I am a student of human strategies in dealing with conflict. This is a study that never bores. The benefits of the study yield wisdom and conserve energy in forging relationships, making the time spent in this endeavor worthwhile. The following are descriptions of the strategies that I have observed. As with anything, there are pros and cons to each strategy.
The Brute
This strategy is simple....mess with this individual and be physically attacked. Say the wrong thing and promptly receive a thorough thrashing. Laugh at this individual only if you have the speed of a Tasmanian devil. This individual has not been introduced to the methods of compromise, negotiations, civil dialogue or simply has not bought into this idea. Conflict is quickly dealt with using fiery words that quickly lead to threats of physical altercations. There is no doubt that this individual intends to fulfill his or her threats and has an extensive record of doing so. Most people are truly fearful of interacting with this person on any level and avoid conversations beyond a polite greeting.
The Raging Activist
This strategy is highly effective in getting the point across. Usually this individual quickly identifies and shoots for the Achilles' heel of the offending person, group, or organization without thinking through the consequences of their actions. This no-joke approach tends to ostracize the offender and the offended alike and often creates high levels of tension, very similar to the duels of old. Fiery or sharp words are the tools of choice, but may well escalate to physical actions if deemed necessary to make the point. Once this strategy is implemented once or twice, the offender rarely repeats the offending behavior as the "shock and awe" effect is quite effective.
The Passive Activist
This strategy is quite effective as well, but avoids the havoc that the Raging Activist seeks to create. This individual tends to remain calm but quite alert to the events taking place. This individual quietly observes and rehearses the steps they should take to reach the desired goal(s). This strategy is quite logical, deliberate, and sure. Some may refer to this strategy as "slow-walking" the offender. Once this individual has reached their desired goal(s), he or she will resort to their previous meek and humble disposition. Fiery or sharp words are rarely utilized as it expels excessive energy. Rather, the individual's words are more deliberate and firm in nature, backed up by promised actions to prove his or her sincerity.
Wheel and Deal
The goal of this strategy is survival and quick return to normalcy. This individual rarely stops to assess long-term effects of the offensive behavior. His or her concern is fixated on returning to normal routine and quality of life. Therefore, compromises, political trade-offs, and superficial exchanges of good intentions are the words of the day. This individual tends to get along with most who work closely with them, but is rarely trusted when the issues really matter.
Anti-Pioneer
This strategy is used because of the fear of blazing paths in unfamiliar territory. This individual's strategy is to wait things out. He or she allows others to blaze trails in the unfamiliar territory and assess their success. Once the most successful trail has been identified, this individual then...calm and reassured...will speak or act with confidence and smoothness with an aura of being in control of the situation at hand. To others at first glance this individual appears to be a leader, but he or she is actually a follower whose main concern is saving face.
The Complainer
This strategy is ineffective in reaching the desired goal but very effective in annoying others. This individual is gripped with fear. He or she is sure of one thing...that he or she is indeed miserable and they are very eloquent in their on-going description of their calamities. Few manage to escape the whines and incessant complaints of this individual. When this individual is challenged to enact their rights or to take steps to right the wrong, more excuses fly that the feathers of a plucked chicken...leaving the complainer claiming their halo of learned helplessness.
The Tag-Along
This strategy is to identify the activist of the group who is sure to take action and get the job done. The idea is to join the activist for the ride while avoiding one's name being mentioned to those who might retaliate. This individual allows fear to both motivate and hinder their actions as he or she zig-zags his or her way to the desired goal.
The Avoider
This strategy is to be a "no-show." This individual would rather stick his or her head in the sand, so to speak and wish the conflict away. When directly questioned or approached, this individual will resort to babbling gibberish to confuse others as they back away to safety. Others tend to throw their hands up in disgust to those who use this strategy as hopeless individuals who are afraid to face the music.
The Whimpering Wimp
This strategy tends to be embarrassing even to the individual who chooses it. This individual tends to speak boldly of their intentions and and past and future actions. However, when the rubber meets the road, this individual is nowhere to be found or is barely audible when speaking up really counts. This individual, however, is usually quite prepared to loudly explain their lack of action away as soon as the anticipated event is offically over.
The Not-Involved
This strategy is utilized to avoid anything that is deem unneccessary stress or trouble by this individual. If this individual feels that a conflict does not directly involve them, he or she will opt out stating loud and clear their preference to not get involved. This approach is effective, however, this strategy is used without long-term vision. The individual using this approach may feel dismayed by his or her previous decision to not get involved when it is his or her turn to face direct conflict and no one wants to "get involved" and support them.
Pull-Strings
This strategy relies heavily on political ties. The individual spends a great deal of time investing in networking with the big and powerful within a group or organization. Some ties are made public and some connections are made quietly and only exposed to others during critical times when the individual needs a "favor." This individual tends to always fare well in the most stressful and dire situations and causes others to wonder why this individual is always calm and assured. This strategy tends to fall apart, however, when there is a major shift in leadership or organizational structure or if the establish ties shift their alliances. Since these ties are not guaranteed, much time and effort is given toward assuring the strength of those ties in complex or sticky situations. Once a major change occurs, this individual is seen openingly politicking and brown-nosing to re-establish his or her quality of life.
Throw and Hide
This individual musters enough courage to do something and then quickly returns to their innocent stance. For example, if a wrong has occurred, this individual may immediately produce incriminating documentation or evidence to prove his or her case in private, but will insist publicly to others around them that they are ignorant of the findings or unfolding events. This approach leaves others guessing and may produce a negative kick-back as others becoming suspicious of his or her insistence of ignorance.
Forever Meek-and-Humble
This individual simply goes along with what he or she is given. The idea behind this approach is learned helplessness. The individual tends to feel as though he or she is not in control and will never be in control of the situation and therefore goes with the flow with hopes that others will see them as a non-threat and be relatively kind to them. This If-You-Can't-Beat-Them-Join-Them approach makes this individual seem like a useless wimp to the activists and a push-over to everyone else. Most do not respect individuals who use this approach because of the belief that "if you won't stand for something, you will fall for anything."
No comments:
Post a Comment