A Strategic Approach
Before we discuss the strategic approach, we need to underscore how people simply do not perceive an incompatibility and then respond with messages. As mentioned in Chapter 1, conflict instigation occurs first and the individual reacts to it cognitively, emotionally, and behaviorally.
Following conflict instigation, three factors intervene between conflict instigation and choices on how to manage the conflict: personality factors, interpretation of the conflict, and assessment of the goals at stake. These three factors inform people (sometimes within a tenth of a second) regarding which strategic choice is best. More of each of these elements of conflict is discussed in later chapters. However, we wanted to discuss conflict communication strategies early so you can have a concrete sense of what we mean by “conflict strategies” or “communication strategies.”A strategic approach ties communication behaviors to decisions that people make for handling a conflict situation. From a strategic point ofview, then, conflict strategies and their related tactics are born from people’s decisions—decisions that you, we, and everyone makes regarding how to communicate in the face of incompatibility. Specifically, theory and research has shown that people’s decisions involve (1) whether to be direct or indirect (whether to approach or avoid), and (2) whether to cooperate or compete (whether to be positive or negative) (Putnam & Wilson, 1982; Sillars & Canary, in press; Sillars & Wilmot, 1994). These two decisions then most directly lead to the intention of using particular conflict strategies and their specific tactics.
People can make these two decisions in a flash or over a sustained period of time. For example, how much time is needed to decide how to respond to another driver who aggressively cuts you off on the highway? Or how much time do you need to respond strategically to your partner’s demands, deal with an overbearing supervisor, talk to a former partner who makes it very difficult for you to visit your children, or decide what to say to his or her parents after 20 years of neglect? The time you need to decide which communication strategy to use can vary immensely.
Intensive observational research ofactual interactions has uncovered various conflict strategies and tactics that can be readily grouped into the dimensions of directness and cooperation (Sillars, Canary, & Tafoya, 2004). Crossing directness and cooperation at 90 degrees shows how people’s strategic choices bring about various communication strategies and tactics. These dimensions closely resemble those that van de Vliert and Euwema (1994) discovered—activeness and agreeableness.
Van de Vliert and Euwema reviewed the conflict literature to discover how conflict behaviors and outcomes can be grouped. They found four approaches that integrate research on conflict processes and outcomes: negotiation, nonconfrontation, direct fighting, and indirect fghting. Negotiation includes tactics that are direct and cooperative; nonconfrontation comprises tactics that are positive or neutral, and they seek to minimize the conflict’s importance; direct fighting involves tactics that compete with the other person, such as ridicule, threats, intimidation, and the like. Finally, indirect fighting includes tactics that attempt to remove oneself from the conflict in a negative manner—stonewalling is a form of indirect fighting. We adopt van de Vliert and Euwema’s labels to discuss conflict communication strategies and tactics.
One interesting (and confusing) feature of conflict categories is that they are not always discrete, separate message behaviors. Specific conflict behaviors can represent more than one set of meanings. The statement, “I really like the way you drive,” can represent praise or criticism (ifsaid with a sarcastic, negative tone). Also, the statement “let’s get together sometime” can indicate that you want to see more or less of another person (depending on whether the time and place are clear). In a word, conflict messages are polysemous—that is, message codes can take on different meanings depending on the relational history of the conversational partners and the context in which the statement is expressed (Sillars & Canary, in press).
What should you do when the meaning of someone’s statement is unclear to you? One smart decision is to behave in a normative manner. That is, behave as most people do and interpret the other person’s comment literally. For example, if someone says “Hello [your name]” in a condescending voice, you could reply with a “Hello [their name]” as most people would do and as if that person was literally genuine.
Conclusion 2.2: Decisions you make about how to approach the other person in conflict will most likely lead to your use of related communication strategies and tactics.
Suggestion 2.2: Use strategies that reflect a mindful, intelligent individual; the best “bet” for mindful strategy use is negotiation, then nonconfrontation, and then the two fighting strategies.