CAB #3: Timing Conflict Purposefully

Timing Conflict Purposefully

            Wood (2012) suggests in our class’s textbook that timing plays a role in the ways we communicate about conflicts. She outlines three ways we can effectively employ chronemics: not engaging in conflict discussions when one or both people aren’t psychologically present, waiting until each person is ready to constructively discuss the issue at hand, and bracketing other issues that could sideline the conflict currently needing to be addressed. If we insist upon resolving an issue with another person when he or she is tired or when one or both of us is in a huge hurry, we’re not likely to remember much about the interaction or be invested in reaching a resolution. Some people prefer to immediately resolve differences, but others need to take a step back to calm down to avoid an overreaction toward others. If we implement bracketing in our conflicts, we can prevent distractions that may pull us from resolving the initial issue.

            Back in the day when I was a high-strung preschooler, it always amazed me when my mom just magically knew when I was about to throw a fit about something (especially if we were in a public setting). One of her famous refrains to me was, “Lauren, there’s a time and a place…” I didn’t know what that meant back then but if I understood it the way I do now, my supermarket tantrums might have looked something like this instead:

            This comic demonstrates one person’s willingness to wait until the other is both psychologically present and ready to address whatever issue is at play in the situation. Other than the fact that it’s not so much a discussion as it is a tantrum that’s going to occur, at least the toddler on the ground is being (somewhat) considerate of her mom’s probable mindset and reaction. As a four-year-old, I wasn’t able to understand that stomping around and crying in the middle of a supermarket because my mom didn’t buy me the dinosaur-shaped macaroni wasn’t the best time or place to handle things. Wood (2012) also discusses the idea that “it’s generally more productive to discuss problems in private rather than in public settings” (241). If only I had known.

            One strand of the concept of timing your conflict purposefully is that it gives both you and the other person reasons why taking a step back and removing yourself from the conflict at least temporarily can be vastly helpful in resolving it. Wood (2012) states in the textbook that “it’s generally not a good idea to discuss conflict in the heat of anger… constructive, healthy conflict communication is more likely when tempers aren’t flaring” (241). Should you ever find yourself in the middle of an argument that isn’t going well for anybody involved in it, take a step back for awhile. Think of it in terms of this nifty picture:

            The folded bridge is the extremely escalated (to the point where it’s dangerous to the relationship) disagreement, and the car at the top of it is the person persisting in moving forward to resolve the situation when it clearly isn’t a good idea to do so. If you were the car in this case, you probably should have stopped trying to chug up the bridge before it got to the point where you couldn’t safely back down. The moral of the story is: when playing chicken with a bridge, DON’T PLAY CHICKEN WITH A BRIDGE. You won’t win.

Wood, J. T. (2012). Interpersonal communication: Everyday encounters. (7 ed.). Boston, MA:      Wadsworth.