Connection before correction: the tug-a-war of conflict
- Davy and Ruth
- Jul 23
- 5 min read
Updated: Jul 24
In a recent post, we wrote about “picking your battles” when attempting to bring about changes in perinatal care. Re-reading this, we were struck by our own choice of words here – why the language of combat? Is this helpful?
It often feels this way at the moment, doesn’t it? There’s a lot that’s hard, and it’s made worse when we feel at loggerheads with people around us.
Disagreements and differences of opinion are inevitable in perinatal care – within families, between families and teams, and within teams too. Different perspectives can actually be very helpful, if they help us stay flexible and adaptable. Where we can get stuck is when these differences lead us to pull in different directions and lose our connection with those around us. This starts to escalate into conflict and all too often these conflicts get in the way of decisions, rupture relationships and cause huge distress. Ultimately, both patient care and the mental health of families and staff suffer.
Whether it is care planning for an extremely preterm infant, transfer of a baby to another hospital, or the debate between “natural” or “interventional” birth approaches, we need to find ways to be able to maintain dialogue across difference, especially when feelings are running very high.
Think of a time when you’ve found yourself in conflict with someone. What did you both do?
Maybe it didn’t feel safe to give voice to difference at all, for fear of criticism, punishment, or ostracism. In such situations, disagreement becomes an unspoken story and things start to happen behind closed doors: gossip, venting, recruitment of others to the cause, the creation of echo-chambers that entrench beliefs. The conflict escalates in silence until a decision point arrives, at which point it might erupt.
Alternatively, maybe it did feel safe to voice your disagreement. When we do this, it usually involves us trying to change the other person’s mind. Our attempts to change someone’s opinion or actions involve a wide range of ‘correcting’ strategies: we inform about our viewpoint; we offer reassurance or solutions to concerns or problems; we persuade, convince, cajole, even criticise or ridicule.
With a reluctant parent, we might educate them on the benefits of kangaroo care.
With a sceptical clinical lead, we might reassure their concerns about our plans for a new approach to ward round.
With the frustrated colleague we might pick holes in their plans that seem unwise or unsafe.
All of these are attempts to correct the other person’s point of view. It’s like we’re in a tug-a-war with them: the rope is the range of views on a topic, and we find ourselves at opposing ends. When we attempt to correct (by convincing, persuading, pressuring) we are pulling on the rope. We tell ourselves “if I can pull hard enough, I can change your mind – I can win.”
But what happens? Chances are, they pull back, with the same intention as us: to change our mind and our actions. And when we feel that pull on the rope, what feels like the safe thing to do? We pull back, too, widening our stance and holding firm. Maybe calling for reinforcements: bringing in the big guns of safeguarding, capability, seniority. Things start to escalate. It is that escalating back and forth that turns this interaction from difference or disagreement into conflict.
What we often see is that these conflicts quickly escalate beyond the original difference: this is no longer a question about an optimal plan of care. In the minds of those involved, it becomes a question of whether the other is listening, whether they respect us, or whether they even care at all. It has become a zero sum game and ultimately feels like it is about “who is going to win?” We experience disconnection from each other and lose our ability to stay open to – and curious about – each other’s intentions and internal world. We tell ourselves rigid and ungenerous stories about each other.
A core idea in Relational Practice is that of “Connection before correction.” Before we even consider pulling on the rope, we need to re-establish our connection: we need to see the other person as being motivated by an intention that is, to them, at least as compelling as ours is to us.
We will keep our hands where they are on the rope – after all, we’re not changing our minds just yet! But at the same time we can slacken the rope and walk ourselves over to stand next to the other person: express curiosity to what is behind their beliefs or actions. What is really getting them pulling so hard against us?
“Help me understand where you’re coming from.”
“I wonder what we’re both telling ourselves about this situation?”
“What do we both need to know to appreciate each other’s position on this?”
Such an approach helps us to show our openness to connection. We can further fuel that connection by reflecting it back: “let me check I’ve heard you...” This is no longer a zero sum game of win/lose. This has become an attempt to understand and be understood.
We can also find further connection by looking around for a different but similar rope: one that we can agree on, and with which we might be all pulling in the same direction. “Before we get into this difference, let’s reconnect with our shared goal. What do we both care about here?”
When connection is reestablished, we often find that all those ‘correcting’ strategies – informing, reassuring, problem-solving – go much more smoothly and effectively.
This is hard. It requires space and time and often support to calm ourselves enough to be able to open up to connection in this way. It is usually best to “strike when the iron is cold”, and we might need some help from our colleagues to cool things down. Anyone can make the decision to stop pulling, but if you’re in a position of greater power, it can be particularly important to take this step, to avoid things escalating.
So, when we do find ourselves in a ‘battle’ or a tug-a-war, before we pull that little bit harder, can we first pause, slow down, and ask ourselves:
“How much of this person’s resistance is a reaction against our own pulling?”
“Can we connect before we correct?”
“Once we have connected, is correction still necessary?”
If you would like to find out more, check out our upcoming webinar series, and this specific webinar where we will discuss conflict and connection.
Thanks for reading!
