When we describe a conflict it is useful to avoid insults and relate it to something that will occur in the future. Old Abe Lincoln was a master at this. Before illustrating this with Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, let’s take a few moments to review this idea with one of our favorite comics.

Bumstead Gets Into Trouble

Please consider the following comic.

Now, let’s pretend we know what happens after Dagwood arrives at his office. Immediately, his boss, Mr. Dithers throws an insult at him, yelling that he is a Bobblehead!

Dagwood responds by becoming defensive and starts screaming and throwing insults at his boss which leads to getting fired.

His boss is now stuck trying to replace Dagwood, and Dagwood has to look for a new job. Upon reflection, both parties come to realize that this was not the best outcome to the conflict.

Consider, if you will, another scenario. Dagwood, upon arriving at work and hearing his boss’s insult, recognizes his boss is probably insulting him because he has a conflict with him about coming to work late.  Dagwood, instead of insulting his boss, looks concerned and summarizes the conflict by saying, “You’re angry with me because you desired that your employers come to work on time, and I interfered with your desire by coming to work late. You feel I’m guilty because I’m over an hour late.”

This wording is a pretty good step toward describing the conflict. However, it can be improved. Notice that it describes the desire and the act that interfered with Mr. Dithers’ desire as all happening in the past. A more helpful thing to do is to try to describe the conflict, without insults, as something important to the future. It is helpful to spend at least some time, when describing a conflict, to focus on the future because the past can’t be changed, and conflicts, when wisely considered, are designed to lead us to improving our futures. Your job, when you are an expert in conflict resolution, will be to translate the common but immature way to express a conflict into a language that reveals the true nature of conflicts.

Let’s apply this lesson to Dithers’ conflict with Bumstead.

When Bumstead arrives at the office in our example, Dithers starts to yell at Bumstead, “You Bobblehead, you’re an hour late!”  This sure seems like the conflict is about something that occurred in the past.  But, if you will, consider this scenario:

Bumstead upon arriving at work and hearing his boss yell an insult at him, says “Boss, I’m sorry that I’m late.  The elevator broke down.  Now that I am late, is there something that you desire that I get done that you are afraid I won’t get done because I arrived late?”

Suddenly Mr. Dithers realizes that the real reason he is upset is that the Smith report has to get done before the end of the day.

Bumstead then summarizes the conflict in a concerned manner, “Boss, you want me to complete the Smith report that I promised would go out by the end of the day, and now that I arrived late, you are worried that all of my other duties I have to accomplish during the remaining workday will interfere with your desire. You feel I’m guilty of being an irresponsible employee. Is that correct?”

“Yes!” cries Mr. Dithers.

This restating of the original conflict points us in an easier direction for resolving the conflict.  Arguing all day about coming to work late today will only waste time and can end up getting Bumstead fired. Thinking about how to get that report out as soon as possible can be far more productive.

Bumstead, now focused on what the major concern of his boss is, perhaps might reply, “Boss, I know how important it is to you to get that report out, so when the elevator got stuck, I wrote the report sitting on the elevator floor.” Or perhaps Bumstead might reply, “Since it is so important to you to get that report out, I’ll work over my lunch break and get it done.” Or Bumstead might reply, “I’ll work late today until the report is done, and then I’ll bring the report to the overnight mail service. They have a pick-up as late as 7:30 pm.”

Any of these replies, all designed to address Dithers’ concern about a problem relevant to the future (getting the Smith report done by the end of the day) will be more helpful in calming Dithers’ concern then either Bumstead getting defensive or both Bumstead and Dithers arguing about some things that have all occurred in the past.

It is for this, and many other reasons that we will be discussing in future posts, that it is helpful to try our best to describe a conflict as something relevant to the future.

Insult Avoiding, Forward Looking Abraham Lincoln

Arguably the best example in all of history of a statesman describing a conflict in a manner that avoids insults while focussing attention on a relevant future occurred when Lincoln gave his Gettysburg Address.

Over forty thousand men died during the three-day battle at Gettysburg, and bitterness was in the hearts of those who came to hear Lincoln’s words. If asked for the reason to continue the war, many might have pointed to the violent events in the recent past and thrown vicious insults at the rebels. But Lincoln provides not single insult. Instead, he begins his speech reminding all in attendance what the war is about.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.

We see here Lincoln focussing the listeners’ attention on the worthy cause of this nation enduring into the future.

After Lincoln’s first two sentences, notice how his next three sentences show respect for what had taken place but then hastens once gain to connect this with something relevant to the future:

We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

In those three sentences, Lincoln again directs the attention of his listeners to what those who lost their lives were fighting for, “that that nation might live.”

Although spending time to honor the brave men of the battle is altogether fitting and proper, as Lincoln continues, the future aspects of the conflict is further developed. Thus:

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground…. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

We see here, not a single insult directed at those on the other side of this conflict. Instead, Lincoln brilliantly moves his audience, all of whom are engaged in the conflict of their lives, from the vivid past to a relevant future.  We all must learn to do this if we are to become experts in dealing with conflict.

Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional and social intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.

Abraham Lincolnangerbulliedconflictcriticismdig for the conflictdisrespectfulGettysburg Addressinsultsmaturityname callingnegative criticismpsychological maturityrespecttypes of criticismwisdom