Getting Sucked Into Conflict
Dealing with Difficult People
By Marc MacYoung

This article is in response to a question asked by a very intelligent woman. I point this out because as an engineer, her profession is to solve problems. And yet, she's often at a loss about how to deal with people who insist on taking a problem and making it 'personal.' When that happens, you're no longer fighting over what the fight is about. The example she used  in her question was finding the correct power source for an item. She said one, someone else said another. Then, the other person, freaked out and started acting as if being proved wrong was the end of the world. She asked me how to handle such a situation.

The short answer is 'it depends.'  While that doesn't seem to help much, it is the most truthful answer. Every situation is different and there is no 'you just do this' solution. There are lots of different ways a conflict can go and you must tailor your responses to the particulars of any given situation.

While that sounds difficult, it's not.  Basically, the underlying dynamics of conflict are the same. You're just creating variations given the circumstances.

To use an analogy (and to show you do this kind of thinking all the time): Driving consists of three things -- steering, braking and accelerating. It's how you mix those three things given the conditions dictate whether you crash or drive safely. To further this analogy, the hard part was learning how to drive. Now you mix and match these elements with ease everyday.

Like driving, conflict has knowable core issues. But you must know about these dynamics of conflict before you can start to take control of them. This article introduces you to the factors that most people overlook while trying to resolve a situation. Putting it bluntly, these are why their attempts at conflict management fail. They get sucked in the conflict.

There's a reason why we say the first person you must de-escalate is yourself.

*********

First off, look at Maselow's Hierarchy of Needs. Granted, much of Maslow's work is no longer a popular model in psychology, but the Hierarchy allow us to see an important concept.

It's coming up from the bottom that Maslow's model still works. We point out that the first layer is a NOW! issue. It's not starving to death, not getting eaten by a lion, not dying of exposure and not being killed by an invading horde, kind of 'now.' Security is setting it up so that those same things aren't going to happen tomorrow or next week.

Knowing that, you can begin to understand why we say the 'thinking' process/ priorities of each level is different. It also goes a long way to explain why our brains are so complex, we need the different levels of our brains to handle the different levels of the hierarchy. We were designed to function in circumstances where ALL of those levels were on the table -- and almost every day of every year.  Millions of years of success is a pretty good track record.

In modern society, however, most people never get to the lower levels. Still they have the reactions and capabilities for handling such problems. Often they apply those capacities to other -- less intense -- issues. Think of using a sledgehammer to kill a fly.

Second point, we are social primates. We are wired to live in groups. Again going back to our ancestral/caveman past being ousted from a group meant death... whether from animals, other groups, starvation or injury. Again, not really an issue these days, BUT the fear of losing our group puts us into a freak-out-survival-mode emotionally.

Third point, our status within the group is critical. -- not to our survival, but to 'squishy' issues. Mostly to our emotional comfort, perceived safety, self-esteem and core beliefs. Once again, we have to look at this from the standpoint of design vs. modern application. In ye olde days, that you were alive in a hostile world depended on being in a group. So even if you weren't the top dog, you still survived because you were in the group. I cannot stress this point enough. Nor can I stress why the loss of 'dying is always an option' has confused us when it comes to recognizing actual danger.

The reason is many modern people have emotionally associated loss of social status with physical death.

I'm talking about thinking any perceived challenge to 'them' is interpreted on an emotional, primitive level as a matter of life and death (treating Maslow's level 2,3 & 4 as if it was level #1). And that's the sledgehammer on a fly reaction.

Now this can come in many different forms and for many reasons. But the most common is, their interpretation is that if they fail to maintain their status they will become 'prey.' And since they've never actually experienced or witnessed physical death, they perceive emotional threats as the same thing. They mistake the worst that they've experienced for the worst that could happen. 

In short, they are going to react to anything that threatens them emotionally with the same fear, ferocity and myopia as though they were fighting for their lives. This is especially common from people who perceive that they were abused and bullied. Down deep they believe that the only thing keeping them safe from it happening again is the status they have since developed.

Realize that such a person is going to be paranoid about anything that he/she perceives as a 'threat.' But also realize that in cases like this, it's all about emotions. Logic/reason are like a raft floating on a sea of emotions.

There's also something else that needs adding into this. Again, going back to our caveman days, emotions are contagious. That means that we are designed to react to the emotions of others. It is an important survival trait.

Thing is, these people almost seem to believe that emotions are a one way street.  It's okay for them to have emotions, but they freak at other people's. Not a good strategy when they are infecting everyone around them. Going back to the raft analogy, they can splash around with their emotions and get everyone else wet, but they have a melt-down if you return the favor.

Which, face it, being afraid of other people's emotions, but making everything an emotional issue is NOT an effective strategy for getting along with others -- especially when one is going around infecting others and making them emotional too.

Going back to your post realize that the person is going to be heaping all kinds of other crap onto the issue. It's no longer about what power source to use. In this person's emotional mind, it's about survival and not being preyed upon. It's about not losing status and dying.

To you it's about the power source ... until it is that person infects you.

Then it becomes a matter of "I'm REALLY trying to stay focused on the issue, but you're pissing me off!"  Except, and here is where that infection comes back into it, by getting frustrated, the other person immediately is going to interpret that as you ARE attacking him! SEE! SEE! He was right all along! You are a danger to him and going to emotionally abuse him for being wrong! He CAN'T admit that he was wrong because you're just waiting for the opportunity!

This really screws up any chance of developing a working solution. It's no longer about 'what works to get the job done.' It's not even about creating a win/win. This person has turned into a win/lose situation. And if he loses, then he dies ... so guess who is going to go emotionally postal on you over every small stupid thing that threatens him?

I had an ex like this. She came from a family of intellectual/emotional abusers. A family where losing a conflict mean that you were brought out in front of the entire family, ridiculed and shamed. I would see her go into the same state of mind as I would when someone was trying to kill me ... over things like the toilet seat being left up. That wasn't an accident, it was the deliberate, passive aggressive opening volley of an attack.

If it is in your nature to 'argue towards a working resolution' dealing with such a person can be immensely frustrating because it seems that the game keeps on changing.  The issue is finding the right power source not the frickin' family dynamics he grew up with or the fact that he felt bullies in school.

So how do you handle this kind of person?

First off recognize that this person is caught in an arroyo. And that any 'emotional reaction' you give when the person is caught up in a flash flood is going to further the flash flood conditions.

Second, recognize that in a work environment people want to pretend that emotions, pride and primitive scripts aren't happening. It's all about professional rational decision making doncha know? Yeah right. This is especially common among professions where brain power is highly respected. It is often difficult for people who do use logic and knowledge to solve problems to deal with the fuzzy, ever shifting and 'where the hell did that come from?' way of thinking that emotional thinking brings to the table.

The truth is we must factor in emotions in our planning. No this person is not just arguing for his choice, he's also he's got a freight train full of other issues that he's now arguing for.

We could call this point 2a: Recognize when someone is in this emotional state.

Here is where I'm going to get a little woo-woo, but if you let yourself 'look,' you can tell the difference between someone who is rationally thinking and speaking about a problem and someone  who's emotionally processing.  The former will be calmly assessing and articulating  issues that need to be addressed. The latter will be throwing the same up as blocks, excuses and reasons why. I can't exactly explain why, but there is a totally different feel to them.

Point 2b addresses something you mentioned in your post. Realize that a person who has deemed a 'problem' as an emotional, status threatening, life and death issue, will immediately drop back into that state when when the subject is brought up again. This is especially true if the issue is brought up in close to the same way. The person has 'stable data' that freaking-out-emotionally-about-this-subject 'worked' to keep them from losing social status and dying ... so what are they going to do if you try to bring it up again?