A common response to conflict is avoidance. We know the wolf lives in the woods so we avoid the woods; we sacrifice by traveling miles out of our way to avoid an encounter. We acknowledge our fear is great and we willingly pay the price of avoidance.
At other times we enter the woods but remain cautious, prepared to make a hasty retreat. When the wolf appears we run. We resort to avoidance at the first sign of danger.
If we are slow or unlucky the wolf overtakes us and sinks his teeth into our flesh. We avoid by denial: we pretend he is not there. We dare not look at the bloody result. We walk on, eyes straight ahead, as though nothing is wrong, though we may grimace with pain and our limp worsens with each step.
Avoiding conflict is not inherently good or bad. In each situation, we must discern if avoidance is appropriate or inappropriate; we must nudge ourselves past our habitual responses and seek conscious decisions. We ask what we will gain and what will we lose if we choose avoidance.
At other times we may move from avoidance to accommodation. Our analysis shows our sacrifice in order to satisfy the other party’s interests will result in the best outcome. With simple avoidance we do not care about meeting anyone’s interests, we simply want to escape. In turning to accommodation, we avoid conflict by giving up our concerns while satisfying the other party.
When our needs are minor and the other party’s needs are great accommodation makes sense. Some people choose a life of service in which satisfying other’s needs becomes their mission—they satisfy their own need to help when they assist others.
On the other hand, when we habitually and compulsively accommodate others in order to avoid conflict, our needs remain unsatisfied and we suffer feelings of worthlessness. We fail to participate actively in the give-and-take of life; we become doormats. Unexpressed resentment builds and leads to explosive emotional outbursts.
Sooner or later even those who unselfishly “live for others” are faced with a dilemma: to avoid conflict they must accommodate the wishes of someone who intends to do harm; they must accommodate evil. The strategy of avoiding conflict through accommodation fails and they must engage in conflict resolution or resort to more extreme and negative forms of avoidance.
Negative forms of avoidance typically arise as a response to fear or disgust. We run and hide or seek a cloak of invisibility. Our responses range from “I don’t want to waste my time on this matter” to “I must escape at all costs.” Any thought of satisfying our interests is abandoned; we just want to “get out of Dodge.”
Avoiding conflict shrinks our world; we become withdrawn. Avoidance may allow us to escape the pain but we miss the joy. Garth Brooks captures the dilemma: “I could have missed the pain but then I would have missed the dance.”
Habitual and unreasoned responses to conflict prevent us from satisfying our interests. With the tools needed to manage conflict we can gain an opportunity to satisfy not only our interests but also the interests of others. Through reconciliation our ability to love grows and our world expands.
Time spent analyzing habitual responses to conflict is time well spent. Self-observation, contemplation, and feedback from trusted advisers are most helpful. A tool we can use to measure habitual response patterns is the Thomas Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument available online for a fee here.
Perhaps the most important approach is to contemplate the extraordinary manner in which St. Francis confronted the wolf. With his story in mind we consider the resources of faith we might bring to the conflict resolution process when running away is no longer the optimum solution.
No related posts.
