A widespread misconception : conflicts are due to disagreements.
Wrong, conflicts are often due to misunderstandings rather than to disagreements.
Misunderstanding literally means “a failure to understand something correctly”
Consider two persons who are discussing a highly complex issue: both are convinced that they are right. Most of the time each party believes that, although there is a certain amount of agreement, disagreement will prevail.
What will in all probability be their automatic behavior?
Each party will hold fast to his belief that his idea is clearly better and consequently will have to be adopted.
And that is how the dichotomy winner/loser, or you lose – I win, is born.
Presumably, the discussion will follow a well-known scheme:
A tries to convince B that his idea is better
Instead of listening to A attentively and open-mindedly, B’s purpose while listening to A is to tear apart his idea
Then B will answer by tearing apart A’s idea and A will listen only in so far as listening will enable him to demolish B’s arguments
And so forth…
The results of this talk will probably be the following:
1/ Waste of time and energy
2/ No tangible result at the end of the discussion
3/ The start of a possible conflict because each party will probably develop a precise and often negative opinion of the other person: “he/she never listens”; “his/her idea doesn’t hold water”; “he/she is in bad faith”; “he/she is stubborn”…
Let’s be honest: how often do you see this scenario in your working days, with your partner, with your teen-age children?
In an ideal world…
Let’s imagine a different scenario for our two parties, but with the same highly complex issue at stake.
What if, instead of starting out with the conviction that he/she knows everything about the other’s thoughts and behavior, each party started wondering whether their differences of opinion could stem from a misunderstanding?
Should their behavior match the graph, how will they react?
-
They will start by asking questions in order to fully understand the other person’s point of view WITHOUT thinking a priori that their idea MUST win, even if they strongly wish to see their idea adopted.
-
They have a reasonable doubt about knowing the other person’s thoughts or guessing his/her ideas after just listening to the first two words he/she utters. They also understand that they must try to reach a mutual understanding.
-
Obviously, both parties realize that asking questions does not mean that they are in full agreement. It simply means exploring each other’s point of view.
-
They are convinced that, even if only 10% of what the other person says is of any interest, it should nevertheless be taken into account because their ideas, if combined, can lead to a better result than solo decisions.
-
Finally, their reasoning is all inclusive: when two conflicting ideas or viewpoints meet, a third solution may be found, which is possibly far better than either one of the single ideas or a combination of both.
The outcome of the discussion will probably be the following:
1/ The awareness that many misunderstandings have been cleared and that the disagreement is not as serious as it looked
2/ A solution that will be implemented by both parties.
3/ Possibly an evolution of preconceived ideas on the other person and the beginning of an appeased relationship.
Conclusion
The first person we must call into question is ourselves. By so doing, we can find a solution to the conflict: if we start by asking questions instead of proceeding head-on with our ideas, sooner or later we will see a positive evolution of other people’s attitudes.
