Are We Being too Nice with High Conflict Behavior?

November 4, 2024

Are We Being too Nice with High Conflict Behavior?

Most professionals are nice people committed to helping their clients and others. Many mediators will tell you they don’t really like conflict, which is why they want to manage it through the use of mediation. Many lawyers and therapists bend over backwards to help their clients, especially those who are struggling. In fact, most adults and even children are nice people who automatically want to help others. It’s baked into our social DNA to have natural empathy and caring for others—even strangers in need who we have just met—with the exception of about ten percent of people.

Today we are all faced with an increasing number of people with a pattern of high conflict behavior that includes a preoccupation with blaming others, a lot of all-or-nothing thinking, unmanaged emotions, and extreme behaviors. In the past, families, communities, and governments set limits on people with such behavior, but in today’s world those limits have been weakened and people with high conflict personalities are gaining more attention and power in our lives. They tend to lack the emotional self-control, the empathy, and the remorse that restrain the rest of us in order to get along.

Therefore, each of us as individuals and our organizations need to learn and practice skills to set limits and impose consequences on others’ high conflict behavior. Yet we have to overcome this ingrained feeling that setting limits and imposing consequences makes us “not-nice” people. We need to allow ourselves to be less tolerant of harmful behavior. We all need to learn that we can still be nice people and set limits and impose consequences when needed. This article gives some tips for how we can do this. (This builds on our previous newsletter article: “SLIC Solutions: Setting Limits and Imposing Consequences in 2½ Step.”)

Self-Talk

Most people question themselves when there is a conflict or problem: “What am I doing that’s not working? What can I do differently to make this better?” This is a good thing. We know we can control our own behavior. But we’re not used to trying to change other people’s behavior.

We often doubt ourselves, especially with someone is giving us negative feedback. “What did I do to deserve this?” “I must not be very good at ______.” “I have no right to ask the other person to change their behavior.” But high conflict people (HCPs) are not self-reflective. They are pre-occupied with blaming others, so that you may be experiencing their blame with no justification. You may have done nothing wrong. With bullies, you don’t deserve to be bullied—no one does. It’s their behavior that is the problem, not yours. We need to at least consider that possibility.

As nice people we often tell ourselves: “It’s not nice to tell other people how to behave.” “People will think we’re bossy or nasty, if we tell them what to do or what not to do.” However, when people are violating our boundaries or their behavior interferes with our lives, we do have the right to tell them to stop or change what they are doing. It is one of the most fundamental rights of assertiveness.

We also tend to have naïve beliefs that HCPs will stop themselves. “He’ll come to his senses and stop doing this, I’m sure.” “She’ll realize that this behavior is inappropriate and even self-sabotaging.” “I hope they get tired of treating me this way soon.” This wishing and hoping doesn’t work with HCPs. They lack the restraints to stop themselves. This self-talk doesn’t help with HCPs and may keep you trapped in a bad situation.

We can change our self-talk. It’s okay to ask ourselves: “What’s my part in this problem?” But then we need to consider asking ourselves: “What’s the other person’s part in this problem?” Then, “It’s okay to set limits with other people to protect ourselves.” “And if they violate the limit, then it’s okay to impose reasonable consequences.” This doesn’t make you a not-nice person. It just makes you an assertive person.

Is Their Behavior Unreasonable? (The 90% Rule)

We often doubt whether others would find an HCP’s behavior inappropriate. An easy question to ask yourself is: “Would 90% of people ever do this behavior?” In my book 5 Types of People Who Can Ruin Your Life, I explain that HCPs are about ten percent of the adult population and that they sometimes do things that 90% of people would never do. This can include domestic violence, repeatedly badmouthing a child’s parent, stealing equipment at work, spreading false rumors on the internet, breaking someone’s valued possessions, publicly humiliating a friend, and so forth. These are often the types of behaviors that need limits set and, if necessary, consequences imposed. Yet such behaviors often shock people and they question whether they are over-reacting.

This is when you can (and should) consult with another person. Ask if they think the behavior is unreasonable or not. Often the other person will tell you that the answer is obvious: “Of course it’s unreasonable!” If you are wondering, then there is a good chance that the behavior is already unreasonable. The only question is what to do about it.

Setting Limits with Empathy and Respect

When it comes to setting limits, you can still be a nice person. In fact, you can give the person a statement that shows empathy, attention, and respect (an EAR Statement) while you are setting the limit. “You can no longer come to my home if you are going to behave that way. I can understand that this may be frustrating or inconvenient or hard, but it is what I must do.” By saying you “can understand” you are giving the person empathy even while setting the limit. Statements that start with “I can see/hear/understand _________” show that you are treating the person as an equal because you can see it this way. This way you have empathy for them, rather than looking down on them by saying “I can’t understand why you feel that way,” which is what many people have probably already said to him or her. However, sometimes it is best to withhold an EAR statement because the person is so manipulative or aggressive.

Getting Blamed When Setting Limits

Many HCPs are used to people trying to set limits on them, so they are used to arguing back. If they appear to be highly manipulative or aggressive, then an EAR statement would feed into their dynamics and you may be better off without giving one. This is the “half” step of SLIC Solutions: in about half of situations you give an EAR statement and in the other half you are better off without including it. For example, the following dialog:

Juanita: “I can’t lend you any more money because you haven’t paid me back the money I lent you last month which you promised to repay in a few days.”

Jane: “Don’t be a jerk. You know I’m in a difficult spot and need it more than you.”

Juanita: “I’m sorry. I can understand that this is frustrating, but I really can’t do it until you pay me back what I lent you before.”

Jane: “You’re not sorry! You don’t understand! If you were really sorry and really cared about me, you would lend me some more right now. You’re not the nice person that people think you are!”

Juanita (caught off-guard and doesn’t want to be seen as not a nice person): “Well, this is the last time I’ll do this.”

By giving an EAR Statement to Jane, Juanita set herself up for manipulation by Jane. First of all, saying “I’m sorry” implies that Juanita is doing something wrong by setting this limit. It puts her in a one-down position with a potentially high conflict person. Apologies are great between most people, but with angry HCPs they will use it as ammunition against you (as Jane did here) and are best avoided. Secondly, saying “I understand” shows empathy, but again, Jane is going to try to use that empathy to manipulate Juanita by saying she is not a nice person. This is the type of situation where an EAR statement is not recommended.

Let’s try this situation again without an EAR statement:

Juanita: “I can’t lend you any more money because you haven’t paid me back the money I lent you last month which you promised to repay in a few days.”

Jane: “Don’t be a jerk. You know I’m in a difficult spot and need it more than you.

Juanita: “As I said, I really can’t do it until you pay me back what I lent you before.”

Jane: “Come on. Please!”

Juanita: “You’ve heard me. This conversation is over. Was there something else you wanted to talk about?”

In this situation, Juanita didn’t set herself up for manipulation and didn’t get caught off-guard. She set the limit a month ago when she lent the money and she is imposing the consequence now by not lending any more until that is repaid.

Helping People Fail?

In many ways by not setting limits and imposing consequences on poor behavior, we are helping high conflict people fail to meet the standards of most social relationships. This doesn’t really help them. When we set limits we can say that we don’t want to help them fail and in the long run our limit will help them meet the standards of most relationships. They may not like it now, but if enough people set limits and impose consequences on HCPs, they may learn to improve their behavior and resort less to extremes.

Setting Limits in Organizations

Many organizations tolerate high conflict behavior these days, because they are not prepared for it. This is especially true in organizations that are supposed to be “nice.” This often includes religious institutions (churches, synagogues, mosques), non-profit organizations for a good cause, healthcare organizations, and higher education, among others. They are supposed to be welcoming and helpful to everyone, especially their members. But many people with high conflict behavior these days take advantage of such organizations and manipulate them by claiming that the organization must defer to their extreme needs.

In my book Our New World of Adult Bullies, I give two examples of this. One takes place in a university in which a researcher “repeatedly insulted people, made racially and ethnically insensitive remarks, and created a threatening atmosphere. One colleague feared that she would physically harm someone.” After many months, they finally set limits and told her that “if she did not change her behavior immediately, further disciplinary action could be expected.” However, that was not enough. She turned around, claimed she had disabilities, and filed a federal complaint. The university finally fired her and she filed a lawsuit against the university. In the end, the university won because it had properly set limits with a credible threat of the consequences if she didn’t comply. While this appears to have turned out as it should, it took a long time (several years) for this whole process. Being nice by giving multiple chances with clearly high conflict behavior is often part of the problem. The sooner that people realize the unchanging high conflict behavior they are dealing with, the better.

In the other example, a senior surgeon and previous co-owner of a surgery clinic was allowed to harass the nursing staff for quite some time. One day, he took a gun out of his pocket and pointed it at the chest of one of the female nurses. The partners “made the decision to suspend Dr. Collins, place him on probation, and require anger-management classes….[He was warned] that his employment would immediately be terminated if he did not follow said terms, or if any more incident reports were made.” In response, rather than improve his behavior he filed a legal challenge to his suspension and didn’t change his behavior. He was ultimately terminated by a vote of the other doctors who co-owned the clinic. Again, they were nice for too long after his extreme behavior became clear.

Conclusion

Times have changed and high conflict behavior appears to be increasing. The solution is for everyone to learn how to set limits and impose consequences, individually and as organizations. We can still be “nice” and do this. In perhaps half of situations, giving an EAR statement can help the person accept the limit and possible consequences. In the other half of situations, an EAR statement may be manipulated and its better not to open that door. It may be more helpful to the person for you to remain narrowly focused on setting the limit and imposing the consequence as needed. The more that all of use learn to do this, the more that high conflict behavior may be reduced and our culture can return to more peaceful and less anxious times. You can be a nice person and set limits and impose consequences.

BILL EDDY, LCSW, Esq. is a family lawyer, therapist, mediator, and the Co-founder and Chief Innovation Officer of the High Conflict Institute based in San Diego, California. He is a family lawyer, family therapist, and family mediator. He trains professionals worldwide about high conflict personalities and situations, presenting in over 35 states and 13 countries. He is the author of twenty books and manuals, including 5 Types of People Who Can Ruin Your Life ; and Our New World of Adult Bullies. He writes a blog for PsychologyToday.com with over 6 million views. He is on the Advisory Board of the Divorce Coalition and co-host of the podcast, It’s All Your Fault! with Megan Hunter, MBA. His website is www.HighConflictInstitute.com.

His newest book is Our New World of Adult Bullies: How to Spot Them – How to Stop Them, was released in June 2024, and includes several domestic violence examples.