Connect with AYT

Subscribe via Patreon!	Find AYT's Facebook!	Watch AYT!

Conflict Management

HALT Your Conflict

"HALT" is an acronym that stands for Hungry, Angry, Lonely, Tired - and is used to identify these four conditions as not the time to engage in resolving a conflict. Because if you are Hungry or Angry or Lonely or Tired - and you try to resolve a conflict you're having, you'll find yourself feeling attacked and wanting to attack. This is a problem in a professional setting (being a customer who is attacking the staff of the company means you are creating a hostile work environment - the same goes for being a co worker who often attacks other coworkers - or attacks their reputation in private conversations). And in your closest relationships, if you find yourself often approaching conflicts when you are Hungry, Angry (about something else), Lonely (feeling isolated/left out) or Tire - you'll likely be living in a pattern of one verbal/intellectual/emotional fight after another - that pattern will erode any foundations to your relationships, whether at home or in the workplace.

Now let's talk about the different ways to approach and handle a conflict. Sometimes these are called "conflict styles" - usually because the un-intentional person will tend to have one or two of these methods that they use for every conflict - in fact you can probably identify certain team members or family members who rely on only one or two methods for all situations. Just like using only a wrench, or only glue, to fix every problem, using one or two methods of handling conflict will not bring useful results most of the time. Read below to see when each style is useful, as well as the merits and limitations of each.

Ways to Handle a Conflict

Avoidance - approaching a conflict without resistance, and with total compliance.

This is best used when dealing with an unstable or unreasonable person, or in a situation with a reasonable person but when then conflict is better addressed in a different context (e.g. not arguing in front of young children, not correcting minor details of your coach during a group pep talk, not complicating a workplace procedure in front of a client).

Side note: if you notice yourself primarily using avoidance when you feel conflicted, you've probably become calibrated to an abusive situation (maybe at work or at home) and whether you begin a mental health therapy process now or later, the only difference will be how many sub optimal relationships fall apart between now and then.

Accommodation - acknowledging a conflict, and identifying (to yourself or others involved) the rationale behind giving more accommodation to some and less to others.

This method is best for when a diverse team (of two or more people) have different levels of capability (e.g. accommodating a co-worker with a disability, accommodating two spouses in the same standard of living despite a difference in income level, accommodating a less athletic hiking/walking partner, accommodating a younger sibling by insisting an older sibling play a less engaging game.

Side note: if this method is the one you see yourself using most of the time, you'll also want to begin a mental health therapy regiment to prevent the accumulation of resentment toward those who are being accommodated (whether that's an older sibling resenting a younger sibling who 'always/often' gets accommodated, or you resenting everyone because you 'always/often' put the needs of others before your own.

Compromise - giving a partial resolution to each party involved in a conflict. Compromise has its greatest utility when used for conflicts wherein time is scarce but fairness between all parties involved is important, and also when the priorities (or 'wish list') of each party can be negotiated in such a way that each party can be reasonably content with a partial (but not complete) portion of the resolution they'd hoped for.

Side note: this approach is most useful in conflicts that are low-stakes, when time is scarce, and when an amicable relationship between conflicting parties is a priority. Compromise is effective for maintaining and reinforcing a transactional-relationship between involved parties.

Collaboration - giving a full or nearly full resolution to all parties involved in a conflict. Collaboration is most useful for resolving conflicts between amicable parties who have an abundance (or sufficient amount) of time to resolve their conflict. When two (or more) parties involved in a conflict collaborate together for a resolution, the relationship between those parties will often grow more amicable, since they've helped each other attain as close to a fully desirable resolution to their conflict - or at least as near to fully desirable of a resolution as could be reasonably hoped for. Side note: Collaboration of two (or more) people toward a shared goal (or toward resolution of a mutually significant conflict) is one of the most powerful methods of team-bonding.

Assertion - when one party in a conflict insists on a resolution to the conflict that is fully desirable to them, without regard to whether other parties have a desirable or undesirable outcome. This is a useful approach to resolve conflicts where time is scarce (e.g. directing a group during emergency situations), or wherein one party has a greater responsibility and authority than other parties (e.g. a store owner giving reasonable instructions to a disruptive customer) or when a relationship is transactional and deep trust is not present or not needed (e.g. negotiating price in the sale of an item where such negotiation is appropriate).

Side note: the basic technique for assertion (aka assertiveness) is a conversational maneuver called "broken record" where you repeat a phrase describing the resolution you'd like to achieve from the conflict. Using this "broken record" repetition means repeating your desired outcome over and over again, in response to anything the other party might say, with as much or as little variation as you like.

Example of broken record:

"I'm not going to pay more than 100."

"Is it something I've said? Whatever I offended you with I apologize! How does 800 sound?"

"It's nothing you said, 800 is more than I'm going to pay - I'm not going to pay more than 100."

You know I'm losing money if I sell this for now than 500!

"That's very generous of you, but I'm not going to pay more than 100."

"Have you no heart! Do you want me to go hungry tonight?"

"I hope you don't go hungry, and I'm still not going to pay more than 100."

"Okay, you win, 400 it is"

"I'm not going to pay more than 100."

"Shake my hand now, and it's yours for 300"

"I would be delighted to shake your hand, but I'm not going to pay more than 100."

"Come on, we're taking all day, don't you see those other people waiting!"

"I can see that, but I'm not going to pay more than 100."

Attack - when one party insists on a resolution which is an undesirable outcome for other parties involved in the conflict, that is an attack - and an attack may even be an undesirable outcome for the attacker as well, but when attacking they won't notice that, their objective will be hyper-focused on creating an undesirable outcome for others involved. This method is not recommended, it is completely destructive, and is only mentioned here because it is a natural bio-psych-social response to conflict. It is natural, and humans ability to choose different means of handling conflict is what separates us from animals. Ideally you'll learn not to attack others around the same time you learn walking and the alphabet, but sadly many people never do. Attack - and the ability to attack effectively - has a place in your tool kit of ways to handle conflict, but it should not be used casually. An attack is an effort to destroy or disable or disarm the person, animal, corporation or idea you are attacking. And unless a form of destructive attacking is a service you are directly paid for, if you're in a home or work environment where you find yourself needing 'attack' as your way of handling conflict then you need a new home or work environment.

Side note: if you find yourself primarily using attack when you feel conflicted, or if you often feel attacked in the face of conflict and criticism - then you probably know better than I do the fact that you were never shown (at a young age) how to tell the difference between 'attack' or 'constructive conflict' and you probably still only have a hyper-specific and non-flexible definition for 'constructive conflict' and why you actually CAN tell the difference between that and 'attack'. If you're feeling attacked reading this paragraph then you need therapy from a qualified mental health professional more than anyone else, and also you're the least likely of anyone to begin the therapy process. Until you do, you'll just keep spending years and decades pushing people away - a 'revolving door' of people who you're close with, and then aren't so close with anymore for reasons you don't understand but which you insist are not your fault. If that description does not describe you, but describes someone you're close with, be warned: the clock is ticking on when they'll blame you for the bulk of their problems.

Conclusion

As you can see, there is no "One Best" type of handling all conflicts, rather (like any tool kit) each method has its utility and its limitations. There is no one best method for handling all conflicts, but each specific moment of a conflict can be handled best by one of the methods described above.

Recommended Reading Library

Contact

If you would like more information about AYT, please feel free to contact us via Email with any questions or comments.