Bull out of the Bully
Negotiating would be easy if we didn't have to deal with "problem people" - if everyone could just be reasonable and see things our way! Much of the time we are dealing with people who look like adults on the outside but are thinking like children on the inside. Here are few classic types that use what is called "Enforcer behaviour":
Bullies
Bullies will verbally or physically attack, use threats, demand or otherwise attempt to intimidate and push other's around. They can be either male of female, and there basic approach is to use force. From bullies you constantly here things like:
To respond: The first rule is that you have to get their attention. You have to draw a boundary of consequence, beyond which there will be negative consequences that will outweigh whatever they could hope to gain. You have to draw a boundary and you have to mean it.Sometimes your tone of voice is enough of a boundary - it may be enough to say "I will not tolerate your attempt to take advantage of me". At other times, sterner measures are called for and often the best response is to have many other options you may chose instead of dealing with that person or their behaviour. You cannot be bullied if you are not around!Avoiders Avoiders will physically avoid or procrastinate, hide out or refuse to negotiate out of fear of losing.
To respond: You must identify what their fear is and find a way to make it safe enough for them to stop running away. Check out whether these fears have any basis in fact.Withdrawers Withdrawers will emotionally withdraw, get confused, go "dumb and numb" or become paralyzed by fear.
To respond: The response is much the same as that suggested for dealing with Avoiders. Don't neglect to think if you could be contributing - by your tone of voice, your persistent questions, your status, your threats or your silence.High Rollers High Rollers attempt to shock and intimidate their opposition by making extreme demands.
To respond: Insist on fair principles and invite them to explain how they arrived at their position. ie "Can you tell me your criteria for that price?", or "I want to respond to your request, but I also want to do it in a way that is reasonable for me."Wad Shooters Wad Shooters assume an all-or-nothing take-it-or-leave-it stance
To respond: Possible responses are to ignore the statements, take a break, use silence or insist on fair principlesEnforcer behaviours tend to be uncomplicated and obvious. Consequently, several responses tend to work very effectively and these are a few strategies to deal with these "problem people".
|
|
Communication Freezers
The following is a list of patent words that are guaranteed to stop any rational conversation dead in it's tracks. Sometimes that is what you had in mind, but overall rarely is that so when you are genuinely trying to negotiate with someone. Try to avoid them, unless you are deliberately setting out to rile the other person...
1. Telling the other person what to do:
|
|
Ten Good ways to Improve Communication
The above section talked to what not to do. As it is rarely helpful merely to be told not what to do, here are ten suggestions about what to do to help improve communication between yourself and others.
|
|
Getting emotional...
Anger or depression are just two of the whole range of emotions people feel from time to time. Neither of them are "good" or "bad" in a pure sense, because they are simply feelings that humans have in response to certain situations (and here we are not talking about medical conditions such as Depression or pathological anger, these are quite different).
Where they take on negative connections is when these feelings cause you to act in a way that is counterproductive or damaging - to yourself or to others. Sometimes these emotions make you behave in a way that you quickly regret!
It is important to point out this difference between what you feel and the way you act because only by doing so you can begin to understand yourself and can begin to operate in more beneficial ways.
Everyone has the "right" to feel angry. You have this right simply because you are human and come complete with the whole set of human emotions. At times things that people do or say will make you angry, and there is nothing wrong with feeling that way per se.
However, what you don't have a right to is to behave in poor ways towards others because you are angry. If you do, they have a right to resist you.
Likewise everyone has the "right" to feel depressed or sad. Things will happen in your life that make you feel this way. Feeling sad because something unfortunate has happened is not a sign of mental illness, but is a perfectly reasonable and "normal" response.
There is a tendency these days - and it appears, unsuprisingly, to have had it's origins in California - to seek to deny ever feeling sad or depressed. For some reason one is "supposed" to always feel happy, and if you aren't always happy you should be. Likewise for feeling angry.
Excuse me? Who said so?
When you have experienced a misfortune or a loss or had someone treat you badly do not deny yourself these emotions. Accept them for what they are - a product of whatever is happening in your life.
Rather than seek to remove these particular feelings from your life learn how to cope with them and learn how to manage your behaviour at the time.
Life is much less complicated that way.
|
|
When the crap hits the fan...
Is it unproductive, or even "wrong", to get in a screaming match with another person?
No - we don't believe it is. But we do see times when it will be unhelpful.
At times it is very useful - eventually - to actually have a yelling match with someone. We tend to bottle up our feelings for fear of causing hurt to other people or through fear of ridicule. This often means others are unaware of what our true feelings are.
In a yelling match we normally suspend such inhibitions. Now, at long last, we are really going to tell them what we think!
Getting all this out in the open can sometimes be a great start to a better future. We clarify our positions. They clarify their own. And neither makes two bones about our opinions.
From this starting point it is often then possible to work on the underlying conflict. In this sense, a screaming match is a good way to open up our communication with the other person.
But...
We need also to be aware of the fine line that divides "getting it off your chest" from "attacking the other person". Telling the other person exactly what you think about the way they are treating you is one thing - and running down a long list of what is "wrong" with the other person is something else. Be open with your feelings, but not personally insulting.
To do otherwise is to risk a complete break in your relationship. If you do not want this to occur, don't risk causing it. In most cases what you actually want is for the other person to be more mindful of yourself and not to get that person completely out of your life. (Sometimes you do, in which case you can throw these cautionary words to the wind!)
We need also to be aware that when we are highly emotional we often block out hearing what the other person has to say. At most of these times we're not interested in what they want and only want ourselves to be heard. Unfortunately, they are doing the same and in that sense a yelling match isn't going to solve anything. Solutions will need to come later.
So... if and when you yell and scream and rant and rave do so about what the person is doing to you and not about the person themself.
Then give both of you a little time. Express your genuine regret it "came to all this" and express your genuine desire to solve the problem and to continue relating to that other. Don't compound your dealings by deliberately drawing others into your fight (try and deal with one conflict at a time instead of starting a war!).
At this point you may both be ready, although cautious and unitrust, to sit down and more calmly and more rationally discuss all the issues that came out during the screaming match.
Yes, these things happen. What is done is done, and what is said is said.
But don't waste the opportunity to solve the conflict if that is what you genuinely want.
|
|
"Kids say the darndest things..."
Listening as we were to Tammy Wynette in CD, this section and it's title came almost as an afterthought. But it is probably important to separately make note of a few things that do alter how you organize your strategies when dealing with young adults; and particularly a gay young adult.
All of what we have said on this page is still applicable, but a couple of things need be kept in mind. Not least of which is the age of the person you may be having a problem with.
While it's also true for a large number of adults, the first reality check when negotiating with adolescents or young adults is that they are not as set in their ways as are adults. They are still exploring and modifying their views of the World and as a result do not have as rigid a personality or patten of behaviour as 'we' do. That's one of their more endearing qualities, and also one of their most frustrating.
More simply put - they can be rather unpredictable at times!
At times a young adult may deliberately react in a way that is against their nature. They may be just going through a phase, or they may be testing how others respond. Sometimes they're just being plain difficult. That's perfectly normal and to be expected because they still haven't established themselves.
All this doesn't alter what sort of strategy that is suggested as best. The strategies are based on wants and needs and not on personality types.
However, it does alter the tactics you use when following the strategy. It is usually better to go a little easier on the tactics when dealing with a young adult although they may be behaving in a more extreme manner than would an adult who would also be a prime candidate for the tactics. There is a reason for this - with an adult you can expect to see only a moderate change in their personality and mode of behaving through time. With a young adult you may see a great change even without intervening.
Use of particular tactics are often surmised as being used on someone with a stable personality type or way of behaving. You may use them to the full because you can be more sure of who you are really dealing with. If you were to do this with a young adult you may find you have misjudged the "real" person underneath all the adolescent behaviour. You only get to see the real person after they have gone through this growth phase.
This is particularly so when a parent is dealing with a gay child. It is often said that adolescence is delayed for us. To some degree this will be a fair assessment, but it's not the whole picture.
It is probably true for many as far as relationships go. Gay men and women do not have the same opportunities to explore relationships until several years later than would otherwise be the case because of social pressures. While our straight peers are discussing and trying out pair-bonded relationships with the opposite sex from their early/mid teens we often have to wait until our late teens/early 20's before we get to experience this with the same sex. The dating scene at High School could hardly be described as a vibrant one, and as a result many 25 year old gay men remind one of 15 year old straight boys.
But it's not the full picture because in some ways we mature earlier. Often we become more independently minded and self-sufficient at a younger age. Because we have had much to think about we often are more reflective, and our own situation often makes us more empathetic. Unchallenged by life's little experiences many straight people only begin to think about these things at a later age than we do.
In that sense a gay child may seem a curious mix of the inexperienced adolescent looking for affirmation and the independent adult who has a mind of their own. (This could, of course be turned in reverse and straight young adults be described as a curious mix of the socially unaware adolescent and the independent sexual being. But we tend not to say this because it is the "norm" and barely raises comment).
A Parent with a gay child needs keep this in mind. It may be tempting to concentrate solely on the inexperience they show in pair-bond relationships (tempting, because this is what outsiders see as the "gay" part), but it's also important to remember this "child" is not likely to wish to bend to your wishes as a true adolescent may.
Tough as it may be, such parents are going to have to mix and match their tactics and not react themselves in a way that takes for granted that their child will develop or behave - in particular areas - as a straight child would. They are not going to, because life's experiences are very different. On certain issues more patience will be needed, but on others you can also use the greater awareness of self to advantage.
That your child should behave in a respectful manner to you as with any other person goes without saying. If they do not you may turn their social awareness on them, and remind them that they would find behaviour like that towards them and over their sexuality to be both disrespectful and intolerable. They don't want to be taken for granted, and neither do you.
It would usually be a mistake to assume the gay young adult is less mature overall because they are behaving in ways that you - as a heterosexual - stopped years ago and at an earlier age than they are now. Overall, gay kids will have a more mature capacity to empathize even if they do appear to be behaving like a silly adolescent on some issues.
Find a way to use that capacity.
|
|
A special section for parents with a gay child Oftentimes we have had a parent say that "homosexuality" is the problem they have when their child is gay. However, in seeking to understand their concerns a few - and independent - concerns are invariably at the bottom of it all. Issues such as HIV/AIDS, social stigma, choice of friends, choice of partner, concern about violence or discrimination being used against the child, choice of clothing, choices about what sort of sexual behaviour is engaged in, feelings of guilt or shame etc. In stepping back for a moment one notes that these - of themselves - actually have little or nothing to do with homosexuality. These are issues that most parents have about their children regardless of the child's sexuality. While they may be heightened because the child is gay these concerns are not either directly connected with homosexuality or any individual gay man or woman. It is, of course, entirely possible to be both gay and not be a victim of violence, or have an "anything goes" attitude to sexual activity, or be HIV positive or feel depressed and lonely. In fact, the majority of adult gay men and women are none of these things. Most parents do not begin to emerge from their own negative feelings until they do indeed begin to see how distinctly apart from homosexuality all these single-issue concerns actually are. Initially it may well seem to them that there is simply this looming black cloud called "homosexuality" but in time most parents begin to see it is these individual issues about which they actually are concerned. At this point the lives of such parents become much easier! No longer do they feel completely powerless against an overwhelming and utterly incomprehensible "foe" - but instead begin to see how they can deal with their fears and concerns one issue at a time. |
|
 |
|
|
|
 Get your own Free Home Page |
|
URL: http://geocities.datacellar.net/WestHollywood/7378/conflict_01.html New format posted January 13, 1998 This page revised 28 March 1999 |