Turning friction and conflict into learning.

(This is the second of two articles on the topic)

In the first article on this topic we explored three interdependent values that, if enacted, will help create the conditions needed to transform friction and conflict into a learning experience. These increase the likelihood that we can both achieve what we desire and maintain healthy relationships. I gave a short outline of the three values (questioning assumptions, partnership, and sharing all relevant information) with some suggestions as to what they might look like in practice. I also suggested that balance between advocacy and inquiry in our speech is key to the enactment of the three core values. Here, I further examine advocacy and inquiry and how they can be used to make difficult or sensitive issues discussable and enhance the quality of dialogue and learning during conflict. But first – a short look at what gets in the way of learning.

Open and closed to learning

Our inability to have constructive conversations about difficult or sensitive issues is closely linked both to our identity (how we see ourselves/what we identify with or are attached to) and our ability to learn in the midst of a complex experience of contention or conflict. When we see ourselves as knowing what the other intended, being right, not needing to inquire further, not needing the other, only concerned with our own goals, not needing to take account of information that does not fit or support our way of seeing things, not needing to question our assumptions, not willing to change to resolve conflicts, then we tend to be closed-to-learning and thereby we limit our ability to handle difficult situations and conflicts.

Becoming open-to-learning can be quite challenging as it usually means transcending Maslow’s lower order needs for safety, belonging, and identity (positive self-esteem). Until we have developed our own ability to meet these needs ourselves, rather than being dependent on parents/others to meet them for us, they tend to be stronger (often unconscious) drivers of our behaviour than our need to learn (self-actualisation). For example, feeling unsafe, threatened with exclusion or the risk of being humiliated, discourages us from engaging in learning if that risk is too great or we are not confident in our ability to meet our safety, belonging and esteem needs respectively. Unmet survival needs tend to close down the motivation for the higher order needs of learning (self-actualisation) required to resolve contention and conflict in a creative and sustainable way.

When we have the ability to meet our lower-order needs or others help us meet them, we can give our attention to learning even in difficult situations. Commitment to the three values of questioning our assumptions, partnership and sharing all relevant information go a long way towards meeting them. These values also address our freedom (choice) and knowledge (understanding) needs which, if met, greatly enhance our openness-to-learning and promote the conditions needed for higher order learning. Balancing advocacy and inquiry is a means of enacting these values and meeting our needs. So to help us understand them lets relate them to other ways of speaking.

Forms of speech

At risk of oversimplification, advocacy can be viewed as pushing your own agenda, views, feelings; trying to make something you desire happen, or indeed opposing what another wants or even interfering with them, even if unintentionally. Inquiry is about discovering the intentions, concerns and interests of the other, although it may also entail inquiry into our own assumptions, needs, and actions.

Forms of speech such as monologue, argument and debate that commonly occur in dealing with difficult issues and conflict do not balance advocacy and inquiry or measure up to the three values. Monologues or speeches are primarily about advocacy – there is no inquiry. They may give a great deal of information and even examine our assumptions but they indicate that we are not interested in the views of others since we do not ask for their views or make time for their response and so fail to respect the partnership value. Arguments likewise violate the partnership value, as they are usually attempts to control the outcome or the behaviour of others. Little attempt is made to inquire into the views or interests of the opposing party other than to dominate. Debate is more concerned with winning rather than learning. It may inquire but only to identify flaws in the others reasoning so it can be discredited or proved wrong. There is no genuine interest in the other’s view. It is often about seeking a vote or decision that ratifies one’s own position. So debate fails to honour all three values - the tendency is to attack others assumptions without questioning one’s own; to defeat the other rather than create partnership; to conceal any information that may not be favourable to one’s own position.

Dialogue, on the other hand, tries to balance advocacy with inquiry. It is about surfacing the underlying thinking and feeling that shapes or limits our behaviour and choices. It is about acknowledging what we don’t know; trying to understand what puzzles or creates problems for us and, through generative conversations together, creating shared insight, choices and options that deliver mutual benefit. Its framing is ‘you and me against the problem’ rather than ‘you against me’. Dialogue assumes that many people have pieces of the answer and that together they can craft a solution by collaborative conversation, by listening to understand, by finding meaning, shared goals and agreement, by revealing assumptions for re-evaluation, by re-examining all positions, by admitting that others’ thinking can improve on one’s own, by searching for strengths and values in others’ positions, by discovering new options, not seeking closure prematurely. In short dialogue seeks to balance advocacy and inquiry.

Advocacy and inquiry

So how does balancing advocacy and inquiry honour the three values? How do we do it? What kinds of behaviours reflect open-to-learning advocacy and inquiry? The following are examples of behaviours that reflect open advocacy and inquiry.

Analysing difficult conversations

Clarke and Myers (see previous article) suggest that our experiences of discomfort, reluctance to engage, and in particular negative emotions are the “alert” that should trigger us to focus our attention on enacting the three values. For example, if we feel angry, anxious or uneasy at the prospect of discussing an issue we might usefully explore what is generating such feelings and in particular the assumptions we may be making that could limit our thinking and options. Such self-awareness is therefore underpins this trigger – especially in the midst of contention or conflict.

They also suggest that attention to and analysis of the form of words we use is the key to recognising and enacting the three values as well as deciding whether our advocacy and inquiry is promoting learning or closing it down. The examples of open advocacy and inquiry given above suggest behaviours but they need particular forms of words to illustrate them and enable us to discriminate between advocacy and inquiry and assess whether the values were being honoured.

To help us become more aware of our thinking and assess our values in action, Clarke and Myers use the “left hand column” developed by Chris Argyris and Donald Schon to detailed analysis of interactions. You are invited to do it yourself as follows.

Begin by outlining a difficult scenario in which you participated and what you found difficult about it. Then divide your page into two columns and write a difficult conversation verbatim down in the right hand column as best you can remember the exchange. As you write each statement of the conversation, you write down in the left hand column what you were thinking and feeling, especially those thoughts and feelings that you had but did not disclose in conversation. You finish by briefly evaluating how you fared with the exchange, how you felt and what the outcomes were as best as you can tell.

Now you can begin to examine the extent to which you have balanced advocacy and inquiry and whether the three values have been honoured and, if not, how balancing and honouring might change the way the conversation progressed and the outcomes it could produce. For those who would like further help, many examples of such conversation analysis are available in Clark and Myers. In addition to those already mentioned, here are a few of their tips to help balance advocacy and inquiry, honour the three core values and promote dialogue and learning.

• Take time to check assumptions when you feel uncomfortable have negative feelings (assumptions/ inquiry/ information sharing)
• Ensure your preferred outcome or its impact does not undermine partnership – check response (partnership/ inquiry)
• Continually check for shared agreement about how to proceed with the conversation (assumptions/partnership/ inquiry)
• Constantly check for understanding – especially in contentious situations (partnership/ information sharing/inquiry)
• Probe any doubts or hesitations and express your own (information/ inquiry/ advocacy)
• Acknowledge the others position even if you disagree with it (advocacy / partnership)
• Reframe individual difficulties or barriers inclusively as/ in terms of joint problems, shared goals, joint responsibilities – use “we” rather than “I” (partnership)
• Encourage people to disclose feelings but check if it is OK to talk about them - many people may find it difficult to identify their feelings or feel too vulnerable to share them or need more time. (inquiry/ sharing information)
• Take ownership of your difficulties – describe the words or behaviour that create a problem for you and why. ( advocacy/information sharing)
• Relate inquiry directly to the statement that has been made (inquiry/partnership)
• When inquiring, indicate you are as prepared for a yes or a no answer (inquiry/ partnership)
• Ensure your nonverbal signals support your verbal inquiry (inquiry/ information)

Remember the purpose of all this is to make sensitive issues discussable, to enable all parties make free and informed choices and promote learning. The outcomes will be greater trust, need/goal fulfilment and strengthened relationships. However, fluent use of these techniques requires much practice and may be as challenging as learning to play a musical instrument or a sport well.