| Aug. 7th, 2006 @ 11:21 pm Conflicts, Relationships, and Types of People |
|---|
Current Mood:  contemplative
I recently had a few insights about conflicts within relationships and how people resolve conflicts. I'd like feedback and commentary on the insights. I originally posted the idea in my own LJ, and got positive feedback for it. I'm posting it here to see what other insights people can derive from this, or if they think the basic idea needs some tweaking.
Thanks.
Last year, ![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) dawnd and akienm introduced this diagram to me:
The premise behind the diagram is that when two people resolve a conflict, they can resolve it in such way that one or both of them loses. If partners repeatedly choose win-lose options, the overall relationship loses. One side repeatedly "wins", but eventually, the other person will resent having to give in, or give up to maintain the peace. Over the long term, a series of win-lose decisions will poison the relationship. A likely outcome is that the losing side will opt out of the relationship.
The only outcome in which the overall relationship wins is when both partners find a win-win solution.
Sometimes, there is no win-win solution, and the people have to recognize that. This might be okay for the short-term, but ideally, the participants will be aware enough to keep the negative effects just a short-term influence.
I thought this was a great insight, and would apply to (all?) relationships. Now, I don't think it applies to all. I know of several relationships that have lasted multiple decades despite the fact that one person is clearly emotionally dominant, and the other clearly submits continuously. Yet, both sides seem content with the status quo, and so the relationship seems stable despite the assymetry. I suspect one side decided that maintaining the peace by giving in was better than alternative options - such as leaving. Or perhaps one side naturally wants the other to take the lead.
Back in July, I attended a conflict resolution workshop in Berkeley. At the workshop, I saw a diagram similar to this one. It had the parts "High Concern For Self" and "Low Concern For Self", but was not structured as a 2x2 matrix. Right after the workshop, I had this insight. I took the basic concepts from that diagram, and by reorganizing the diagram into this 2x2 matrix, I suddenly saw that there were 4 types of people. I followed that line of thinking and gained insight into whether people will seek win-win solutions when resolving conflicts or will settle for win-lose options.
The premise here is that some people have a higher concern for themselves than others. They want to create outcomes that improve their lives. Some people have a lower concern for themselves, they are willing to put up with situations that are not highly beneficial to themselves. Also, some people have a high concern for others - they want to see others succeed, and are concerned about the well-being of others. Lastly, there are those without much concern for others.
Type 1 people are reckless - they engage in self-destructive behavior. They act with little regard for how their behaviors affect others. This is the realm of alcoholics and people with drug addictions. It is also where we find those with severe personality disorders. And beware of suicide-bombers - they surely have little concern for your well-being. Relationships with Type 1 people are bound to be lose-lose. They create conflicts where none need occur. A day with them is filled with drama, and few emotional rewards. Although many Type 1's may not want lose-lose options, their actions and choices often bring about a net loss. A lot of people in this quadrant are redeemable, but it requires much effort and willingness on their part. My nickname for them is "Reckless".
Type 2 people will do what they can to make others happy, but at what cost to themselves? They might be emotionally submissive, or trained to put other's needs before their own. These people avoid conflict, give in to keep the peace, and then pretend that conflict doesn't happen. They would also be okay with win-win options, as long as that is okay with their partner. If you pair them up with a Type-1, then they start saying, "I can be codependent if you want me to be." If they partner-up with a Type 3, then they'll give in almost every time to avoid a conflict. I refer to Type 2's as "Doormats".
Type 3 people are looking out for number 1. They don't care about others - except where they can use others to further their own agenda. Such people may be superficially charming and act as if they will act in your best interests. Yet, when the time has come, they won't hesitate to stab you in the back. Worse yet, they smile while stabbing you. Although they don't need conflict, they also have no qualms about creating conflict, if they can use the conflict to stay on top. Their policy is "Somebody is going to win this arguement, and it had better be me." Type 3's don't mind using Type 1's, but they will eventually learn that interactions with Type 1's are lose-lose, rather than the win-lose options they seek. I suspect they prefer the company of Type 2's who are willing to put up with win-lose options. I call them the "Autocrats".
Type 4's want to see everyone at their best. From my experience, they surround themselves with good friends who support one another. It is also my observation that they are the happiest people I meet. They don't make conflicts unnecessarily, but don't avoid them when conflicts occur. As conflicts unfold, they strive to find a solution that works for everyone. Or at least a solution that everyone is comfortable with. Conflicts are resolved quickly and with minimal hurt feelings. Although they will not want to create conflicts, they can use conflicts to better understand the motives and values of others. Type 4's will not want anything less than win-win options, or at least win-neutral. I see them as "Keen".
I suspect that Type 4's will not want to form relationships with anybody except other Type 4's. They will see Type 1's as conflict prone and that interactions with them will tend towards a net loss for everyone. Type 4's can see interactions with Type 2's as assymmetric - they have to carry the Type 2's. Type 4's have to make the effort to look out for both themselves and the Type 2's, while the Type 2's are not looking out for both participants. Lastly, the Type 4's will strongly avoid Type 3's simply because the Type 4's high concern for themselves implies they will not allow others to take advantage of them.
I got another bit of wisdom from that workshop. It is far easier to focus on win-lose options than to find a win-win solution when one is only concerned about one's own needs and wants. Finding a win-win solution is harder, but worth the effort.
P.S. - I had better clarify early that I am not talking about D/s relationships or intentional power-play. Please don't interpret the Type 2's and Type 3's as submissives or Dominants. The focus is entirely on conflict resolution within relationships.
Cross-posted to polyamory. |
|  |
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
commskills
bored
hopeful