Resolving Confl ict: Six Basic Steps

Anything that’s human is mentionable, and anything that is mentionable can be more

manageable. When we can talk about our feelings, they become less overwhelming, less

upsetting, and less scary. The people we trust with that important talk can help us

know that we are not alone.

—FRED ROGERS OF MR. ROGERS FAME (1928–2003)

Family therapists assume that most tension and fi ghts between couples signal

the need for confl ict resolution. In this section we will examine the basic strat-

egies authorities generally agree are useful for successful negotiation within inti-

mate relationships. The steps are: (1) clarifying the issue; (2) fi nding out what each

person wants; (3) identifying various alternatives; (4) deciding how to negotiate;

(5) solidifying agreements; and (6) reviewing and renegotiating. We will look at

each of these strategies and pay particular attention to the communication skills

necessary for effective confl ict resolution. It is during periods of confl ict that good

communication skills take on additional importance.

(1) Clarifying the Issue. Confl icts and fi ghts are probably caused as frequently by

misunderstanding as they are by genuine differences. Often people argue over some-

thing they don’t really disagree on but only thought they did. Clarifying the issue helps;

sometimes true differences get pushed aside or covered over by side issues. These types

of misunderstandings can be minimized by using the following techniques:

• Both partners should spend some time alone to think through what is both-

ering them. During this time, they should ask themselves questions that

focus on the issue and on their thoughts, feelings, and desires about the
issue: What situation(s) triggered how I’m feeling? What was going on that

made me feel uncomfortable? How would I like things to be different? What

are some things I want for myself?

• Both partners should try to understand fully what the other partner is

saying. Using good listening skills, the listener should repeat back to the

speaker what is being heard—both its content and its feeling—until the

speaker is satisfi ed that the listener has understood the message. In addition,

the listener can ask questions to clarify or to elicit more information from the

speaker. By focusing questions directly on what the speaker is sharing, the

listener facilitates identifi cation of the confl ict.

• Each partner is responsible for keeping the discussion focused. This can be

done by agreeing to talk at another time about side issues that may arise or

by using reminders such as “Let’s refocus” or “Now, where were we?” to

keep the discussion from drifting.

• Each partner should sum up what the other has said after each person has

had an opportunity to talk. Clearly identifying and echoing the problem

ensures that both partners agree on what the issue is.

(2) Finding Out What Each Person Wants. After both people are clear about

what the issue is, the discussion should shift to identifying what each person

wants. Omitting this part of the process often leads to unsatisfactory negotiations

and repetitive fi ghts. This step is important because it helps minimize hurtful

exchanges between frustrated couples; each partner has to identify what he or she

wants rather than recounting “how bad things have been.” Identifying needs can

be a diffi cult process for some couples, but it can be facilitated if both partners

genuinely ask each other to express their desires. If one partner says, “I don’t know

what I want, but I just know I don’t want things to be the way they have been,” this

is a straightforward signal that this part of the process has not been completed.

(3) Identifying Various Alternatives. During this step, partners look at the

various options for achieving resolution. This step often leads to new insights.
Brainstorming ideas can be a fun and creative process because both partners are

working together to fi nd ways to deal with an issue. Research indicates that brain-

storming increases people’s skill at identifying useful alternatives.

(4) Deciding How to Negotiate. After the various alternatives have been identifi ed,

it’s time to try to work out some agreements, or plans, for change. There are several strat-

egies couples can use to negotiate differences. Each has advantages and disadvantages.

• Quid pro quo. A Latin term meaning “this for that,” quid pro quo is a nego-

tiating strategy by which parties agree that “I’ll do this if you’ll do that.”

For example, the Smiths have been bickering over the weekly household

chores. Each feels that he or she is doing more than the other. After dis-

cussing the alternatives for dividing the tasks more equally, they readily

move into a quid pro quo bargain. Jack agrees to do a certain number of the

tasks, and Marlene agrees to do the rest. This strategy is effective because it clarifi es what each person
is going to do. The major disadvantage of this

strategy is that it can easily break down if one person fails to keep her or

his agreement. Another disadvantage is the diffi culty of fi nding relatively

equivalent divisions.

• Quid pro quid. A Latin term meaning “this for this,” quid pro quid is an

agreement to do something the other person asks you to do in exchange

for being able to do something you want to do. For example, Brent’s wife,

Nancy, wants him to accept more responsibility for taking care of the

children. He agrees to be fully responsible for the children for two nights
in exchange for a night out with his friends. This bargaining strategy has

advantages over the quid pro quo method in that the consequences for

not living up to the bargain are clear and are not based on what the other

partner does. This strategy works especially well when one partner is

asking the other to change because it enables the partner who agrees to the

change to give himself or herself something he or she wants as well. This

helps avoid power struggles in which one partner feels she or he has to

change simply because the other demands that things be different. The

disadvantage of this strategy is that many couples have diffi culty reaching

any type of mutually acceptable agreement.

• Agreeing to disagree. After exploring all the alternatives, a mutually agreeable

solution is not always possible; the negotiating strategy then is agreeing to

disagree. For example, Len wanted to invest the couple’s savings in some

lakefront property, and Lesley wanted to take a trip to Europe. After long

hours of discussion, both felt even more strongly about what they wanted.

Because they couldn’t agree on either course of action, they agreed to

disagree—and left the money in the account. When the issue is not critical

to the maintenance of the relationship, agreeing to disagree leaves open the

possibility of fi nding a solution later. When the differences are more basic,

however (for example one partner wants children and the other does not),

agreeing to disagree will only work in the short run.

(5) Solidifying Agreements. Partners may need to try several negotiation strat-

egies before reaching agreement. But when an agreement is reached, it is important

that both people are clear about what has been agreed to and that both do indeed

agree. Partners must be careful to avoid bulldozing the other into an agreement.

Too often, in their haste to get things wrapped up people make agreements they

know they can’t stick to. Couples should take the time to fully explore what the

agreement means for each person before giving it the fi nal stamp of approval. They
should be sensitive to each other’s reservations. It’s a good idea to avoid making

agreements while either partner is upset. Pressure tactics, such as implied threats,

often win the battle but lose the war. When both partners are in agreement, they

should make a contract by writing down everything they’ve agreed to in simple,

clear language. Couples should post the agreement as a reminder of what each is to

do. They should also agree to review the situation within a short period of time.

(6) Reviewing and Renegotiating. Once an agreement has been negotiated, it is

easy to assume that the issue has been settled once and for all. Unfortunately, this is

rarely the case. Carrying out an agreement often brings other issues to light. It is not

unusual to discover that the agreement does not really resolve the problem. A

timely review ensures that bad feelings about the agreement do not go on too long.

When agreements break down, partners distrust or are disillusioned about each

other’s genuine interest in working together. Broken agreements should be reviewed

as soon as possible. Couples often discover that one or the other simply forgot to do

what was agreed upon. It is important for people to remind themselves that change is

rarely smooth and that it is also rare for any person to live up to any agreement com-

pletely. But if both partners are invested in each other’s personal well-being and want

their relationship to grow, couples can positively resolve just about any confl ict.