Two Ways to Worse Communication

Looking into different types of conflict in communication going poorly, I found some interesting ideas and how they apply to daily interactions. Differentiation as it pertains to escalation and avoidance really seem to frame disputes I have had in the past. Looking back and seeing how things played out and how people reacted fits in very well within these ideas.

In differentiation and escalation, which “is fueled by negative emotions such as anger and hurt, by social cognitive process such as attributing fault for the conflict to the other, and by interaction process such as reciprocity” (Folger, Poole, and Stutman, 2013, p.16). Obvious signs that may indicate being stuck in a destructive cycle are insults, personal attacks and anything that turns it less about the issue and more about defeating the adversary or ‘other’. The escalation divides the differentiated parties, increasing the gulf between their stances to the point of making a workable solution difficult.

In differentiation and avoidance, “parties may sometimes fear the consequences of open conflict so much that they refuse to acknowledge the conflict and avoid anything that might spark a confrontation” (Folger, Poole, and Stutman, 2013, p.16). It can be difficult to step into the metaphorical arena of differentiation to decide a solution over a particularly contentious issue. Factoring in other possible variables such as being outnumbered, out positioned or knowing engaging with the other parties will inevitably result in escalation. Involved parties “may respond to potential conflicts with ambiguous statements and skirt troublesome issues “(Folger, Poole, and Stutman, 2013, p.17).

The destructive cycles outlined by Folger, Poole, and Stutman, describe the way many differentiation interactions may not come to a resolution. However, the same destructive aspects of the differentiation can and do play a part in the normal course towards normal navigating integration towards a solution.  Folger, Poole, and Stutman use a nautical example known as tacking for explaining the ability to arrive at a solution to the problem. Tacking is not on the surface, an intuitive and easy idea to grasp. The idea of traveling back and forth at angles to travers to a point straight ahead of your position is a great way to explain the handling of differentiation discourse. If you go too far to the port side the destructive cycle of spiraling escalation occurs, too far starboard brings you to ridged avoidance.

In my experience I have had to navigate both spiraling escalation and ridged avoidance. Occasionally the problem was my own, and more often than not I have recognized that before too much damage is caused. One of my peers at work tends to use intimidation through most differentiation interactions. He is big, loud and will talk over anyone with which he is currently engaged. I view the words he uses and manner of delivery as escalation. I believe it is ingrained in his personality, and is not administered with malice aforethought. His actions cause many of our other peers to employ various levels of avoidance because they do not want to engage with his bombastic personality.  I approach any differentiation with him using a ‘bide my time’ approach. I allow him to loudly spin his wheels and I will calmly respond throughout. It requires a lot of energy and focus for him to keep up such a high level of bluster for an extended period of time. Once I think he has started to run out of gas I present my case as relaxed as possible. We do not always reach an amicable solution, but I would estimate without my measured approach the rest of the group would stall into a destructive cycle of ridged avoidance.

References:

Folger, J.P., Poole, M.S., and Stutman, R.K., (2013). Working Through Conflict: Strategies for Relationships, Groups and Organizations. Seventh Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.