Exercises — Chapter 17: Conflict Resolution and Difficult Conversations

Part A: Understanding Conflict

Exercise 1: Reframing Conflict

A) Before reading this chapter, what was your implicit model of conflict — what did conflict mean about a relationship? Write this down honestly.

B) The chapter argues that conflict avoidance is more harmful to relationships than conflict itself. Does this match your experience? Can you identify a relationship where avoidance of conflict has been more costly than the conflict would have been?

C) Describe one instance where moving through a conflict — having the difficult conversation and coming out the other side — made a relationship stronger rather than weaker. What made that possible?

Exercise 2: The Functions of Conflict

The chapter describes four functions of conflict in close relationships: information exchange, trust signaling, repair opportunities, and differentiation.

A) For each function, give a concrete example from your own relational experience — a time when a conflict served that function, even if the conflict itself was painful.

B) Schnarch's concept of "differentiation" proposes that the capacity to hold onto your own perspective while remaining emotionally connected to someone who disagrees is a developmental achievement, not just a communication skill. Identify a relationship in which you lose this capacity — where you either cave to the other person's position to avoid friction, or become so defended that no genuine exchange is possible. What makes this particular relationship or topic difficult to differentiate in?

Part B: Conflict Styles

Exercise 3: The Thomas-Kilmann Self-Assessment

A) Rate yourself honestly on each conflict style, from 1 (rarely use) to 5 (often use as default):

B) What is your most common default style? Is it serving you well? In which relationships does your default work, and in which does it backfire?

C) Identify one relationship where you would benefit from using a different conflict style than your default. What would that look like in practice?

Exercise 4: Style Matching

For each of the following conflicts, identify which Thomas-Kilmann style would be most appropriate and explain why:

A) A minor disagreement with a colleague about which software to use for a low-stakes task, when the decision needs to be made in the next five minutes.

B) A recurring conflict with a partner about how much to spend on vacations, involving different underlying values about security and enjoyment.

C) A conflict with a manager about a policy you believe is genuinely harmful — both to you and to the team.

D) A conflict with a close friend about a political belief you strongly hold and they strongly disagree with.

E) A conflict with a parent about a life choice that doesn't affect them but that they strongly disapprove of.

Part C: Escalation and De-Escalation

Exercise 5: Your Escalation Pattern

A) Trace the escalation sequence in a recent conflict — from the trigger through the emotional flooding and defensive communication. At what point in the sequence did things go most wrong? What happened just before?

B) The chapter describes hostile attribution bias — the tendency to attribute ambiguous behavior to malicious intent. Identify one recurring conflict where you notice this: where you tend to interpret the other person's behavior through a worst-case lens. What alternative interpretations of the same behavior are possible?

C) Design a de-escalation protocol for yourself — a specific sequence of steps you will take when you notice yourself becoming flooded. Be concrete: what will you do, and how will you signal to the other person that you need a break without making the break feel like abandonment?

Exercise 6: Repair Attempts

A) List five specific repair attempts — verbal or behavioral signals that you have used or could use to de-escalate during a conflict conversation. Go beyond the obvious ("I'm sorry") to include smaller, more creative signals.

B) Are you a person who makes repair attempts frequently, or do you tend to escalate without offering olive branches? And when repair attempts are offered to you — do you receive them, or does pride or anger make it hard to accept them?

C) The chapter notes that receiving repair attempts is as important as making them. Think of a recent conflict where a repair attempt was offered and you did not receive it. What prevented you from taking the olive branch? What was the cost?

Part D: Resolution Frameworks

Exercise 7: Positions and Interests

A) Identify a current or recent conflict. Write out: - Your position (what you say you want) - Your underlying interest (why you want it — the need the position is designed to meet) - The other person's position (what they say they want) - What you imagine their underlying interest might be

B) Now generate two or three possible solutions that could potentially address both parties' underlying interests — solutions that might not be visible at the level of positions.

C) The orange example from Fisher and Ury is often cited as showing that interest-based negotiation reveals more possible solutions than positional negotiation. Recall a conflict where you and the other person argued over positions — only to discover later that you didn't actually want the same thing and could both have been satisfied. What was it?

Exercise 8: The BATNA Assessment

For a current conflict or negotiation in your life (workplace, relationship, family):

A) What is your BATNA — your best alternative if no agreement is reached? What will you actually do if the negotiation fails?

B) Is your BATNA better or worse than any agreement currently available? This tells you whether the negotiation is worth pursuing on the current terms.

C) How does knowing your BATNA affect your negotiating stance? Does having a clear alternative change how you approach the conversation?

Part E: Apology and Forgiveness

Exercise 9: Anatomy of an Apology

A) Think of an apology you have given that did not produce the repair you intended. Analyze it against the five components of a genuine apology: - Acknowledgment of specific behavior - Acknowledgment of impact - Taking responsibility without justification - Expression of remorse - Indication of intention to change

Which components were missing or inadequate?

B) Now write the apology as it should have been given, including all five components.

C) Think of an apology you are owed — or that you wish had been given — for a past hurt. Write the apology you would have needed to receive. Notice what this exercise reveals about what genuine repair requires.

Exercise 10: Forgiveness as a Self-Interested Act

A) Identify a current grievance you are carrying — against a specific person, for a specific thing. How much cognitive and emotional real estate does this grievance occupy? What is it costing you?

B) The chapter argues that forgiveness is a decision about your own internal relationship to a grievance — not the same as reconciling with the person, condoning their behavior, or forgetting what happened. Is there a grievance in your life that you could release — for your own benefit — regardless of whether the other person has apologized?

C) Forgiveness is typically a process, not an event. Describe what the process might look like for a significant grievance you carry: not the decision that produces instant release, but the series of smaller choices over time that gradually loosen the grievance's hold.

Part F: Perpetual Problems

Exercise 11: Your Perpetual Problems

A) In your most significant relationship (romantic partner, close friend, family member, long-term colleague), identify one or two perpetual problems — recurring differences that reflect genuine differences in personality, values, or preferred lifestyle that are unlikely to be resolved.

B) Are you gridlocked on any of these — unable to discuss them without escalating? If so, what is underneath the gridlock? What is the deeper value or life dream that the perpetual problem touches?

C) For one perpetual problem, design a "management approach" rather than a resolution approach: not how you will solve the problem, but how you will live with it gracefully — how you will have the conversation about it without contempt or flooding.

Exercise 12: Resolvable vs. Unresolvable

A) Apply the following three questions to a current significant conflict: - Is this a difference that could be managed over time with mutual goodwill? - Would living with this difference require consistently violating your core values? - Can you genuinely live with this difference?

B) What does your honest answer to these questions tell you about the nature of this conflict?

C) If the conflict reveals a genuine incompatibility — not just a perpetual problem but a fundamental difference in what each person needs — what does that recognition require of you?

Part G: Conflict in Specific Contexts

Exercise 13: Workplace Conflict

A) Identify a current or recent workplace conflict. How does the power dynamic affect your options? What risks are associated with different approaches in this specific workplace context?

B) Apply the interest-based approach: what is your underlying interest in this conflict? What might the other party's underlying interest be? Are there solutions that could serve both interests?

C) What would it take to raise this conflict productively — in a way that addresses the real problem without the costs that positional conflict typically produces in workplace settings?

Exercise 14: Family Conflict

A) Identify a recurring conflict pattern with a family member. How much of this pattern is specific to the current issue and how much reflects the longer relational history?

B) The chapter describes the "approval bind" — adult children weighting parental approval disproportionately, making family conflict feel like a verdict on identity. Does this apply to any of your family conflicts? What would it mean to step out of the approval bind in a specific situation?

C) Apply Kegan's "self-authoring" concept to your family conflicts: in which family relationships are you still primarily operating from the socialized mind (their values and expectations organize your behavior)? What would self-authoring look like in those specific relationships?

Part H: Synthesis

Exercise 15: Your Conflict Resolution Profile

Based on the exercises in this chapter, compile a brief conflict resolution profile:

1. My dominant conflict style(s) and where they work / don't work:
2. My most common escalation trigger:
3. My de-escalation strategy (what I do when I notice flooding):
4. The perpetual problem I most need to manage rather than solve:
5. The most important repair work I have outstanding:

Exercise 16: Synthesis Essay

Write a 400-word essay:

"The chapter argues that approximately 69% of conflicts in long-term relationships are perpetual problems that will not be resolved, only managed. Does this finding depress you or relieve you? What does it change about how you approach conflict in your significant relationships?"

Discussion Questions

Discussion 1: Gottman's finding that 69% of conflicts are perpetual problems is based on research with heterosexual married couples in the US. Is this percentage likely to be universal, or does it depend on cultural context (arranged vs. chosen marriages, collectivist vs. individualist settings)?

Discussion 2: Interest-based negotiation assumes that both parties are willing to reveal their underlying interests. In adversarial or high-stakes situations, revealing interests can be a strategic vulnerability. When is interest-based negotiation appropriate, and when does it require too much trust?

Discussion 3: The chapter argues that forgiveness serves the forgiver's wellbeing. But some people find that premature forgiveness — before the person has acknowledged the harm or before the forgiver has fully processed the anger — actually prolongs recovery rather than aiding it. When is the timing of forgiveness important?

Discussion 4: Workplace conflict and relational conflict are described as distinct in their structure and appropriate approaches. Are there skills that transfer well between contexts? What is genuinely different about navigating conflict in high-power-differential, professional settings versus personal relationships?