My Ironic COnflict Management Strategy

Conflict is a part of every interpersonal relationship, whether between parents and children, between brothers and sisters, or between friends, lovers or coworkers. If it isn’t, the relationship is dull, irrelevant, or insignificant. The major positive value of interpersonal conflict is that it forces you to closely examine a problem that you might otherwise avoid and to work toward a potential solution. If you both can use productive conflict strategies, a stronger, healthier, and more satisfying relationship may well emerge from the encounter. The very fact that you are trying to resolve a conflict means that you feel the relationship is worth the effort; otherwise, you would walk away from the problem. Through conflict you learn more about each other and with that knowledge comes understanding. (DeVito 148-149)
Although I do accept that this definition is true and inevitable in an interpersonal relationship, I approach conflict very differently. As much as possible, I avoid having the slightest constraint with my friends, coworkers, relatives and even strangers. It is not the conflict that makes me uncomfortable, but the process I would have to go through because of it.
In our family, communication is not a regular activity. We don’t feel obligated or have the need to tell our parents, siblings, cousins, or anyone in the house how we are feeling or how our day had been. We are all introverts in the family; we seldom talk because we feel there is not much to talk about and we value privacy like it’s the number one rule inside the house. So when it comes to having conflicts, we usually avoid confrontations, or simply walk away like nothing happened. And because of that, I resort to gunnysacking. Gunnysacking, as DeVito defines it, is the practice of storing up grievances for unloading at another time. (155) Conflict makes me uncomfortable, mainly because I do not know how to deal with it properly. I avoid confrontations at all costs, even if it means that I do not talk to the other person for months. I just don’t want to talk about it, even if it is my fault. But based on experience, gunnysacking proves to worsen the problem. When the time comes that I cannot hold it in anymore, I explode, which results to another round of conflict, only this time, confrontation is a must and both parties know that the process isn’t going to be pretty. I vent all the anger and blame to him/her. I have this not-so-good talent of turning the situation and the odds to my side during a conversation without the other person knowing. So I try to win the situation and I seldom give in to compromise. However, after all the bashing and cussing and venting it all out, I come to realize that the problem has not been resolved and more damage has been done because of my behavior. I usually take some time out (the time I spend depends on the gravity of the situation and the damage done) before I initiate another confrontation. A more peaceful confrontation, that is. We try to talk things over and I try to be vocal about it even if it is uncomfortable, because at some point I realize that I am tired of carrying a burden that I didn’t know I have before. It will occur to me that I was in denial, and of course, gunnysacking, the whole time which is ironic because I do not want to be involved in a conflict in the first place. It was me who made it a whole lot worse because of my rotten strategy. At this part, it is obvious that I do feel kind of guilty because of what I have done, so I cover it up by “proposing” a solution. I have said earlier that I do have this talent of manipulating the odds to my convenience, and that talent is what I use to persuade the other party to agree and think of it as the best solution there is. I always assume that when I do this, it means that the conflict is done. But there are times that it only creates another problem. I didn’t know why it happens; not until now. Julia T. Wood discusses one aspect of interactional theory which is called punctuation. It says that we punctuate interaction by designating the start and stop of episodes of interaction. Communication functions as long as all parties agree on punctuation. Both partners in marriage agree on when particular episodes begin and end, so they understand what is happening in interaction. But if partners differ in how they punctuate communication, misunderstanding and conflict may arise. (196) Knowing this gave me a new perspective on dealing with conflicts. Assuming that the conflict is done without confirming that the solution is favorable for both parties will only result to another misunderstanding.
I knew that no matter what I do, I would have to face and deal with conflicts in my relationships. I just didn’t know then how to do it properly when my mind is set to win the situation and not to make a progress in the relationship. Writing this essay helped me to evaluate, and thus gave me lessons, new perspective and of course, strategies on how to manage conflict properly. I would like to end this essay with a quote from Joseph Joubert which says, “The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.”


References:
DeVito, Joseph A. “Interpersonal Communication: Conversation and Conflict.” Essentials of Human Communication. Pearson Education, Inc. 2005. 148,155.
Wood, Julia T. “Theories of Communication Dynamics.” Communication Theories in Action:An Introduction. Wadsworth Publishing Co. 1999. 196.

(again, I wrote this for a job. Plagiarism is a crime.)