Conflict Communication & Active Listening

When driving there’s a huge difference between looking in the rear-view or wing-mirrors as a matter of habit, and actually looking in them to investigate other vehicles around your car. The same is true of listening i.e. you can hear the words but not take the time to discern their meaning. Oftentimes, we see what we want to see, or expect to see, and hear what we think should be said, without actually listening to what we’re being told – if what we’re being told contradicts our own viewpoint, we may well be formulating a criticism/critique before we’ve actually heard what the person is saying. If we are involved in a spontaneous act of aggression—where somebody has become angry with us, due to something we’ve said, or the because of the way we’ve acted/behaved, etc.—we need to listen to our aggressor’s complaint and deal with it, rather than assume that we know what the solution is beforehand, if we are to resolve the conflict non-violently; if you’ve knocked into somebody and spilt their drink, the solution may not be as simple as buying them another one. I have written in this blog, and more extensively in my second book (Krav Maga – Tactical Survival), about proven methodologies for de-escalating such situations, however these solutions can be enhanced if we understand how to actively listen to an aggressor; this will also help us deal with more minor conflicts such as in the workplace, or in our homes, when there isn’t necessarily a risk of physical violence.

Often, when a person becomes aggressive over what may seem like a minor/inconsequential incident, there is a larger narrative driving the conflict. The event itself may be the straw that broke the camel’s back, while a much greater perceived injustice is at the root of the problem. In a lengthier negotiation process, we may want to discover what this is, however in a barroom confrontation, we will not have the time to do this – in either case, we want to let the aggressor do most of the talking. The Louisiana State Police — who have one of the best crisis negotiation units in the U.S.—having resolved incidents non-physically that the FBI’s HNU (Hostage Negotiation Unit), believed to require physical intervention – work to an 80/20 rule, whereby the negotiator allows the aggressor talk for the majority of the time. From my own experiences in de-escalating aggressive individuals, I have certainly found that not letting them have a voice does little to calm them down i.e. everybody believes their viewpoint is valid, and worthy of being heard, especially if it is in regard to an injustice they’ve experienced, whether real or perceived. This doesn’t mean that there was always time to let somebody speak, as sometimes quick and dynamic enforcement and engagement were necessary, however if angry people believed they were being heard, and their grievances taken seriously, situations could often be resolved without going hands-on. Lines that I’ve used successfully, have been some form of, “I understand that, but…”, “I can see why you’d feel that way, but…”, “I’d probably feel the same way in your position, but…” Most of what needs to be said should be repeating and summarizing the aggressor’s point of view, rather than introducing your own viewpoints, etc. It is the other person who requires the conflict to be resolved, not you. By stalling for time using these tactics, the aggressor’s emotional energy will often start to dissipate, and if you’re perceived as an empathetic/sympathetic party, you may stop being seen as the bad guy in the situation.

We should try to reflect the language of our aggressor; people are more likely to trust someone who is like them, and conducts themselves in a similar manner, than someone who appears to use clever and more involved language, etc. It is easy to fall into the trap of talking down to someone, without realizing that this is what you are doing. This is why paraphrasing, reflecting and responding to what an aggressor is saying, using similar language to them, is much more effective than simply saying what you believe they need to hear. This doesn’t mean that you have to agree with them, or even acquiesce to what they want/demand, however speaking in a similar manner to them, is a good step to resolving a situation non-physically. When working door/bar security, when someone wasn’t getting anywhere with an aggressive individual, having somebody else step in who used the same language as them, would often work to calm them down, i.e. they were dealing with someone who was like them, etc. Starting out from this same position, is a more effective means of communication. I was once able to de-escalate a situation on a train in England, with an aggressive Scottish parolee, who was threatening people with a knife, because I was able to talk to him using language that he was comfortable and accustomed to – until the Transport Police were able to deal with him at the next station.       

Often, emotional people aren’t aware that they’re being controlled by physiological forces and believe that they’re reacting/responding cognitively/consciously – there’s a big difference between feelings and emotions; a feeling is a conscious awareness of an emotional state. One method to help an aggressor recognize their emotional state is to label it for them e.g. “You seem really angry”, “It seems like you’re really upset about this”, etc. To be effective, these types of statements/labels need to be delivered in a manner which isn’t condescending or patronizing, however when done correctly, an aggressor may almost ‘wake up’ from their emotional state and recognize it e.g. “Yes, I am pretty angry.” Once they are able to recognize how they are feeling – and their actions and behaviors relating to this – and understand that they are dealing with someone who is empathetic/sympathetic, there is a good chance that the situation can be resolved in a non-violent manner. When a person returns to using their reasoning/rational brain, they will be able to operate from a place where they are not being driven by their emotions.

It may be that we are scared or embarrassed to interact with aggressive individuals, and we’d rather try to ignore them, hoping that they will get tired of the conflict and go away. Unfortunately, this is simply wishful thinking; if you ignore somebody, who believes they have a legitimate grievance against you, your silence and disinterest is much more likely to escalate an incident than de-escalate it. Actively listening, taking seriously and showing a desire to resolve the conflict is much more likely to be successful, even if it requires some effort, involvement and engagement – angry people, like bullies, don’t just go away.