Post

You have undoubtedly experienced conflicts in which you wanted to say, “Here we go again. Same song, 14th verse.” Sometimes no matter what content is being discussed, the outcome is the same. The same people collude together, the same people are left out, and the same indirect strategies are used (e.g., “forgetting,” avoiding the issue, and putting off a decision until something must be done). As we have seen, repetitive, unsatisfactory conflicts often operate from a set of unstated but very powerful rules that limit genuine change.

“Rules” describe the underlying communication structure of the interaction. Underlying rules are like the structure of a language. Usually, no one person dictates the rules. Instead, the rules guide behavior in more subtle ways. They are “the way things are done” in a family, a business, a department, or a group of friends. A more precise definition of a rule is that it is “a followable prescription that indicates what behavior is obligated, preferred, or prohibited in certain contexts” (Shimanoff 1980, 57). In a popular language, people learn the “rules of engagement.”

Usually the rules of communication remain implicit. If you begin to describe the rules, however, you bring them to the surface, and then they can be changed. The following are some examples of rules that conform to the above definition. Keep in mind that people can sometimes tell you the underlying rules if you interview them, but the rules are never printed and posted. Those are different kinds of rules.

Rules are prescriptions for behavior stated in the following form:

“When in context X, Y must/must not occur.”

“When Father shows sadness or anger, Mother must soothe him.”

“When the program director decides to assign a case to a counselor, the counselor must accept the case or convince the program director to reassign it.”

Rules are stated in prescriptive, not evaluative, language. They focus on communication behavior:

“When brother and sister fight, Dad must intervene to stop it,” not “Dad feels responsible for stopping brother and sister’s fights, even though they can handle them without interference” (this is interpretive and evaluative).

(In an abusive system) “When Andy bullies and hits his sister, Jen, she must handle it herself and not bother Mom with tattling.”

Rules against knowing the rules abound. People must follow the rules but can’t say what they are. For that reason, listing rules for interaction may not be easy. But you can elicit system rules from conflict parties by following these steps:

List explicit and implicit rules that prescribe your own and others’ behavior in conflicts.

If you have trouble thinking of rules for your system, think of times when the rule was broken. How did you know the rule was broken? How was the violation communicated? Write about the prescription that became obvious upon breaking the rule.

Make sure you generate rules for both behavior that must and behavior that must not be performed.

Go back over your list. Make each rule simple and prescriptive. Write rules even for “obvious” communication patterns. They may become important possibilities for change.

Example:

When new staff members attend the staff meeting, they must not express opinions unless they have a sponsor who is an older staff member.

Code each rule as to the following:

Whose rule is it?

What keeps the rule going?

Who enforces the rule?

Who breaks the rule?

What function does the rule serve?

Discuss how the rules help or harm the productive management of conflict. Make decisions for change.

Example:

Old rule—When Dad is angry at younger brother, older brother must protect younger brother from Dad’s disapproval.

Result—Older brother and Dad engage in conflict often, reducing effect of the protection (a toxic triangle).

New rule—When Dad and younger brother get into a conflict, they must talk about their conflicts without older brother (a new affiliation).