Confrontations

When I talk to couples who are in a cycle of aggravating non-stop battles over things big and small, I invite them to reconsider what it means to confront each other.

In modern parlance, a confrontation is generally thought of as it relates to being combative with each other. So, lets begin by redefining what the word means.

to confront means, “To look at without flinching.”

The purpose of confrontation is to tease out ableness vs willingness. Is your spouse able to do “X”? If not, are they unable, or unwilling?

Teasing out ableness and willingness is important in getting to “yes”.

The structure of a confrontation is to have an unemotional conversation with your partner addressing the issues. Here is an example of the conversation, where each person can make an observation, state an offer for resolution. The person on the other side of the conversation has three choices, they can accept the offer, reject the offer or make a counter offer. accepting the offer is fine and that leads to a more detailed conversation about how to proceed. Rejecting the offer out of hand is a non-starter.

Here is an extreme example. Let’s say you confront your husband about infidelity. The offer you make is that they can continue their infidelity, and the right extends to you to have an open marriage. If your husband rejects the offer, then, you get to state what the tangible consequences for rejecting the offer. Maybe you say, “The tangible consequence for rejecting the offer is that we will immediately separate and work towards a divorce.”

On the other hand, if he makes a counter offer, saying something like, “While I did not intend to create an open marriage, I hear you, and my counter offer is that we create agreements around ethical non-monogamy.” Or, he might say, “I cannot agree to that, I value our relationship too much, my counter offer is that I will end my relationship with (partner) and make amends to you in any way that works for you.”

My point is that a confrontation does not have to be combative. In reality, a confrontation is more of a conversation where the intention is to facilitate the confronted partner to get them to do the thing you need them to do so you feel complete.

This means that the confronting partner can use escalating control language to get the outcome they are shooting for. So, how does this look?

Look at this list of words, notice how they escalate the level of control, and have a real impact on the confronted partner:

“Honey, I would like you to maybe perhaps possibly……”

“Honey, I would like you to…”

“Honey, I want you to ….”

“Honey, I need you to….”

“Honey I insist that you…”

“Honey, I require that you….”

“Honey, I demand that you…”

What makes this sort of escalating control in the word choice effective is that there is a real tangible natural consequence for failing to deliver. It sounds like, “Look, if you are unwilling to do “X” then the tangible consequences are…”

The point is that a relationship is based on agreements, fidelity to the agreements is necessary or trust will dissolve.

Training in confrontation techniques is worthwhile, so please reach out if this is something you would like to be proficient at. BTW, it’s a very useful skill for managers and leaders in business to have under their belt too.