Both Messrs. Mehta and Noll discussed the neuroscience/ psychology involved in what it takes to resolve conflicts. Initially, I thought their respective approaches were different but as I thought about it afterwards and reviewed their handouts, I slowly realized they were both saying the same thing in different ways.

Both start with the very accurate premise that emotions, not logic, control our decision making. (Unlike Mr. Spock, we are emotional, not logical, souls.) Thus, each cautioned; do not attempt to talk logically to someone who is emotionally caught up in conflict; it will fall on deaf ears. Although we are far removed from being hunters and gatherers in the forest where our very survival depended on whether we could kill the bison for our next meal or outrun/outsmart the wolf who saw us as her next meal, our brains still work in those terms; fight or flight, rewards or threats.  While the threats we may perceive in modern times are social rather than physical, our brains react as though they are still physical in nature.

Thus, drawing on the work of David Rock’s book, Brain at Work, Mr. Mehta suggests that we position rewards and social threats at opposite ends of a continuum, and endeavor to provide Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness at the rewards end of this scale.

Status relates to social hierarchy, self-respect and one’s rank in society. Rather than threatening one’s status by making that person feel humiliated, inferior, or demeaned, we should use language that rewards by acknowledging, actively listening to the person and responding in a positive fashion. One can acknowledge a person’s value and work, yet still disagree with the proposition being proffered.

Read original article


Tags: