Tag Archives: conflict resolution

Small mountains

Leave a reply

We’ve all heard the term, ‘Making mountains out of molehills’, and understand what it means. What we don’t realize is how often we do it. It’s easy to see when someone else does it, but not us. No, our escalated concerns are little mountains. They aren’t mole hills. Other people do that, not us. Our concerns are real… or rather really big.

Except they are not.

~~~

Being a school principal involves a lot of deciding how big to make an issue. Dismissing a problem is only allowing it to get bigger. Overreacting to a small problem can bring too much attention to it and make it bigger.

Being overly supportive of one side of an issue can make the other side escalate the size of the issue. Being neutral can equally exasperate the issue and create a mountain out of a molehill.

An insincere apology can be worse than no apology. Too harsh or illogical of a consequence can be as harmful as being too easy. Because to kids, to young adults learning to navigate the world, their mole hills are little mountains. To them the issues are not small.

But if we’re honest, we think our mole hills are mountains too… and that’s an important point to keep in mind when we get a little frustrated wondering why these little issues seem so big to everyone else.

The difference between a mountain and a mole hill might not be the size of the problem, but simply a matter of perspective. And that’s a perspective worth keeping in mind.

These go to 11

In the satirical mockumentary This is Spinal Tap there is a hilarious scene where the guitarist explains that their very special amps are louder and better because unlike all other amps that have a maximum setting of 10, these go to 11.

While I find this funny, I have noticed a troubling trend recently where issues that are minor in concern are elevated beyond what they should be. In other words, a problem that should be a 3/10 or even 5/10 concern gets addressed as if it’s an 11/10.

This is most obvious on social media. In the past few months I’ve seen silly issues like getting the wrong order at a fast food restaurant, or a dispute over a parking space, or neighbours not being neighbourly, all leading to confrontations that far exceed what should have been appropriate for the level of concern. Now, I recognize that in some cases the concerns are legitimate and deserving of escalating, for example if the issue is related to hate crimes, racism, or bigotry, so strictly speaking, I’m talking about minor issues that get exaggerated into issues far bigger than necessary.

This is something I’ve noticed which has significantly increased since the pandemic. The ramifications are that every little issue or concern becomes a big concern. This is harmful in a couple ways. First of all, the stress of making things bigger than they are is hard on everyone… especially for the person that made the mistake who might want to make things better. This is almost impossible online where people are relentlessly attacked for their mistake. A small issue becomes a mountain of concern that can’t be traversed. It could include personal attacks, such as death threats, which are far worse than the original transgression.

Secondly, when the response is the same whether it’s a person making a bad decision on their worst day or a bigoted jerk intentionally being hurtful, the idea that both of these are attacked with equal vitriol waters down the response to the truly awful act. Vigilante justice handed out without discrimination makes the response more about harming than helping the situation.

Not every issue is an 11/10. When issues are that concerning, they deserve being handled as such. But in many, many cases a small issue deserves a small response, and escalating the issue as if it’s far bigger than it is only makes the whole situation worse. Worse not just for the transgressor, but for the person who feels harmed. We need nuance when dealing with concerns. We also need to consider the impact of negative responses.

Here are two examples:

1. A well known Tiktok food critic disagrees with another food critic and while he does this respectfully, his (so called) fans proceed to attack the other food critic with negative comments and also give the restaurant hundreds of negative reviews, even though they never visited the place themselves.

2. A teacher tried to do a do a culturally based art project and a parent didn’t find it appropriate. The parent reacts on social media and the post goes viral with millions of views. The next day the parent addresses the concerns with the teacher, who was not only apologetic, but as the parent suggests in a follow up video, the teacher was gracious, thoughtful, and open for feedback. However this update did not go viral and only a few thousand people watched it, unlike millions who saw the upset rant.

It’s one thing when these negative responses are online, and still another when they are in person. Everything doesn’t need to be an 11/10. Save those for the kinds of things that deserve a serious response. And, address smaller issues in less public ways with more opportunity for an appropriate response that isn’t elevated and likely to cause harm as much as bring about a solution.

A 3/10 issue isn’t going to be resolved because it’s treated like an 11/10, and is far more likely to have negative consequences if it is elevated to that level.

_________________________________

Somewhat Related: Last May I wrote a post about how when asking someone to rank something on a scale of 1-10, tell them, “You can’t pick 7“.

3 parts to an apology

I’ve used this with grade 2 students, and I’ve used it all the way up to grade 12. I’ve been using it as a teacher and principal for close to 20 years now and find it very effective. When a student needs to do an apology, I prep both students first.

The apology receiver:

This prep involves two parts, first, being clear about what they are upset about. This is something that can be explicit like ‘he hit me’ but sometimes the victim is hurt about something very specific and if it isn’t clear, then the apology might not actual satisfy the receiver of the apology.

Also important is prepping their response. “You don’t have to say anything, it’s their choice to apologize. If you do feel like saying something, please don’t say, ‘That’s OK’ or anything like that. What they did wasn’t ok, that’s why they are apologizing. If you choose to say something, you can thank them for saying what they said, you can share why you felt hurt, but it’s not your job to tell them what they did was ok.”

I sometimes also tell them about the 3 parts of the apology, but I don’t share this with both people at the same time.

The apology giver:

In advance I share the 3 parts of an apology, and they share what they plan to say. Rehearsal in advance helps a lot! Here are the 3 parts of an apology:

1. Saying “I’m sorry”.

2. Saying what you are specifically sorry for.

3. In the future…

For part 1, I make sure the apologizer is ready to truly apologize… it needs to be authentic.

For part 2, I explain, “I’ve heard an apology before where the person just said sorry sarcastically, and it sounded like the only thing they were sorry about was getting caught. If you are going to truly apologize, you need the person to know what you are sorry for.”

For part 3, I have them think in advance about what they would do if the same situation were to arise in the future (this is called future pacing and it provides alternative possibilities if a similar situation arises again). Example, “If I get upset at you again I’ll use my words or talk to a teacher instead of hitting.”

After the apology is done, I’ll make sure the receiver is satisfied, then I’ll share that I’m satisfied too but if it happens again, then I’m not going to be convinced the apology was authentic.

The best part of this 3-step apology process is that when it’s specific and authentic like this, I find repeat offences rarely occur. And, the receiver of the apology will often share more than they need to. Sometimes this evokes empathy. Sometimes the receiver will admit they had a part to play in the incident too, and might even apologize as well. This is really powerful because then I can use it as a bit of leverage saying something like, ‘We didn’t come together for you to apologize, it wasn’t necessary as part of this process, and so I really want to thank you for seeing how you can help make things better in the future too.’

Sometimes an apology isn’t enough and there needs to be further consequences. When that’s the case, I always make sure the consequences are shared before an apology. If an apology happens then the person apologizing receives a consequence after the apology, they might feel the apology was a waste of time. They might blame the victim for the consequences because they thought the apology was authentic (they honestly tried) then still got punished. So, any consequences beyond the apology need to be clearly dealt with before the apology.

In the end this isn’t about punishment and consequences. A good apology is about letting go of the past and ‘making things right’ in the future.