Confronting the problem, not the person
And are you actually "non-confrontational" or just chill?
Dear Newsletter Friends,
A male coworker, talking about his wife, said, “She’s non-confrontational. Like you.”
“I would disagree with that characterization of me,” I said. “Which makes me wonder whether that’s true of your wife, or whether you just think of us both as being non-confrontational because we can express disagreement without getting angry. Also, I’m your colleague. Don’t compare me to your wife.”
A few days later, the same dude made the same sort of comment, leaving out the wife this time, and adding a pre-apology about how he’s not criticizing my style, it’s just different from his. This time I replied simply, “We have different definitions of confrontation.”
“See,” he said, “like right now. You’re not even arguing with me.”
I just looked at him.
Had I chosen to reply, I could have said: I already told you my thoughts on this. Telling you again is not a fruitful use of my time or energy. You’re not my boss or someone who has power over me, you’re my coworker. Your thoughts on this topic have no impact on me.
(Is it a neurodivergent thing, this tendency to conclude I am done with the conversation, and then stop talking? Certainly it is not a normal social skill. But it is effective at ending conversations you do not wish to have.)
He eventually changed the subject, and hasn’t brought it up again.
The etymology of the word “confrontation” boils down to “facing with.” And the etymology of “conflict” is con+fligere, “striking with.”
You could interpret this as facing down or striking against the other person. But I prefer to face, or grapple with, the issue together. If you’ve taken my negotiation class, you’ve heard me say that it’s not you versus them, it’s you and them versus the problem. My version of confrontation isn’t angry or heated. But it is facing the problem, in a straightforward way that focuses on impact.
Confronting people and fighting them is often counterproductive. Confronting problems and solving them should be the goal. (Which sometimes does involve confronting people, in situations that demand accountability. An important topic for another time.)
In my example above, you might say I was non-confrontational because I did not demand my coworker’s respect. He might have walked away feeling like he “won” because I stopped participating in the argument. But in reality, I didn’t feel particularly disrespected (the second time), I had already communicated what I felt was important, and I don’t enjoy recreational arguing. So I did what met my own needs, and chose not to engage.
The term “non-confrontational” is often used to describe women or anyone perceived as weak. So I do think it’s worth pushing back against when unfairly applied to you.
But also, consider whether you think of yourself this way. Would you use the term “non-confrontational” to describe yourself and if so, why? Do you shy away from confronting a problem? Can you think of a recent example and how it affected you? What could you do to build up your confrontation skills to make yourself comfortable addressing the problem? Even if you don’t have an immediate answer to that last question, being aware of your tendencies to either avoid or instigate conflict is critical to getting better at negotiation.
Until next time, dear Newsletter Friends! And if you have a burning question or scenario that you’d like to see addressed in a newsletter, I’d love to hear from you.