I found it interesting. It got me thinking about how I am in conflict situations. If it's a close friend, romantic partner or otherwise someone that I care about, I can very much fit the description of FJ:
Once engaged in a conflict, FJs can be intense and emotional and will encourage others to share their feelings and opinions in the hope that this will lead to a resolution. Typically they will equate success in a conflict with the relationships remaining intact and there being no lingering bitterness.
On the other hand, when dealing with things of a more public nature, that's less the case. I often feel like I hide behind logic a bit. My tactic when dealing with conflict with someone where there isn't some sort of important connection is to be as emotionally detached and as logical as possible. I don't generally show too much of myself and the absolute last thing I want in a situation like this is to show anything personal. If the other person tries to make it personal (as in, personal attacks) I'll generally calmly and firmly reiterate my position in a way that implies that it will not be changed, then pull back from the discussion.
I'm usually this way when dealing with people in business situations (such as real estate agents when we were looking for a place or other condo board members). In fact, I'm generally so logical and objective in discussions that, based on some of the debates on the condo board email list, one of my neighbors actually thought I was a lawyer! (As in, suggested I might provide my services for a matter we were dealing with.)
When teaching, I've needed to soften my approach a bit more. If there is a matter where I consider myself to be clearly in the right (such as a grade appeal) I've tended to take more of a TJ approach:
When they are involved in a conflict, their primary need is for closure or resolution—to have it over and done with. They may tend to overlook the emotional content in conflict even though strong emotion does exist.
I've had to learn that this is something that just isn't effective when teaching. For example, when a student comes to me with a grade complaint when they haven't followed the parameters of the assignment (such as skipping the argument portion, when I've specified it should constitute half of the paper) I've learned that it's better in the long run to take the time to discuss the issue in-depth with the student. I'm unlikely to significantly alter the grade (although I might consider allowing the option for re-writes if enough students seemed confused by the parameters) but approachability and accessibility are an important part of the learning process, and so a softer approach can be helpful here.
I'll add, too, since I try to stay detached during disagreements in a professional or public capacity, if I do admit a personal reaction to what's being said, it usually means I in some way consider the person to be a friend. Usually, I'll only do so if the person seems to be crossing a line. In those instances, one would be wise to listen. Fighting dirty* generally won't be tolerated.
*Fighting dirty involves, in my mind, things like personal attacks, repeated moral judgments, and overt and/or insidious forms of peer pressure.
No comments:
Post a Comment