What's Your Conflict Style?

In this episode, I respond to a listener question about whether forging common ground is ultimately about individuals or systems — and explain why I see it as both.

I explore how individual skills form the foundation for larger cultural and systemic change, and why leaders play a critical role in scaling those skills across organizations.

I also clarify a key concept from the previous episode: the difference between communication styles and conflict styles. Drawing on the Intercultural Conflict Style Inventory (ICS), I introduce a simple two-dimensional model and walk you through how to identify your own baseline conflict style.

Along the way, I explain why conflict triggers habitual behavior, why context matters, and why high-trust relationships offer the clearest window into how we actually show up in conflict.

Finally, I offer you the opportunity to take the full ICS assessment.

This pod is all about community. Let's build this thing together!

Two ways to reach me / provide feedback:

1. Email: common@jasonpatent.com
2. This Google Form

You can join my mailing list here.

My book, Humanly Possible: A New Model of Leadership for a More Inclusive World, is available wherever you get your books, including here. 

Please hit FOLLOW and rate the pod 5 stars to help folks find it, and to not miss an episode.

Thank you!

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Hi everyone, this is Forging Common Ground. If it's your first time, welcome. If it's not, welcome back. Today we've got two topics. First is a response to listener comments on individuals versus systems in Forging Common Ground. Second, I'll get more precise about something that I seem to have confused some folks about, which is what exactly do I mean by conflict styles as opposed to communication styles? First topic individuals and systems. A reader wrote in expressing some befuddlement. He said the approach that I've been discussing for forging common ground appears to apply only to individuals. Here's what he wrote. Why are we forging common ground? It's not the individual. We're actually creating a movement that goes far beyond what we would have been able to achieve as individuals. He then said after that that we need, quote, consensus about labels, consensus about solutions, consensus about consequences, consensus about the bigger picture. We all talk about the same thing in the same way on the same level. My response to this listener? Exactly. And you have to start somewhere. Any system that we might build around forging common ground relies on individuals to implement and sustain the system. Another way of saying this, skilled individuals are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for creating large scale change. This is why it's crucial that organizational leaders build these skills with as much resoluteness and clarity as possible. These leaders are the ones most able to impact change at the system's level. We need to scale this skill set, and it is leaders who have the best chance of getting us there. Culture can be an immensely helpful concept in engineering these systems. Cultures are sets of shared values and behaviors. When organizational leaders set out to create a culture, which must be co-created with people all across and up and down the organization, they're effectively saying, here are the values we hold most dear. Here are the behaviors that express and support those values. Here are some behaviors that violate those values, and here are the positive and negative consequences for engaging in supportive or destructive behaviors. Another way of thinking about this is that our cultures define our collective identity. They tell us who we are. A listener told me a story about being a check-in agent at an airport, where he encountered all manner of people in an elevated state of amygdala activation. Over time, and with much intention and effort, he got progressively better at deactivating his own amygdala. He was able to create what he calls a buffer that helped increase the chances of a good outcome being achieved. And here's the money quote that sums up his experience. I integrated it into who I am and how I communicate in general across different cultures. Now this listener was one individual, but what if we could create entire cultures where we integrate into who we are, not only the brain management skills of deactivating the amygdala, but also the skills of identifying various communication styles, work styles, leadership styles, conflict styles, and more. And the bridging skills of changing what we do, all in the context of responsible and ethical and equitable stewardship of power. So to the listener who raised this question and who wrote about consensus, yes, forging common ground is indeed about building systems. Skilled individuals and their relationships make up the connective tissue, but we need the overarching structure of systems and explicitly defined cultures to forge common ground at scale. On to topic number two, getting precise about the difference between communication styles and conflict styles. I jumped the gun a little bit last episode, and I'm glad this listener is slowing me down. In the intercultural field, we use a lot of technical and quasi-technical jargon, which includes terms like communication style and conflict style. I think we already have an intuitive sense of what communication style means, both from our own life experiences and also from previous episodes of the pod. Conflict style, on the other hand, at least in the sense I'm using it, requires something a bit more technical. In the last episode, I introduced the dynamic conflict style. That style is one of four conflict styles in a research-backed model called the Intercultural Conflict Style Inventory, or ICS for short. Mitchell Hammer came up with the model based on his own research and also on research by Stella Ting Toomey. I don't have the benefit of visuals in this audio only format. Thankfully, it's a simple model. Picture two axes, a vertical axis and a horizontal axis. The vertical axis represents what we've been talking about the past few episodes, indirect versus direct communication, with indirect down below and direct up top. Think of this as one dimension of the ICS. The second dimension of the ICS is the horizontal axis. On the left hand side we have emotional restraint, on the right hand side we have emotional expressiveness. So you can see, at least I hope you can see in your mind, that whereas communication style is effectively a one dimensional model, the intercultural conflict style inventory is a two dimensional model, adding emotional restraint and expressiveness to the mix. This yields four conflict styles direct with restrained, direct with expressive, indirect with restrained, and indirect with expressive. Each of these styles has been given a name. Direct communication with emotional restraint is called discussion. Direct communication with emotional expressiveness is called engagement. Indirect communication with emotional restraint is called accommodation, and as we discussed last week, indirect communication with emotional expressiveness is called dynamic. There are worlds upon worlds of fun stuff to get into with conflict styles. I'm not sure how I'll end up handling it all in the context of this pod. I could easily build an entire episode around each of the styles. For now, let's see if you can identify your own style. To help you, I'll ask you a few questions. But before I do that, there's one important thing to keep in mind. As you think through your answers to the questions that I'm about to ask you, imagine yourself in conflict with someone you have a very high level of trust with, like a sibling, a really good friend, or a life partner. I'll explain why later. Okay, let's start by looking at the indirect versus direct communication dimension of the model. Here are the first three questions. Do you tend to expect others to read between the lines when you speak? When communicating disagreement, do you prefer to rely on stories, ambiguity and language, analogies, metaphors, or saying one thing to hint at another? Do you rely on nonverbal communication or third party intermediaries to communicate disagreement? To the extent that you answered yes to these questions, you may have more of an indirect communication style in conflict situations. On the other side, do you tend to say what you mean and mean what you say? Do you prefer to express the exact content of the dispute in words? And do you prefer face-to-face channels for resolving conflicts or disagreements? To the extent that you answered yes to these questions, you may tend more towards a direct style of communication in conflict situations. Now let's look at the second dimension of the model, emotional expressiveness. Do you tend to contain or hide more intense verbal and nonverbal expressions of emotion? Do you tend to think that maintaining emotional composure is the mature way of handling conflict? And do you value harmony and or saving face above all? To the extent that you answered yes to these questions, you probably have more of a restrained level of emotional expressiveness in conflict situations. On the other side, do you tend to display feelings overtly through animated facial expressions, body movements, gestures, and tears or laughing? Do you value affective involvement in communicating with others? And do you tend towards intense gesturing or variations in vocal patterns such as tone or volume? To the extent that you answered yes to these questions, you may have more of an expressive approach in conflict situations, that is emotionally expressive. Based on how you answered all the questions, you should have a pretty good idea of your baseline conflict style. Here are the styles one more time. Direct communication with emotional restraint is called discussion. Direct communication with emotional expressiveness is called engagement. Indirect communication with emotional restraint is called accommodation, and indirect communication with emotional expressiveness is called dynamic. Now for a wrinkle. I threw in a word just a moment ago that you may not have noticed. I said that you should have a pretty good idea of your baseline conflict style. Whenever my team and I have led workshops that involve dimensional models like this, we often get objections that we're oversimplifying. Our answer? Of course we're oversimplifying. That's why they're called models. You may have heard the following truism. All models are wrong. Some models are useful. The intercultural conflict style inventory is no exception. It's wrong, but it can be useful if we know how to use it. A more specific form of objection to the ICS model is when people say, I don't have a baseline conflict style, it's all contextual. It's a fair point. And again, I agree, it is contextual. And at the same time, especially with conflict styles, each of us does have tendencies that define a more or less baseline style. Why? Because conflict means amygdala activation. Amygdala activation means reduced access to the neocortex. Reduced access to the neocortex means that we will naturally and automatically fall back on a certain set of habits when we're in conflict. Those habits define our baseline conflict style. And that's why before I began asking you all those questions, I've suggested that you imagine being in conflict with someone you have a high level of trust with. If there's no risk of the relationship actually breaking, that is, if the stakes or potential negative consequences of the conflict are low, you'll get a more accurate read on your baseline conflict style. We have found that people often misidentify their own conflict style because they're answering questions based on how they think they should behave rather than how they're actually likely to behave in a conflict situation. That is a super juicy topic for another time. For now, I've got one fun extra thing for you this time. Let me know if you would like to take the actual intercultural conflict style inventory, complete with an individualized report. I didn't invent the instrument, Mitchell Hammer did, and it's a good one. I have some unused codes that I bought a long time ago, and they're just sitting there gathering dust. It would be great if they could be put to use. Drop me an email if you're interested and I will get you hooked up. That's it for this week's topics. My turn to ask you some things. What topics do you want me to talk about? What are you learning? What questions do you have for me? Do you disagree with anything I've said? Are you bothered by anything I've said? As always, write me at common at jasonpatent.com or fill out the feedback form linked in the show notes. And again, a special invitation to you if you haven't yet sent me anything. I promise it'll do you no harm. Thank you again for listening. Until next time, let's keep forging common ground.