Establish Expectations

Communication provides the means that people use to convey their thoughts about incompatibilities between them through communication. Sure, alternative mechanisms exist, including physical violence, verbal abuse, verbal aggression, or coercion in some other form (e.g., bribery).

As mentioned in Chapter 1, conflict interactions involve two people who each perceive incompatibility and manage conflict mindlessly or mindfully. Conflicts are managed best when the other person’s goals are taken into account, so that adaptation to the other person’s ideas can occur (Lakey & Canary, 2002). Parties to conflict who work interdependently can achieve a mutual understanding of the problem(s), to begin solving the mutually defined problem(s) together (Papa & Papa, 2010). Not knowing the other person’s goals will handicap your ability to adapt strategically. Stated differently, a lack of perspective-taking prevents social actors from using the other person’s goals as information that helps them increase their strategic options.

One also needs to be mindful of rules for conflict behavior. Jones and Gallois (1989) found five rules for conflict interaction: consideration, which involves lis­tening to the other person’s character or arguments; rationality includes remaining calm and not showing one’s anger; self-expression, or staying on the issue and being honest; conflict resolution, which involves problem-solving and creating alterna­tives; and positivity, which concerns relieving tensions, maintaining eye contact, and so forth.

Although people might meet the other person’s general expectations, they can violate expectations for specific behaviors during conflict interaction (Canary & Spitzberg, 1987). Just one ill-thought comment can ruin an entire conversation. Specific behaviors that violate expectations for conflict interaction include inter­rupting, swearing, blaming, shouting, not listening or giving eye contact, sarcasm, and so forth. One use of these tactics can damage or sink a prosperous discussion, partly because positive behaviors are normative but negative messages stand out much more and are often remembered longer than positive messages (Canary & Spitzberg, 1990).

A paradox exists here: How can people succeed at achieving their goals and also meet the expectations of the very person who apparently is blocking their goals? Your abil­ity to achieve important goals largely depends on how well you meets the other person’s expectations; when one is aware of and attempts to meet the other per­son’s expectations then the other person becomes more open to acknowledging you, listening to you, and perhaps will be persuaded by you (Canary & Spitz- berg, 1987). Referring to the model driving this book, by being mindful of what prompts conflicts, of the other person’s personality, of interpretations of the con­flict, and of goals at stake, the reader can assess the situation and adapt to it. Not meeting the other person’s needs and expectations would dissuade that person from being interested in what you want. Remember the Golden Rule: treat oth­ers as you would have them treat you. This rule is ingenious because it advises you to communicate in positive and caring ways (as you would be treated), and it creates a joint expectation of engaging in positive, caring behavior. We offer the following, which reflects the wisdom of the Golden Rule.

Conclusion 2.1: Assessments of communicative competence depend on the extent to which you meet other people's expectations for communicating during conflict.

Suggestion 2.1: Establish expectations by using this simple strategy: communicate with other people the way you want other people to communicate with you.