Apply the conflict modes to situations you are facing now and commit to an approach for each one.
Before a difficult conversation, decide how you will handle it and what your first sentence will be. You choose the mode from two ratings and the time you have, then write an opening sentence that matches that mode.
Looking back at old conflicts in lesson 5.1 helped you spot your habits. The conflicts that matter most, though, are the ones you are in now. That might be a colleague you need to talk to this week, a supplier who keeps letting you down, or an argument at home that keeps coming back. The exercise takes about 25 minutes. You make a deliberate choice about each of three conflicts before the conversation happens. You end with a conflict planner, a short table with one row per conflict. Each row holds the conflict in one factual line, two ratings, the time available, the chosen mode, a one-sentence reason and the opening sentence.
Choose three disagreements you are in right now. Mix them if you can: one large, one small, at least one at work, and one at home if there is one. Write each one as a single factual line and leave out the story, as you practised in module 4.
Wei Jie works with stores, stock and suppliers, and his default mode is competing. These are his three lines (the dates and figures in his example are invented). Marketing wants to launch a promotion on 1 March for a product whose shipment is due 25 February. A supplier delivered late on three of the last four Fridays, so the stores went into each of those weekends short. He and his sister keep arguing about who takes their mother to her polyclinic appointments.
Next, give each conflict two ratings from 1 to 5. The outcome rating is how much the outcome matters to you. The relationship rating is how much the long-term relationship with this person matters to you. These line up with the two dimensions Thomas and Kilmann use: concern for your own goals and concern for the other person's. Your ratings are not identical to those dimensions. They are a practical way to think about them. With a supplier, the relationship rating comes down to how easily you could replace them. A relationship with a sibling usually matters a lot.
Also note how much time you have. Does it have to be settled today, this week, or this quarter?
Wei Jie rated the promotion 5 for outcome and 4 for relationship, with about three weeks to settle it. He rated the supplier 4 for outcome and 2 for relationship, because two other suppliers carry the same range, and the festive season is a month away. He rated the conflict with his sister 3 for outcome and 5 for relationship, and the next appointment is in ten days.
Base the mode on the ratings and the time available, and keep habit out of the decision. This rough guide is based on lesson 5.1:
High outcome and high relationship, with time to talk: collaborate. High outcome and lower relationship, or urgent: compete, firmly and politely. Middling on both, or short of time: compromise. Low outcome and high relationship: accommodate. Low on both: avoid, or leave it until emotions cool.
The guide is a starting point, and you can overrule it. If the outcome concerns safety or ethics, compete whatever the relationship. If you have been wrong, accommodate whatever the outcome. Also compare the results with the default mode you found in lesson 5.2. If that mode keeps coming out of the guide, check that you are not rating in a way that justifies it.
Wei Jie chose to collaborate with marketing, because both sides needed something important and there was time to work it out. He chose to compete with the supplier, because the outcome mattered, the supplier could be replaced, and he needed a fix before the festive season. With his sister he chose to compromise. The relationship mattered more than who drove, and an arrangement they could both live with was better than holding out for a perfect one. Two of his three choices went against his competing default, and this made him trust the choices more.
Your first sentence sets the mode for the conversation. A collaborating opening invites the other person in. A competing opening states your position clearly and calmly. A compromising opening names the trade. Whatever the mode, stick to facts and leave out motives. Don't accuse the other person of being careless or of not pulling their weight. A factual opening keeps the conversation open whichever mode you chose.
Wei Jie's opening to marketing says he wants the promotion to land well and has a stock problem he thinks they can solve together. He then asks to look at the shipping dates and the campaign plan side by side. To the supplier, he says that three of the last four Friday deliveries were late and the stores were short each time. From next week he needs deliveries by Thursday at 5pm, or some of the range moves to another supplier. To his sister, he proposes splitting it: he takes the morning appointments, she takes the afternoon ones, and they revisit the arrangement in three months. None of his openings says the supplier is careless or that his sister is not pulling her weight.
Read your openings aloud once. If one sounds like someone else, rewrite it until it sounds like you.
Your planner has three rows, one for each conflict. Each row holds the factual line, the outcome rating, the relationship rating, the time available, the chosen mode, a one-sentence reason and the opening sentence.
Over the coming weeks, as you have these conversations, note which mode you actually used once you were in the room. Under pressure, people often drift back to their default mode. The next thing to work on is knowing when that happens to you.
Fill in your three rows in the activity below.
Fill in the conflict planner for three live situations: the mode you chose, the reason, and an opening sentence for each.
Junxiong-WFG Organisation is an authorised representative of AIA Financial Advisers Private Limited (Reg. No. 201715016G).