Relationships, whether personal or professional, are a delicate balancing act of emotions, perspectives and communication.
Two people who, at one stage of life, can agree so well that they cannot see or believe in having any difference in the point of view that they will hold. Different perspectives are an enigma; affection, agreement and endorsement are all rolled into one. Identification with each other is more important than identity any day. Very often, it is the bedrock of affection and togetherness in action. Over time, the same couple start to have different points of view. Hormonal changes in their systems can lead to this shift. What is initially a pleasant disagreement can soon become an assertion of identity and then personality conflicts follow.
PERSONALITY CONFLICTS
These personality conflicts can be a logical derivation. Very often, it is difficult to find the origin of the derivation itself.
Coherent dialogue in a spirit of give and take can often be replaced by the urge to protect one’s turf. There is also an urge to prove oneself more talented and resourceful. It can often become the source of further identity conflicts. The skill to handle such disagreements can’t be taught and is often taken over by other habits.
These habits may include being short-tempered. They can also involve incoherent talking and having a high pitch in conversation. This is seen as an extension of good logic. The aberrations are far too many to be recounted, and the results are easy to identify. Instead of working together to resolve the differences, it becomes a battleground to show who can prevail. The rest, as they say, is history. We live in an era filled with discussions about skills. At this stage of dialogue, it is crucial to focus on life skills. Two people who cannot get together try to demonstrate who has the right of way in a marital relationship.
The life story shifts dramatically. It moves from one end of the spectrum to a chaotic descent. This involves not only differences of opinion but also differences in personalities. The analysis can go only so far because then logic gives way to preferences and passion. This is at the root of many marital discords. Reversing the gears and changing the pitch is difficult. Unfortunately, while there are numerous dissertations in psychology and elsewhere on relationships, practical-oriented thinking in handling relationships is rare. Moreover, it is often just common sense.
PROBLEM SOLVING
One is merely indicating the value of focused research. It shows how a structured approach to problem-solving can be very valuable, even in everyday life. People need to view research as an enabling situation for problem-solving. Many use the phrase ‘applied research’ for it. Today, more of the fashion world emphasizes skill. This skill is generously used because of its attractive value in situations that cannot be practically handled. Sometimes it works; sometimes it does not.
The important thing is to realise that research requires insights. It also needs the adoption of a structured methodology, even in commonsensical situations. It is this aspect of research that can lead to a better quality of life. This in term enables research and it has to do with life skills. Solving this situation, which afflicts many interpersonal relationships, is simultaneously easy and yet difficult. It is easy to control if one can limit one’s communication. And if one one talks more wisely, keeping the number of words used in a conversation minimal. The truth is, that the more one seeks to talk and explain, the more complex it can become. Let simple things remain simple; it is a significant strategic choice.
SELF DEFEATING
This approach works because passion subsides. Irritations sort themselves out. The choice of words and pitch of the voice can be better controlled. One only has to look around to notice how talking less is such an asset in keeping relationships positive. Interpersonal relationships apart, work relationships, also get affected. The impression of losing an argument, even in work spaces, is a personal defeat.
This, by itself, is a self-defeating proposition. It is self-defeating because even if one wins the argument due to positional power or manipulative skills, the scars of a lost argument leave long-lasting damage to relationships. One can indeed often lose a battle to win the war. As indicated earlier, this applies to work situations as much as to real-life, non-work situations. Gentleness and soft words go far. They are effective when gentleness is seen not as a sign of weakness. Instead, it should be viewed as a characteristic and indicator of mutual respect.
THE SOLUTIONS
The best solution to many conflicts is when both come out as winners. No one should feel growling or be smitten by the dangerous feeling of having ‘lost one’s face’. It is necessary to reduce differences, not to personalities, but to find the best way forward. This best way forward must focus on protecting everyone’s ego and be in the interest of the larger good. Much will depend on the personality elements of the players involved. The amount of time available to sort it out is also crucial. Often, time constraints lead to making two suboptimal decisions. These decisions are more about ‘getting along with a job’ than ‘finding the best option’. Using tentative words and a hypothesis open to correction and improvement may be the best recipe for conflict resolution. In such situations, personalities do not win or lose. The cause is handled in a far-sighted way.
Examples can be many, and one has to see what the issue at stake is how people perceive the result of the outcome and how they interpret it. In all cases, if there is a loser in an argument, it is best to make him feel that he has not ‘lost’ and that no personalities are involved. This can be a useful approach to handling institutional issues because every resolution of a conflict should be for the institutional.
(Dr Naresh Purohit is Principal Investigator Association of Studies In Behavioural Science. The views expressed here are of the author)
