The Edge on Conflict (part 1)

Knowing the other, and knowing yourself ~ in one hundred battles on hundred victories. 

Not knowing the other, but knowing yourself ~ one defeat for every victory. 

Not knowing the other or yourself ~ in every battle defeat. Sun Tsu

Colliding World views, or perceptions, cause conflicts. I've written about perceptions, and how they grow from a dialogue between "nature and nurture" - some are learned and others we're born with. Many argue nature or nurture exclusively; however, I favor a dialogue between ideas to arrive at a full picture.

As a student of the humanities, the dialectic model was part of my studies. I've embraced it for twenty years, and used it in my profession often. The problem is; not everyone a) knows about dialectics, or b) agrees with it.

Dialectics came from the social theory of Karl Marx, and lives in the shadow of Communism. The original application was: capitalism (thesis) + communism (antithesis) = socialism (synthesis). As we know, this turned out to be wrong - most of the world, including Russia and China, eventually gave up on Communism and Socialism. The underlying model, however, has many applications.

Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis

For boomers, who grew up when Communism was seen as a real threat to the western world, a social theory like dialectics can stir deep, emotional, responses. The nature vs nurture argument triggers responses rooted in the evolution vs. creation debate, and we take on all the baggage that comes with it.

The preconception I have towards dialogue was learned - like any other habit. It takes three months to form a habit. It takes the same amount of time for a new idea to take hold. Perhaps this is why semesters are three months long - or a happy coincidence?

When we first encounter a new idea it is uncomfortable - especially when it conflicts with another, existing idea. Most ideas we have today were learned when we were young - often from our families. As a result these ideas can be tough to overcome.

This is certainly true for me. It would take some pretty convincing evidence to change my core belief that a dialectic approach is better than a positional one. This self-awareness however can help me manage and avoid conflict.

Returning to Sun Tsu - if I know I am predisposed to dialogue and my peer is predisposed to positions then I can make the conscious choice run, fight or negotiate as the situation dictates - rather than react blindly based on old, or faulty, information.

One of my central beliefs is: "dialogue is more productive than positional thinking". Not everyone shares this belief and this can create conflict that could be easily avoided. Following my own belief there must be opportunity for dialogue between my core belief and a more positional one. As I write this I can see a certain hypocrisy in my own perception - I am positional about dialogue.

Hmm... I'll have to work on that.

Best Sam
The Edge on Strategy