The results of the recent congressional debate and legislation on the debt ceiling and US budget highlight a chasm between those who work with others by communication and compromise, and those who have a fixed product, goal, or benchmark that they insist on seeing others comply with.
One way of resolving issues is by communicating more, by sitting down with each other and speaking and listening.
An opposite way of attempting to resolve issues is by cutting communication when there is a perceived lack of compliance, walking away, often accompanied by a perception the other “side” is inadequate or deficient in some way because they don’t “get” it.
Clearly there can be operational conflicts between these two methods. By “operational conflict” I mean a conflict or problem in the basic or meta mechanism, in this case a communication style, being used to achieve an end-result product or concept.
There is a place for both methods.
During a situation of an absolutely intolerable problem – for example abuse, where one person is striking the other, it makes sense to make an absolute statement and/or just walk away.
But on the other hand, how about a situation where the key element is preserving the relationship between the participants, and the specific issue or item on the table is not life threatening ?