HOW DO WE ARGUE LIKE TEAMMATES, NOT OPPONENTS?
How fighting fair can pull you closer instead of apart.
Have you ever been in the overwhelming part of a relationship when conflict shows up?
A misattunement, a drop in communication, a misunderstanding, or a major disagreement happens.
Someone shuts down.
Someone winds up.
Communication gets fractured when trying to talk it through, leaving both parties tense, defensive, and on high-alert.
Sometimes, tension becomes so tangled it feels like a stalemate.
Big inhale. Even bigger exhale.
You’re normal. You’re human. Let’s dive in…
In this blog, we will take a closer look at…
Common unhelpful actions that people engage in during conflicts. Understanding these behaviors can help us recognize and change patterns that may be damaging to our relationships.
We pay attention to how trust is a key component when working through conflict.
We then explore how we can practice repair and rebuild trust after relational rupture.
Lastly, we examine what steps we can take to prioritize and nurture meaningful connection as we navigate through conflict in the future.
First things first: conflict is inevitable
Can we avoid conflict?
Here’s the thing, conflict is an inevitable experience. It is part of living and being in a relationship. While we can do as much as possible to reduce conflict and care for our relationships to avoid purposefully hurting each other, we cannot eliminate conflict. Accepting that disagreements and hurt will arise from time to time can help us show up better when conflict inevitably occurs.
Conflict in its simplest form is disconnection. How we respond when disconnection occurs is important here. When I’m working with clients, I notice a couple observations:
People typically want to be back in connection with each other.
People desperately try to avoid getting hurt and engage in self-protective behaviors and defense mechanisms that get in the way of repair.
Let’s take a look at the ways we armor up that get in the way of working through conflict….
Common things we do that do not help us move through conflict:
Avoiding conflict at all costs
Sweeping tension under the rug
‘Protecting my peace’ (Hot take here—stay with me)
Confusing explanation with justification
Placating
Tabling conflict, and never circling back to it
Managing the other person
Triangulating
Gossiping
Pretending you’re unaffected and unbothered when you actually are
Passive aggressively acting out
Avoiding conflict at all costs
‘Keeping the peace’ can be emotionally and mentally tiring. This approach often involves experiencing distress in isolation, pent-up frustration from not sharing how something’s affecting you, and fractured connection because the other person doesn't get a chance to truly support you, know you, or hear you.
‘Sweeping tension under the rug’
Now we’re standing on a bumpy rug—and everyone can feel it. Another way of describing this is ‘walking on eggshells.’ Engaging with the other person starts to feel performative and exhausting. The tension doesn’t leave—it goes straight to the nervous systems. Tense and unresolved.
‘Protecting my peace’
While this has become a popularized phrase in social media as a means of setting boundaries, it’s become over-diluted to the point of losing it’s functional definition. In some cases, people ‘protecting their peace’ has become a euphemism for disengaging/avoidance. The phrase prioritizes the self over the relationship, which in some cases may make sense; however, does not lend itself to productive communication. And if re-connection is the goal, it can be helpful to shift and think about what the relationship needs.
A reminder: boundaries are not shared to shut others out or cut off connection. Boundaries are typically shared in hopes of maintaining connection. We share what we hope for, want, need, feel, and value with people we hope to maintain connection with. One of my favorite quotes about boundaries, by Prentis Hemphill, LCSW: “Boundaries are the distance at which I can love you and me simultaneously.”
**Abusive relational dynamics (those causing physical harm, psychological harm, and/or danger) are treated differently. In these cases, significantly reducing exposure or interaction with the other person to protect yourself is necessary.
Confusing explanation and justification
Good intentions don’t counteract behaviors. While explanations can be useful for providing context and trying to understand where the other person is coming from, there is a fundamental difference between having empathy and giving permission for a harm caused. We can have empathy for what the other person is feeling and/or going through; however, that is distinct from justifying the way they behaved/communicated.
A phrase I often repeat in (and out) of the therapy room: “You’re allowed to feel whatever you’re feeling, and that doesn’t remove the responsibility or accountability of how you act or communicate.”
Placating
Easing tension by calming the other person’s upset feelings. This can quietly cause problems over time, especially in close relationships. If you notice you struggle with the other person’s distress, it could be a signal of codependency in your dynamic. If you often soothe others to avoid conflict, you’re taking on responsibility for their emotions.
Tabling conflict, and never circling back to it
Tabling conflict can be incredibly helpful when conflict escalates to the point of unproductive communication. In this case, a fair ask is whoever initiates the break is responsible for re-engaging the conversation. When there is a lack of follow up to address the conflict, this can create a relational drop. This is not an act of goodwill towards the relationship, as it does not offer any avenues for constructive communication. And, it can end up generating unintended consequences, such as the other person feeling dismissed and/or de-prioritized.
Managing the other person
Sometimes, people can approach conflict like they approach projects. The objective? Fix whatever the problem is. Here lies some difficulty: how people interpret what the ‘problem’ is (each party can interpret it differently), and how to address/fix the problem (each party can interpret this part differently as well). In a lot of cases, the problem tends to be connected to whatever or whomever summons unpleasant and uncomfortable sensations or emotions. And often the employed, seemingly logical solution is remove discomfort, or trying to shift from unpleasant to pleasant.
What unfortunately gets caught in the crossfire is the other person. When we try to "fix" someone else's discomfort or “fix” challenging emotions, it can communicate an implicit message that there's something wrong with the other person or their emotions.
Triangulating
Telling a non-neutral 3rd party about the conflict, and having that 3rd party address the conflict for you. Another version of triangulation is gossiping: bad-mouthing the person whom you’re feeling frustrated with to a non-neutral 3rd person, as a way to ‘release your feelings.’
Venting to someone else and allowing them to be the spokesperson for you instead of you directly communicating with the person you have conflict with, creates a relational triangle, involving three people instead of just two. This usually increases tension, increases division, and causes more misunderstandings in the conflict.
This is different from processing your emotions/thoughts with an unrelated/neutral 3rd party (i.e. a therapist or counselor) that helps you productively address conflict with the other party.
Pretending you’re unaffected and unbothered when you actually are
While appearing unbothered can feel '“cool” and “aloof,” the true costs are internalizing hurt and pain without giving any genuine permission for that pain to get validated or supported.
Passive aggressively acting out
Being indirect, unclear, and unkind 1) only protects you, not the relationship, and 2) does not supply your chances of being seen, heard and understood if that is your goal.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Do you see a common theme in these approaches? Many involve avoidance or control. Avoidance and control are two of the most common behaviors that get in the way of conflict resolution. Healthy and secure relationships aren’t completely free from these, but they differ in that both partners recognize when avoidance or control occurs, they take responsibility for hurts caused, validate the activated emotions, and are willing to put in the work to repair and reconnect.
Trust: a key ingredient
Whether you’re operating from a solid foundation of trust or building trust with the other person, it’s helpful to know the essential building blocks of trust. According to Charles Feltman’s book, The Thin Book of Trust, he shares that when we enter relationships, if we want connection, we bear the responsibility to show up with care, sincerity, reliability, and competence:
Care: “the assessment you make about the extent to which another person considers your interests and concerns….the other person’s intentions toward you are positive, that they want good for you.”
Sincerity: “the assessment you make about another person’s honesty and integrity. It is also an assessment that when they speak, you can trust what they say is true to the best of their knowledge…they don’t willfully misrepresent information.”
Reliability: “the assessment that you fulfill the commitments you make, that you keep your promises.”
Competence: the belief that the other person has “the ability to do a particular task of job.”“care, sincerity, reliability and competence.” While it is possible to have care and sincerity, trust can be fragmented if reliability and competence are in question. Vice versa, if reliability and competence are present, and you cannot sense care or sincerity in the other, trust is also affected. Essentially, when one of the four blocks is missing, it shapes how we trust the other person.
In Feltman’s book, he opens with these words:
Trust is fundamental to our sense of safety, autonomy, and dignity as human beings. It is also an integral part of every relationship we have. When we trust someone, we feel safe to share what is important to us, including our thoughts, ideas, efforts, hopes and concerns. When others trust us, they reciprocate in kind. It doesn’t mean we always agree, just that we listen to, respect, and value what each other has to offer. In fact, trust allows us to disagree, debate, and test each other’s thinking as we work together to find the best ideas and solutions.
So, how do we repair?
How we respond to conflict matters. How we respond to ourselves and how we respond to the other person matters. It matters because it can be the difference between moving towards repair or moving towards rupture.
Dr. Becky Kennedy, a renowned child psychologist on repair:
“Repair is the act of going back to a moment of disconnection, taking responsibility for your behavior, and acknowledging the impact it had on another. And I want to differentiate a repair from an apology. Because when an apology often looks to shut a conversation down—“Hey, I'm sorry I yelled. Can we move on now?”—a good repair opens one up. And if you think about what it means to get good at repair, there's so much baked in realism and hope and possibility.”
The hope anchored in conflict resolution—especially when both parties brave showing up and vulnerably lean in—is having the opportunity to experience more connection: knowing each other better, experiencing deeper care, and showing up better in relationships.
Most often, people want to restore connection, they want to be able to go back to safe and relaxed engagement with each other. Let’s look at a few ways we can practice repair, nurture connection, and protect the relationship when future conflict arises.
Things we can do that help us move towards repair:
Committing to: us against the problem
Taking breaks when needed
Accountability: acknowledging our part in harm caused
Genuinely apologizing
Taking responsibility and ownership over ourselves
Engaging empathy while maintaining boundaries
Capable and responsible communication
Giving permission for both sides to show up imperfectly
Committing to: us against the problem
“We are in this together.” This framework is borrowed from Emotion-Focused Therapy created by Sue Johnson. When both people are committed to being on the same team with a shared goal of figuring out conflict together, it can radically change how they see each other. If the goal is to be united against the conflict, it transforms your opponent into your teammate.
Taking breaks when needed
If you’re noticing conflict has escalated to a point where it’s overwhelming and it feels like you’re going in circles, take a break. When initiating the break, verbalize you need one, step away from the situation, focus on something else until you’ve regulated (calm mind, calm body), and then re-engage the conversation. Here are a few examples of what you can say before you initiate a break.
Examples:
My priority is being able to have this conversation with you and be present, and I need time to gather my thoughts. Can we talk about this after dinner?
I want to talk this through with you. I’m noticing I’m having a hard time participating the way I’d like to. Can we take a break and return to this in an hour?
You are important to me, and this conversation is important to me. I want to think for a minute about what I’m trying to say. Can I have a moment to think about this and we can return to it later today?
As you can see, a break is a setting aside a temporary space to regulate an overwhelmed nervous system. It is not meant to be used as a deflection or a loophole for avoidance. The point of a break is to regulate and return.
Remember, it’s both of you against the conflict.
Accountability: acknowledging our part in harm caused.
“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.” ‘
- Maya Angelou
When we give ourselves permission to know we’re capable of making mistakes that hurt others, we can experience an upsetting but necessary emotion: guilt “I did something bad.”
Guilt can be a healthy thing to feel, it keeps our brain in learning mode while going through conflict. Guilt allows us to feel something unpleasant when we find out we did something wrong, while not defining us by our actions. It supplies us with enough discomfort to help us reflect on what we got wrong in order to course correct. Guilt supports taking accountability and allows us to say: “I can see how when I said X, that really hurt you,” without crumbling internally.
Accountability can also feel grounding: I’m not defined solely by how I rupture in relationship, I am defined by how I respond to rupture, learn from rupture, and make amends from rupture.
Though there are many possible emotions that crop up when we make mistakes, one worth mentioning is shame: “I am bad.” Shame doesn’t help us learn. Shame worsens anxiety, shortens our cognitive span, and leads to increased armoring, such as shutting down and becoming rigid. With shame, we view ourselves inaccurately, making mistakes high-risk. Differentiating between other emotions such as guilt vs. shame can help us take responsibility in conflicts, without taking on shame.
Genuinely apologizing
There are books and books on learning the language of apologies. One of my favorite books that illustrates the power of a genuine apology is Harriet Lerner’s Why Won’t You Apologize? Healing Big Betrayals and Everyday Hurts. In her book she states: “Part of a true apology is staying deeply curious about the hurt person’s experience rather than hijacking it with your own emotionality.” It’s quite challenging not to get in our own way when we apologize from time to time. Let’s see how we can position ourselves differently when the opportunity for an apology occurs. Lerner advocates for learning how to practice non-defensive listening.
Here is a loose summary of Lerner’s tips. Non-defensive listening requires:
Recognition when defensiveness arises
Practicing self-regulation when distress inevitably surfaces
Listening with the goal to understand the other person
Asking for clarification for things you don’t understand
Agreeing with the parts you can agree with
Apologizing for the part you played
Thanking the other person for sharing their feelings
Sharing how you’ve been thinking about what the other person brought up
Drawing the line at insults, being honest and upfront when you need a break
Sharing respectfully if you see things differently
We apologize because it is foundational towards healing. When apologizing, we want to meet the rupture with owning our part, sharing remorse for the hurt caused, and doing things differently onward.
“Part of a true apology is staying deeply curious about the hurt person’s experience rather than hijacking it with your own emotionality.”
Taking responsibility and ownership over ourselves
The call is coming from inside the house. Our emotions, our actions, our words are our own. If we said something, implied something, or intonated something, it is our compassionate duty to own it. It is a loving act to be responsible for naming when distress is coming up for us and supporting ourselves through regulating around it. How we show up, how we care for ourselves, how we verbalize our concerns and share our insides is our great responsibility. Do it with kindness, do it with care.
We keep the side of our street clean.
Engaging empathy while maintaining boundaries
We can have empathy and boundaries at the same time. In fact, the combination of empathy and boundaries brings grounding and containment in conflict.
We can be deeply sorry and be open to having a conversation, and that does mean we stay in conversations that are insulting, berating, or rude.
We can offer empathy and validation when the other person is sharing their emotions and that does not mean those emotions dictate the relationship and all future interactions.
We can apologize for the part we played in the harm caused and that does not mean we endlessly tolerate punishment.
Emotions are allowed to exist and run the gamut. Empathy can be practiced here.
Behaviors and actions are still things each person is held accountable for. Boundaries are practiced here.
Capable and responsible communicating
Responsible, active communication requires responsible and active listening. We cannot communicate well without the willingness to show up and listen to what the other person is saying. Listen to the other person the way you want to be listened to, with curiosity.
Giving permission for both sides to show up imperfectly
We need to give grace during the repair process: to ourselves and the other person. We are allowed to not know how to communicate every single part of repair perfectly. This does not mean tolerating insults or rudeness. It means focusing on whether you’re showing up progressively better to conflicts over time.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Accepting not all relationships will end in repair/reconciliation
But what if one of us doesn’t want to repair?
Great question.
Practicing these skillsets, naming your boundaries, doing so responsibly and with great intention unfortunately does not mean repair is promised. Apologies do not immediately right wrongs. And intentional conversations don’t guarantee receptivity or de-escalation. Relationship repair takes two. It is possible when both parties are willing and committed to try.
And in some dynamics, one of the parties doesn’t show up, or doesn’t show up without crossing important boundaries. If the other party is not wiling to engage in the repair, the pivot, albeit painful, is acceptance work. Accepting and respecting people’s choices. And accepting that the reparative work becomes solo work. That could look like modifying the connection or exposure you have with the other person. It could also look like creating a safe community around you to support you as you do your solo work.
Grounding reminders:
Repair is always a possibility when both parties are willing.
Repair is effortful. We are capable of becoming efficacious repairers.
Repair is particularly effective when you can remember it’s us against the conflict.
You are responsible for you. A way of practicing not controlling the other person is allowing the other person to be responsible for themselves.
It is our choice to put in the effort; however, we are not guaranteed repair or rejection. We engage in repair, not to control the outcome, but in hopes and faith of experiencing re-connection.
Not all relationships are going to experience repair, sometimes the work is solo work.
References
Feltman, Charles. (2009). The Thin Book of Trust. Thin Book Pub. Co.
Lerner, Harriet Goldhor. (2018). Why Won’t You Apologize? : Healing Big Betrayals and Everyday Hurts. Duckworth Overlook.
