After completing my general assignment, which focused on Levine’s (2009) ten principal of new thinking (p.46), I have learned that the major component to successful conflict resolution is listening. In addition to listening, both parties must be willing to open themselves up, share information, and look ahead to the long-term. These are all things I wish I had done with my ex-husband when I wanted to move out of state.
In the beginning, the dialogue with my ex-husband about the move was open and amicable but as time went on and other people became involved things got messy. The conflict at hand went from involving the two of us, as divorced parents to our son, to encompassing our entire families, lawyers, and court members. When this happened our cycle of revolution broke down.
During the battle, the two of us exhibited every one of Levine’s (2009) old thinking principals. We were not listening to each other or our son, we were not sharing information, and we were definitely fostering conflict. Each one of us was trying to win in a way that suited ourselves, without thinking about all the others involved. We were focused on the short-term outcomes, not the long-term consequences and this caused us to do more damage than good. The longer this went on the more people who got involved the murkier the conflict became until we ended up in court in front of a judge. This was the turning point for both of us, it became clear that if we continued this person who did not know us or our child was going to be making decisions for us that we would have no control over. This was a scary prospect for both of us, which caused us to make changes. I dropped the petition to leave the state and he stopped being hostile towards me for it.
Once we both stopped taking advice from outside sources, mainly my mother, our lives began to even out. We were able to set a visitation schedule that worked for both of us, agree on child support, and begin to co-parent our son again. All of this was possible because we were once again listening to each other and our son instead of focusing on winning whatever battle we saw in front of us. Levine (2009) tells a story (p. 105) that mirrors mine in conflict, a mother wanted to leave the state with her two boys and the father was against it. In Levine’s story, the father listens to the boys request to move and realizes that the battle had been about things that were not the boys but his own and he agrees to let them go. While the outcome is different that mine, my son was only three at the time of our conflict so his opinion was not an option in the court system, the underlying theme is the same, the need for listening.
My ex-husband and I have progressed immensely since the days of our court battle. We no longer fight over every little detail of our son’s life, instead, we talk about the options and he is now old enough to have a say in it. We have also realized that the issues at hand are not about what is best for us but about what is best for him. The absence of outside interference has also helped, especially when that interference is negative in nature.
Levine’s (2009) principals have taught me to slow down, look ahead, and listen to what others have to say. Where the immediate outcome may be first in your mind it may not be the best solution, sometimes the best answer comes over time. The more listening that happens, the more information that is shared, the more open the parties are the better the chance of resolution becomes. We all want to be heard, but that starts with listening.
Levine, S. (2009). Getting to resolution: Turning conflict into collaboration. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment