Chapter 11 - The "No-Lose" Method for Resolving Conflicts.

For parents who were locked in by tradition to one of the two "win-lose" methods of resolving conflicts, it comes as a revelation that they do have another alternative. Almost without exception, they are relieved to learn of a third method. While this method is easy to understand, parents usually need training, practice and coaching to become competent in using it.

The alternative is the "no-lose" method of resolving conflicts; where nobody loses. In P.E.T. we call it Method 3. Although Method 3 strikes almost all parents as a new idea for resolving parent-child conflicts, they immediately recognize this method from seeing it used elsewhere. Husbands and wives often employ Method 3 to resolve their differences through mutual agreement. Partners in business rely on it to achieve agreement out of their frequent conflicts. Labor unions and managers of companies use it to negotiate contracts by which both organizations agree to abide. And countless legal conflicts are resolved in out-of-court settlements arrived at by Method 3 and agreed upon by both parties.

Method 3 is frequently employed to resolve conflicts between individuals who possess equal or relatively equal power. When there is little or no power differential between two people, there are cogent and obvious reasons why neither attempts to use power to resolve conflicts. To use a method that depends upon power when no power advantage exists, is plainly foolish; it only invites ridicule.

Imagine my wife's reaction if I had attempted to use Method 1 to resolve a conflict we sometimes got into- about the best bedtime for our then six-year-old daughter. I generally liked to play games with her at night and have quality time with her. I enjoyed our time together and getting her into bed at 8:00 often cut that time short. My wife liked her to get to bed at 8:00, so she wasn't cranky the next day. Suppose I had said to her, "I've decided we will let her go to bed at 9:00, so she and I can spend some quality time together." After recovering from her initial surprise and disbelief, she would probably come back with something like:

• "You have decided!"
• "Well, I have decided she will be in bed at 8:00 sharp!"
• "Isn't that nice? I hope you have fun waking her up tomorrow and taking care of her when she gets sick from not getting enough sleep!"

I had enough wisdom then to realize how utterly ridiculous my attempt at Method 1 in this situation would have been. And she had enough strength (power) in our relation ship to resist such a foolish attempt on my part to win at the expense of her losing.

Perhaps it is a principle that people who have equal or relatively equal power (an equalitarian relationship) seldom try to use Method 1. If on occasion they do try, the other person will not permit the conflict to be resolved in this way, in any event. But when one person thinks he has (or is sure he has) more power than the other, he may be tempted to use Method 1. If, then, the other thinks the first has more power, he has little choice but to submit, unless he chooses to resist or fight with whatever power he thinks he possesses.

It is clear by now that Method 3 is a no-power method- or more accurately a "no-lose" method; conflicts are resolved with no one winning and no one losing. Both win because the solution must be acceptable to both. It is conflict-resolution by mutual agreement on the ultimate solution. In this chapter, I will describe how it works.

The following two chapters discuss parents' problems in accepting this method and in putting it to work at home- but first, a brief description of Method 3:

• Parent and child encounter a conflict-of-needs situation. The parent asks the child to participate with him in a joint search for some solution acceptable to both. One or both may offer possible solutions. They critically evaluate them and eventually make a decision on a final solution acceptable to both. No selling of the other is required after the solution has been selected, because both have already accepted it. No power is required to force compliance, because neither is resisting the decision.

Bringing back our familiar coat problem, here is how it was resolved by Method 3, as reported by the parent involved:

What happened here? Obviously, Jane and her father resolved their conflict to the mutual satisfaction of both. It was resolved rather quickly, too. The father did not have to waste time being an imploring salesman, trying to sell his solution, as is necessary in Method 1. No power was involved- either on the part of the father or of Jane. Finally, both walked away from the problem-solving feeling warmly toward each other. The father could say, "Have a good day at school" and really mean it, and Jane could go to school free of the fear of embarrassment over an "ugly" coat.

Below is another kind of conflict familiar to most parents, solved by a family using Method 3. It is unnecessary to illustrate how it could be tackled by Method 1 or Method 2; most parents are only too familiar with unsuccessful win-lose battles over the cleanliness and neatness of their child's room. As reported by one of the mothers who had completed the P.E.T. course, this is what happened:

These two examples of conflict-resolution by Method 3 bring out a very important aspect that at first is not always understood by parents. Using Method 3, different families will generally come up with different solutions to the same problem. It is a way of arriving at some solution acceptable to both parent and child, not a method for obtaining a single stock solution "best "for all families. In trying to resolve the coat problem another family using Method 3 might have come up with the idea for Jane to take an umbrella. In still another family they might have agreed that the father would drive Jane to school that day. In a fourth family, they might have agreed that Jane would wear the "ugly" coat that day and that a new one would be bought later.

Much of the literature in parent education has been "solution-oriented"; parents are advised to solve a particular problem in child-rearing by some standard "cookbook" solution considered best by experts. Parents have been offered "best solutions" for the bedtime problem, for a child dawdling at the table, for the TV problem, the messy room problem, the chores problem, and so on, ad infinitum.

My thesis is that parents need only learn a single method for resolving conflicts, a method usable with children of all ages. With this approach, there are no "best" solutions applicable to all or even most families. A solution best for one family- that is, one that is acceptable to that particular parent and child- might not be "best" for another family. Here is how one family resolved a conflict about the use of the son's new minibike. The father reported:

Method 3, then, is a method by which each unique parent and his unique child can solve each of their unique conflicts by finding their own unique solutions acceptable to both.

Not only does this seem to be a more realistic approach in parent education, but it greatly simplifies the job of training parents to be more effective in child-rearing. If we have discovered a single method by which most parents can learn to solve conflicts, then we can afford to be far more hopeful about increasing the effectiveness of future parents. Learning parent effectiveness may not be quite as complex a task as parents and professionals have been led to believe.

WHY METHOD 3 IS SO EFFECTIVE

The Child Is Motivated to Carry Out the Solution

Method 3 conflict-resolution brings about a higher degree of motivation on the part of the child to carry out the decision because it utilizes the principle of participation:

• A person is more motivated to carry out a decision that he has participated in making than he is a decision that has been imposed upon him by another.

The validity of this principle has been proven time and time again by experiments in industry. When employees have had a hand in making a decision, they carry it out with more motivation than a decision their superiors made unilaterally. And supervisors who permit a high degree of participation by subordinates in matters that affect them maintain high productivity, high job satisfaction, high morale, and low turnover.

While Method 3 carries no guarantee that children will always eagerly carry out the agreed-upon solutions to conflicts, it greatly increases the probability that they will. Children get a feeling that a Method 3 decision has been their decision, too. They have made a commitment to a solution and feel a responsibility to carry it out. They also respond favorably to the fact that their parents have refused to try to win at the expense of their losing.

Solutions produced by Method 3 are frequently the child's own idea. Naturally, this increases his desire to see that it will work. A P.E.T. parent submitted this example of Method 3 conflict-resolution:

Wilbur, a four-and-a-half-year-old, was reluctant to go with his mom to visit some friends. One of the friends had a daughter, Becky, who was friends with Wilbur. He was very, very reluctant to go and his mother was puzzled.

This incident illustrates how strong the motivation of a child can be to enforce and carry out a decision if the child participated in making it. In Method 3 decision-making, it seems that children feel they are making a commitment- they have invested part of themselves in the problem-solving process. Also, the parent reveals an attitude of trusting the child to hold up his end of the bargain. When children feel they are trusted, they are more likely to behave in a trustworthy manner.

More Chance of Finding a High-Quality Solution

In addition to producing solutions that have a higher probability of being accepted and implemented, Method 3 is more likely than Method 1 or Method 2 to yield solutions of a higher quality- more creative, more effective in solving the conflict; solutions that meet the needs of both parent and child, and that neither would have thought of alone. The way the room-cleaning conflict was resolved by the family whose daughter took on some of the cooking chores is a good illustration of how highly creative a solution can be. Both the mother and daughter admitted that the final solution was surprising to them.

Another high-quality solution emerged from a family using Method 3 to solve a conflict between the parents and their two small daughters about the noise of the TV, which the girls liked to watch around dinnertime. One of the daughters suggested that they would enjoy the program just as much with the sound off just seeing the picture. All agreed to this solution- a novel one, indeed, although perhaps unacceptable to children in another family.

Method 3 Develops Children's Thinking Skills

Method 3 encourages- actually requires- children to think. The parent is signaling the child: "We have a conflict, let's put our heads together and think- let's figure out a good solution." Method 3 is an intellectual exercise in reasoning for both parent and child. It is almost like a challenging puzzle and requires the same kind of "thinking through" or "figuring out." I would not be surprised if future research demonstrates that children in homes using Method 3 develop mental capacities superior to children in homes using Method 1 or Method 2.

Less Hostility- More Love

Parents who consistently use Method 3 generally report a drastic reduction in hostility from their children. This is not surprising; when any two people agree on a solution, resentments and hostility are rare. In fact, when a parent and child "work through" a conflict and arrive at a mutually satisfying solution, they often experience feelings of deep love and tenderness. Conflict, if resolved by a solution acceptable to both, brings parent and child closer. They not only feel good that the conflict has been cleared away, but each feels good that he has not lost. Finally, each warmly appreciates the other's willingness to consider his needs and respect his rights. In this way Method 3 strengthens and deepens relationships.

Many parents have reported that immediately following a resolution of a conflict, everyone feels a special kind of joy. They often laugh, express warm feelings toward the other members of the family, and often hug and kiss each other. Such joy and love are apparent in the following excerpt from a tape recording of a session with a mother, two teenaged daughters, and a teenaged son. The family had just spent a week resolving several conflicts with Method 3.

A parent wrote the following to me, a year or so after she had taken P.E.T.:

• "The changes in our family relationships have been subtle but real. The older children especially appreciate these changes. At one time our home had 'emotional smog'- critical, resentful, hostile feelings that were held in check until some would trigger an explosion. Since P.E.T. and our sharing our new skills with all the children, the 'emotional smog' is gone. The air is clear and stays clear. We have no tension in our home except that necessary for coping with everyday schedules. We deal with problems as they arise, and we all tune in to the feelings of others as well as ourselves. My eighteen-year-old son says he can feel tension in the homes of his friends, and he expresses appreciation for the lack of tension in our home. P.E.T. has closed the gap for us. And since we can communicate freely, my children are open to the teaching of my own value system and my perspective on life. And their views are enriching to me."

Requires Less Enforcement

Method 3 requires very little enforcement, for once children agree to an acceptable solution, they usually carry it out, in part because of their appreciation for not being pressured to accept a solution in which they lose.

With Method 1, enforcement is generally required, because the parent's solution is often not acceptable to the child. The less acceptable a solution is to those who have to carry it out, the greater the need for enforcement- nagging, cajoling, reminding, harassing, checking up, and so on. A father in P.E.T. became aware of this reduced need for enforcement:

• "In our family Saturday morning has always been a big hassle. Every Saturday I had to fight with the kids about doing their jobs around the house. It was the same thing each time- a big struggle, angriness and bitterness. After we used Method 3 to work out the chore problem, the kids just seemed to go about doing their jobs on their own. They didn't need reminding and prodding."

Method 3 Eliminates the Need for Power

The no-lose Method 3 makes it unnecessary for either the parent or the child to use power. While Method 1 and Method 2 breed power struggles, Method 3 calls for an entirely different posture. Parent and child are not struggling against each other but, rather, working with each other on a common task, so children do not need to develop any of the ubiquitous methods of coping with parental power.

In Method 3, the parent's attitude is one of respect for the needs of the child. But he also has respect for his own needs. The method conveys to the child, "I respect your needs and your right to have your needs met, but I also respect my own needs and my right to have them met. Let's try to find a solution that will be acceptable to both of us. In this way your needs will be met, but so will mine. No one will lose- both will win." A sixteen-year-old girl came home one night and told her parents:

• "You know I really feel funny with my friends when they all talk and gripe about how unfair their parents are. They talk all the time about getting mad at them and hating them. I just stand around quietly because I don't have any of those feelings. I'm really out of it. Somebody asked me why I didn't feel bad toward my parents- what the difference was in our family. I didn't know what to say at first, but after thinking about it, I said that in our family you always know that you won't be made to do something by your parents. There's no fear of their making you do something or punishing you. You always feel you'll have a chance."

Parents in P.E.T. quickly grasp the significance of having a home where power can be thrown out the window. They see the exciting implications- a chance to raise kids who have less need to acquire harmful, defensive, coping mechanisms.

Their children will have much less need to develop habit patterns of resisting and rebelling (there will be nothing for them to resist or rebel against); much less need to develop habits of submissiveness and passive surrendering (there will be no authority to submit or surrender to); much less need to withdraw and escape (there will be nothing to withdraw or escape from); much less need to counterattack and cut the parents down to size (the parents won't be trying to win by employing their greater psychological size).

Method 3 Gets to the Real Problems

When parents use Method 1, they often miss the chance to discover what is really bothering their child. Parents who jump quickly to their solutions and then apply their power to enforce those quick solutions block the child from communicating feelings that lie much deeper and are much more significant determiners of his behavior at the time. Thus Method 1 prevents parents from getting to the more basic problem, and it won't let them contribute something far more significant toward their child's long-range growth and development.

Method 3, on the other hand, usually starts a chain reaction. The child is allowed to get down to the real nitty-gritty problem that causes him to behave in a particular way. Once the real problem is revealed, an appropriate solution to the conflict often becomes almost obvious. Method 3 actually is a problem-solving process: it generally enables parent and child first to define what the real problem is, which increases the chances that they will end up with a solution that solves the real problem, not the initial "presenting" problem, which so often is a superficial or symptomatic one. A good illustration is the "coat problem," which turned out to be caused by the child's fear of being embarrassed by an ugly coat. And here are some other examples.

Nathan, aged five, began balking about going to school several months after he started. His mother at first pushed him out of the house against his will a couple of mornings. Then she went into problem-solving. She reported that it took only ten minutes to get to the real cause: Nathan was afraid his mother might not pick him up and the time between cleanup at school and Mother's arrival seemed interminable to him. He also wondered if Mother was trying to get rid of him by sending him off to school.

Mother told Nathan what her feelings were: she wasn't trying to get rid of him and she enjoyed having him home. But she also valued his school. In the Method 3 problem solving process, several solutions emerged and they chose one: his mother would be there to pick him up before cleanup time. The mother reported that Nathan thereafter departed happily for school and that he mentioned the arrangement frequently, indicating how important it was to him.

An identical conflict in another family was resolved in a different way because the Method 3 process unearthed a different basic problem. In this family Bonnie, aged five, had also been resisting getting up and dressing for kindergarten, causing the whole family a problem each morning.

Here is a rather lengthy but beautiful and moving word-for-word transcript of a tape-recorded session in which Bonnie and her mother work through to a creative solution. This session not only illustrates how the process helps a parent discover an underlying problem but also how essential Active Listening is in Method 3 conflict-resolution and how this method brings about wholehearted acceptance of the solution. Finally, it poignantly illustrates how, in Method 3, children as well as parents are very much concerned that, once a mutually acceptable solution has been reached, it will be carried out.

The mother had just completed solving a problem involving all four of her children. Now she directs her conversation to Bonnie and shares a problem she is having only with her.

This mother, who so effectively used Method 3 to solve this rather common and sticky family problem, reported afterward that Bonnie stopped her stalling and complaining behavior in the morning. Several weeks later Bonnie announced that she would rather go out and play than spend so much time with her Mother. The lesson here is that once the real needs of the child were discovered through problem-solving, and a solution found that was appropriate to those needs, the problem disappeared as soon as the child's temporary needs had been met.

Treating Kids Like Adults

The no-lose, Method 3 approach communicates to kids that parents think their needs are important, too, and that the kids can be trusted to be considerate of parental needs in re turn. This is treating kids much as we treat friends or a spouse. The method feels so good to children because they like so much to feel trusted and to be treated as an equal. (Method 1 treats kids as if they are immature, irresponsible, and without a brain in their heads).

The following was submitted by a P.E.T. graduate:

The outcome was reported by this father as follows:

• "We had very little bedtime problem thereafter. On the occasions when Laura's light was not out at eight-thirty, one of us would confront her with something like, 'It's eight-thirty now, Laura, and we do have an agreement about lights out.' She always responded acceptably to these reminders. This solution allowed Laura to be a 'big girl' and read in bed like Mother and Dad."

Method 3 as "Therapy" for the Child

Frequently, Method 3 brings about changes in children's behavior not unlike the changes that take place when children are seen in therapy by a professional therapist. There is something potentially therapeutic in this method of resolving conflicts or solving problems.

A P.E.T. father submitted two examples where the use of Method 3 produced immediate "therapeutic" changes in his five-year-old son:

Other parents have reported marked changes in their children after the parents used Method 3 over a period of time- improved grades in school, better relationships with peers, more openness in expressing feelings, fewer temper tantrums, less hostility toward school, more responsibility about homework, more independence, greater self-confidence, happier disposition, better eating habits, and other improvements that the parents welcomed.