Interpersonal Conflict Conflict Resolution Project

A: Preparation for Interaction
We all encounter various conflicts in our day-to-day lives – be it with friends, relatives, workmates, or even schoolmates. Currently, I’m in such conflict with a schoolmate (let us call him XJ) for an amount of money I lent to him four months ago. I lent XJ the said amount to enable him purchase a home theatre system he was getting at a huge discount. At the time, I did not have sufficient cash with me. So, I explained to XJ that I had invested in a particular company’s stock and was considering selling the same as the price of that specific stock had largely stagnated for a long time. XJ requested that I advance him a total of $400, which he would refund within a period of three months. Further, we agreed that the amount would incur an interest charge of 7% per month so as to compensate me for any gains I could have made after re-investing the amount in a more volatile stock.
A month ago, XJ offered to refund the amount he had borrowed. However, instead of refunding a total of $490 (principal plus accrued interest), he offered to refund only the principal amount he had borrowed. I protested this move as our initial arrangement had been crystal clear. In his defense, XJ pointed out that returns in the stock market were not guaranteed and instead of the profit I was hoping for, I could perhaps have made a loss within the 3-month period under consideration. He further pointed out that as a matter of fact, he might have saved me from an imminent loss. To me, this was a classic example of ‘breach of contract.’ I could have sued. To cut the long story short, I did not accept the principal amount from XJ – and as a consequence, we have not been in good terms since then.
My goal at this point is to convince XJ that he rightfully owes me $490 and to convince him to pay the total amount owed. My desired outcome of our engagement is for us to rekindle our friendship after XJ appreciates the relevance of keeping his word. There are various approaches I could make use of in seeking to resolve my conflict with XJ. To begin with, I intend to control my ego and seek XJ out. I will, thus, make the first contact. Given that we are not in good terms, and given that our engagements could end up being argumentative instead of conciliatory, I will invite a neutral friend to play the mediation role. Next, during our actual meeting, I intend to be more of a listener in the initial stages. This is more so the case given that as West and Turner (2008) point out, in seeking to resolve interpersonal conflict, it is important for each of the parties in the conflict “to see things from another’s point of view…” (193). I will, thus, reevaluate his reasons in an attempt to understand his reasons for adopting the course of action he embraced.
Third, I will ensure that I obtain equal footing. I would not want a situation whereby XJ feels inferior (or disadvantaged from an interactive point of view) just because I am the one who lent him money. Fourth, I will keep my anger in check. Towards this end, even if I feel angered by any statement XJ makes, I will try my best not to interrupt him or interject when it is his turn to speak. Lastly, I will strive to explain my position in a rational and honest manner. My argument in this case is two-fold – i.e. to restate the need for us to rekindle our friendship, and to convince XJ that the need to honor promises or commitments is critical for all future engagements. This is more so the case given that it is on the strength of our characters that the world judges us.
B: The Interaction
I identified a mutual friend (let us call him BT) who graciously accepted this challenging role of resolving a conflict between two ‘former’ friends. We met at a café and BT, whom I had briefed about the entire situation, gave me (the lender) an opportunity to explain what had transpired. XJ would later on be given the right to respond. I gave the entire story right from the point XJ requested for the amount, our agreement, all the way to when it was time for him to refund and he went against our initial agreement. XJ was asked to either confirm or dispute my version of events. He confirmed that all I had said was factual. BT then asked each of us to state our position on the issue. XJ went first.
However, as XJ was explaining his position, I found it extremely hard to ignore clear irrational arguments on his part. I, thus, found myself interjecting from time to time – especially whenever he made a claim to the effect that he could perhaps have saved me money as the stock market is a risky investment avenue where money could be lost. At one or two instances, we did exchange harsh words. My plan to exercise restraint was clearly hard to operationalize. Whenever BT attempted to intervene, XJ would make an unfounded claim that BT was biased as I had engaged him without his (XJ’s) input. I found this claim to be absurd as BT was our mutual friend. However, I quickly realized that I should have involved XJ in the mediator selection undertaking so as to eliminate any perception of bias.
By the time my opportunity to explain my position came, I had regained my composure. I, thus, made a logical argument as per the plan highlighted earlier-on in this text. I explained that I had nothing against XJ and all I wanted was to see him as an honorable person who could keep his word. I pointed out that if I would have accepted the $400 (without the accrued interest) and walked away, our friendship would have been irreparably injured as a consequence. Further, I observed that such kind of behavior would inevitably injure him in the future and I was essentially being my brother’s keeper by pointing out this particular shortcoming. After I was done, there was a moment of silence and I can remember the first word that XJ uttered to break the said silence was, “I’m sorry – please forgive me.” My plan to present a rational and honest argument had prevailed. It is always difficult to argue with facts and the true position always prevails.
C: The Outcome
It is important to note that in the final analysis, I was able to achieve my goals. I attribute the success of the entire undertaking to being considerate and offering to embrace the ‘loss.’ In the end, I was not retributive. Further, I was able to present a well-argued and honest position. If I had continued on a confrontational path as had happened at the onset of the engagement, I may not have achieved my goal. Thus in the end, my conciliatory tone saved the day. This effectively enabled XJ to realize that he was on the wrong and for this reason, he tendered an apology and offered to pay back the principal – plus interest!




















References
West, R. & Turner, L.H. (2008). Understanding Interpersonal Communication: Making Choices in Changing Times (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.