Dehumanizing: The Heart of Conflict
Much has been written about conflict. In recent years, the conversation has shifted from conflict as a destructive force to be avoided to conflict as a prerequisite for healthy teams. Constructive and healthy debate in teams, which is sometimes called “conflict,” is a sign of vitality. The ability to be able to engage each other with our best uncensored ideas is dependent on the cultivation of the necessary psychological safety, trust, and real human relationships.
However, the kind of conflict that we often experience at work has a different feel. Something deep down inside of us knows intuitively that this kind of “conflict” is not so good. Part of our difficulty with defining conflict arises from the fact our one word in English is used to denote several different concepts. For that reason, the best and most current research we have examining the different kinds of conflict boils these types down to three:
Ideological conflict is about the tasks we are considering doing, the WHAT. Here, we can either discuss ideas and options in a respectful yet rigorous ideological debate or we can allow things to degenerate and to become personal.
Methodological conflict is about the methods and processes we're considering, the HOW. Again, here we can either talk about our options in a healthy and safe way or allow ourselves to drift into unhealthy interpersonal conflict.
Relational conflict is when we clash interpersonally, the WHO. At this level, the research is clear, conflict is no longer a strength but a clear liability with destructive potential.
While task and process conflict can work for good or ill, interpersonal conflict causes damage to relationships, the team, and the organization as whole. Unhealthy interpersonal conflict (the kind of conflict we intuitively know to be destructive) arises from a number of places. Our “humanness” is often blamed for the presence of interpersonal conflict. As The Human League put it, “I’m only human. . . born to make mistakes.” Others blame the scarcity of people or resources, our tendency to want things (or “need” them), and lastly, our personal differences. When I work with groups and ask them to identify the source of conflict, differences and diversity are the most commonly identified sources. I know that diversity can’t be the problem when it is usually the answer. While any and all of these may contribute to the development of a conflict situation in which people are damaged, the true heart of the matter seems to lie deeper.
At the heart of conflict, lies a decision (conscious or unconscious) to devalue or dehumanize someone. Perhaps that person stood in the way of something we felt entitled to. They blocked our ability to get the new project, the promotion, or other good things. In our attempt to set things right or to achieve our desired end, we often begin to devalue or dehumanize others. It begins subtly and grows deeper over time. In this way, I am suggesting that conflict actually begins between our two ears and inside our head. Our thoughts about the other person move the opposite way from the path toward falling in love or moving toward deeper human relationship.
An example of this process of dehumanization can be seen in Nazi Germany. The Jewish people were seen as an impediment to Hitler’s twisted vision of utopia. Therefore, he and those with him set out to dehumanize the Jews on three levels. Intrinsically, they began to think of the Jews as unimportant and unlikeable, not our preferred relationships. This devaluation progressed to unfair comparisons and evaluations against other people groups. Ultimately, the Jews were systemically devalued, treated as less than human, which allowed for the rationalization behind the atrocities of the Nazis committed against them.
While most of us are incapable of the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany, we are capable of lesser forms of dehumanization of others around us at work who may be perceived as being in our way. The heart of interpersonal conflicts, as I’ve been able to dissect them, always seems to lie in some form or level of this dehumanization.
If you find yourself, now or in the future, in a conflictual situation with someone else, you may want to ask yourself the following questions:
What do I / they want?
Who seems to stand in the way of what I / they want?
What am / are I / they willing to do to get what they want?
Is this thing that I / they want something to which I feel entitled?
How have I / they dehumanized the other person involved in the conflict?
What are the needs / rights of the other person?
How can they be rehumanized?
As you can see, all of this work requires the ability to self-reflect, to introspect, and to be able to hear what the heart is saying. It also requires the ability to empathize with the situation of others. This critical part of our emotional intelligence or maturity is the key to our ability to prevent or resolve interpersonal conflict. Much of the work I do is focused on helping both sides of a conflict see the other person, their inherent dignity and worth, and the need to see them as fully human. Moving away from dehumanization is moving away from destructive interpersonal conflict.