Blaming others for the difficulties and conflicts we face is an alluring option. It’s ego-protective, in that we save face by pointing out the other person’s transgressions. We’ve been pretty acculturated to blame as a way to engage in conflict and protect ourselves, our assets, our rights. And we may genuinely believe that it wasn’t our fault.

Finding fault and assigning blame isn’t an effective way to work out a dispute or conflict, though it may feel good for a while. Here are some of the reasons it doesn’t work:

• It’s a difficult cycle to break. When blame is set at our feet, most of us defend ourselves vigorously. The conversation then becomes a teeter-totter of blame and defend, blame and defend.
• Blaming often escalates the conflict further. When we find fault with another, we cause face loss, which usually results in stronger emotion from the aggrieved party as they attempt to save face in response.
• It is the rare conflict indeed where all fault lies with one party. In most of the day-to-day situations we find ourselves in, it’s just not that simple.
• When we blame another, we give away some of our own power. By saying, "It’s your fault," we’re also suggesting that we rely on them to fix it. That’s a pretty disempowering way to live in the world.
• Blaming sidetracks us from the important conversation. Because our energy is going into assigning blame or defending ourselves, we’re not talking about what this is really about.
• Blame focuses on the past. Resolving conflict is about the future.

There is something that works better. Next time you’re in a conflict situation, consider contribution instead. Contribution is a future-focused concept that allows us to acknowledge that, in most disputes, each participant said or did something that helped things unfold as they did. By considering contribution, we have a key to figuring out what we can do differently together next time.

By considering our own contribution to the conflict, as well as the other person’s, we free ourselves up to more fully understand the situation. Really understanding what happened usually results in a more effective and satisfying resolution to the conflict. And because contribution is easier to discuss than blame, it helps turn a difficult conversation into a joint exploration that can lead to real change.

Looking at our own contribution is hard, of course, especially when we genuinely believe it’s the other person’s responsibility that things got difficult or the problem occurred. One of the reasons it’s hard is because we usually look at the situation only through our own version of the story. As a mediator I’m trained to look at a conflict through both sides’ eyes and I can tell you that it’s much easier to see everyone’s contribution from that impartial perspective.

To use contribution when you’re in a conflict conversation, try this:

• Consider how an impartial person, such as a mediator, might view the situation. Looking at the situation through another set of eyes helps us out of the narrow view of our own, limited story.
• Consider how such an impartial person might see your contributions. What is it that you said/did, didn’t say/do, that helped contribute to what happened? How would such a person describe the other person’s contributions, without using blame language?
• Acknowledge your own contributions first. If you’re worried that the other person will interpret that acknowledgment as assuming fault, say something like, "I know that most situations like this happen because we each contributed something, even without realizing it. Here’s what I think I contributed. What do you think you contributed?"
• If someone is blaming you for what happened, try re-directing the conversation to more fruitful territory: "I imagine that I did do some things that contributed. Let’s take a few minutes to talk about those and then I’d also like to talk about your contributions. I think we can resolve this if we figure out how not to contribute in the same way next time."

Conflict Zen by Tammy Lenski is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Based on a work at ConflictZen.com and originally published in The Monadnock Ledger.

How do you put a giraffe in the refrigerator?

Open the refrigerator, put in the giraffe and close the door. This question tests whether you tend to do simple things in an overly complicated way.

How do you put an elephant into a refrigerator?

Open the refrigerator, take out the giraffe, put in the elephant and close the door. This tests your ability to think through the repercussions of your actions.

The Lion King is hosting an animal conference; all the animals attend except one. Which animal does not attend?

The elephant. He’s in the refrigerator. This tests your memory.

There is a river you must cross. But it is inhabited by crocodiles. How do you manage it?

You swim across. All the crocodiles are attending the animal conference. This tests whether you learn quickly from your mistakes.

The apparent source of this quiz is Andersen Consulting Worldwide (if you know the original source for sure, please let me know), and web sources suggest that while about 90% of the professionals tested got all questions wrong, pre-schoolers tended to get several correct answers.

What does this have to do with conflict and its resolution?

In conflict, we’re not very good at putting the giraffe in the refrigerator. Most of us over-complexify conflict or avoid dealing with it long enough that things build up and really do get complicated. What would happen if we tried to approach our disputes with elegant simplicity?

In conflict, putting the elephant in the refrigerator’s even harder than putting in the giraffe. Disputes can catch us unprepared and may unfold rapidly, leaving little chance to think about what we’re saying and doing before we jump in. What would happen if we stop long enough to consider the repercussions of our words and actions before we step into the conflict conversation?

In conflict, we don’t tend to learn quickly from our mistakes. In fact, in conflict, most of us have amazing capacity to keep doing what doesn’t work because our conflict engagement patterns are so ingrained. What would happen if we could use each dispute as an opportunity to learn about ourselves (instead of blaming the other person) in order to engage conflict more effectively next time?