As I have refl
ected on the concept of confrontation, I have come to some rather unique perspectives. Maybe it is because I don't enjoy confrontation - neither the process nor the end results; or maybe it is because of the commonly held expectation that the leader must play a dominant role in the confrontational process, but I don't see confrontation as civilized warfare. Rather I view confrontation as an opportunity for the peace maker... a challenge toward tactful communication... and an openness to new ideas.Some seem to have the opinion that good confrontation resembles a bulldozer on steroids. If something is not right, the leader needs to expose the issue and exercise his/her muscles of authority. Confrontation is the leader telling it the way it is, the way it must be, and the way out the door for any failure of compliance. This mindset declares that confrontation is a calculated expression of coercion in which the leader lays down the law and provides decisions for all concerned. Most confrontation using this approach feels like the Spanish Inquisition, involving a cross-examination of a hostile witness. Tension is high and usually the conclusions involve wounded spirits, broken relationship, and forced compliance. Is the issue confronted? Oh yes. Are solutions provided? Mandated. Is everything better again? No, more shattered than Humpty Dumpty.
My thoughts on effective confrontation center more on the relationships within the conflict, than on the conflict itself. Even in a seemingly right and wrong situation, various perspectives are involved. I have seen that each party involved in conflict approach life with personal assumptions, presuppositions, and moral opinions... and some of these ideas may be based on individual preferences not universal truth.
I have found myself listening to one side of a debate, fully agreeing with the speaker and buying into their perspective. Then, as I listen to the "other side" of the dialog, I see the issue through a different set of eyes. The second slant takes on the ring of truth as well. Conflict is often not the good guys against the bad guys...not Luke Skywalker verses Darth Vader... it is often difficult to understand who is wearing the white hat and who is dressed in black.
Confrontation is often filled with pride, arrogance, and anger. In the midst of confrontation, I have seen both sides refusing to admit wrong, arguing for the sake of arguing, defending a position that makes no sense, and refusing to compromise in order to prove a point. I have experienced confrontation when both sides have come with six-shooters blazing... and after the shoot-out at the OK Corral, no one was left alive. I have also seen one party loaded to bear and the other blind-sided... this kind of pounding is not a pretty site.
It appears to me that the whole concept of confrontation is front loaded with some major flaws. The issues are usually filled with demanding individual rights, personal affronts based on petty misunderstandings, third party quotes (better known as gossip), unfounded accusations, and unforgiving attitudes. Instead, if confrontation could reflect a true desire to understand the other side, a humble attitude, an openness to compromise, a genuine commitment to personal growth and a hope to build deeper relationships, then confrontation might be more productive and worth the awkwardness of discussing touchy subjects.
There are obvious situations when rebuke and accountability are essential. If an individual is involved in sinful behavior, immoral relationships, dishonest professional practices, gossip and slander, or financial deception, the person must be lovingly corrected. Blatant wrong doing must be clarified and dealt with appropriately (Matthew 18 makes this clear). But "he said/she said" issues, personal differences of interpretation, disagreements on priorities, conflicting assessments of programs or personnel, all seem to be potholes for harmful confrontation.
Maybe this series of question might help us decide if rigid confrontation is needed.
1. Is my friend involved in sinful behavior?
2. Are the actions of my friend causing me physical or emotional harm?
3. Is my friend involved in illegal dealings?
4. Is my friend doing things is a different way than I would?
5. Am I hearing negative reports about my friend from other people?
6. Am I personally offended and have a right to be mad at my friend?
Affirmative answers to the first three question warrant confrontation. Affirmative answers to the last three should initially lead us to a serious self evaluation and a personal attitude assessment in order to facilitate a humble introspection and clarification of situations.
Confrontation - the opportunity to assert authority, or the change to make peace among brothers and sisters? Is it the iron fist of positional leadership, or the gentile listening of the servant leader? Is it the "my way or the high way" mindset, or the open minded attitude of the life-long learner?
Maybe a better word for confrontation might be harmonization - bringing dissonance together with the sole goal (and the soul goal) of transforming the dissonance into harmonious expressions of unity. Just a thought.....
Photo credit: http://www.success-strategies-u.com/idx-Conflict.aspx
The way I see confrontation, which by the way ties into the integrity/compromise article, is this:
ReplyDelete1. Do you confront someone who is lacking in integrity when it effects not only you but others around you? If so then.....
2. Do you confront when you think it will actually help the situation? If not then.....
3. Do you confront when it's been "exposed" to those higher than you without any action taking place to rectify the compromises taking place?
Sometimes confronting because of a lack of integrity while compromises being taken all around the office will only make matters worse. Especially when it appears that they are actually being condoned by those higher than you.
Where do you go? What good will it do? At that time you need to truly decide whether it's worth the drama or if it's simply the best thing to
remove yourself from a situation where there seems to be no hope in changing the compromises that are surrounding you. Certainly not just run away, but when to know the difference between stepping up and "confronting" or simply
stepping down to preserve your own integrity before it gets blown out of the water. There is a fine line and I guess it's different for everyone but each must make their best decision.
Confrontation: certainly an aspect in relationships we must all consider from time to time. With it we face a choice: is the issue worth causing friction in relationship otherwise on a comfortable communication level, or can we find peace within ourselves and with God to relinquish the issue.
ReplyDeleteSure we have other options:
- Push it under a “rug” and hope that the issue never re-appears.
- Elude to it in a public place such as “Dear Abby” and hope that the recipient identifies enough with the situation to recognize their quilt in the matter.
- Or lay it aside, and hope that the next person will deal with the issue.
Certainly confrontation is a difficult issue. Through prayer, I believe God directs either with words to address the issues with grace and kindness and in the end everyone involved is better because of it, or with peace to lay it down and focus on other issues in life.
Anonymous-
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments and insights into confrontation. It sounds as if you are speaking from a great deal of personal experience. I agree that the decision to "stand up" or to "walk away" is not an easy one to reach at times. Confrontation offered to someone who does not demonstrate integrity is like watering a bird with a garden hose - they are simply not big enough to handle to the situation.