4 Simple Techniques for Managing Conflict – Anywhere! (Including High Conflict Disputes)
4 Simple Techniques for Managing Conflict – Anywhere! (Including High Conflict Disputes) © 2025 by Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq. Conflict happens. It can be over a minor issue or it can become an overwhelming dispute involving many people and professionals. For the past seventeen years, High Conflict Institute has developed, taught, and refined four simple techniques that can be applied in any conflict situation. Calming Upset People with EAR (empathy, attention and respect) Making Proposals (with a 3-step method) BIFF Responses (that are brief, informative, friendly and firm) SLIC Solutions (for setting limits, imposing consequences in 2½ steps) These are especially useful in managing high conflict disputes, in which standard conflict resolution methods don’t work or make things worse. While the above skills can be used in any situation, let’s look at why some standard methods that are useful in most disputes (perhaps 80%) but often do not work in high conflict disputes. Standard Conflict Resolution Methods Attempting Insight In many disputes, whether in families, at work, in business, and in communities, it is common to make efforts to give people insight into their own behavior. This is common when trying to get to the “root” of the problem. In dispute resolution methods, such as mediation and negotiation, it is common to explore each party’s “interests” and then find solutions that address them. Both of these tasks usually involve a degree of insight into oneself. It could be one’s own contribution to a problem and what behavior to change, or awareness of one’s own interests in negotiations and settlement of a dispute. Unfortunately, in high conflict disputes, focusing inward on one’s own behavior or interests can trigger extreme defensiveness for some people. Therefore, we have learned that it is wiser to focus everyone in high conflict situations on looking at their choices now. This doesn’t tend to trigger defensiveness as it doesn’t require self-reflection and can create openness to new behaviors and solutions that hadn’t been considered before. Resolving Emotions: In many counseling and conflict resolution methods there is a focus on resolving upset emotions. These are often at the “root” of the problem if there have been misunderstandings or offenses that need to be processed before the parties can truly move forward. Expressing how another person’s behavior made one feel often clears up where miscommunications started and grew into a dispute. Then, it helps to repeat back what was heard to check for accuracy and possibly provide some empathy for what the person felt. Sometimes this leads to apologies: “I didn’t mean it that way.” “I’m sorry I over-reacted.” Sometimes this leads to a complete resolution of a conflict. Some therapy and mediation methods have been quite effective at focusing on emotions. However, people with high conflict personalities generally don’t process emotions through to a resolution or emotionally heal losses. Therefore, they carry many unresolved feelings and tend to become quite upset or outraged when emotions become the focus of attention. When asked about how they feel about aspects of a conflict, they often feel worse. Efforts to “resolve” emotions for them often backfire and make matters worse. It’s not unusual for them to impulsively abandon dispute resolution efforts at such times. Therefore, it’s wiser to focus on thinking and doing, rather than asking how they feel about a subject or a proposal. Focusing on the Past: Much of dispute resolution work involves re-examining past actions and trying to “resolve” them so that the people involved can move forward. Whether there were misunderstandings or problem behaviors that need to be changed, by looking at the past in depth it often becomes clearer what went wrong and what can be done to make it better in the future. Understanding the facts of a case in detail often leads to a useful resolution. Unfortunately, focusing on the past is highly triggering to people with high conflict personalities. They tend to be constantly defensive about their past behavior because it is so often high conflict (unmanaged emotions, all-or-nothing thinking, and extreme behaviors), and they are used to a lifetime of getting negative feedback about their behavior. Generally, can’t grieve and heal their losses (large or small), so they are constantly invested in trying to re-write history so that they didn’t have the loss. (“I was right to do what I did! You were wrong to do what you did! You better agree with me.”) Therefore, we have learned that its wiser to keep the focus on the future in your questions, suggestions, and the structure of your dispute resolution process. 4 Simple Techniques The following techniques fit within our CARS Method® of conflict resolution, which steers clear of the above standard methods for the reasons given. This is an overall method that helps you remember what to focus on under stress in a difficult situation or high conflict dispute: Connecting with the other person to calm the conflict; Analyzing options to manage or resolve the conflict; Responding to hostility or misinformation that is often present; and Setting limits on negative behavior and imposing consequences when necessary. These four general approaches can be used separately, some together, or all of them depending on the conflict situation, in no particular order. The 4 Simple Techniques fit within these four general approaches. EAR Statements™ (Connecting) A simple technique for connecting with an upset person or others in a conflict is to give a statement that shows empathy, attention, and/or respect (an EAR Statement). Such a statement can calm them down enough so that you can focus on finding solutions to a problem or conflict. You can use these when someone is angry at someone else, is angry at you, or just upset about something. For example, you might say: “I can understand your frustration with this situation (Empathy). I want to understand; tell me more (Attention). I have a lot of respect for your efforts to solve this problem (Respect).” But you don’t even have to address all three gestures; just expressing some
The Epstein Case: A Failure to Impose Consequences on Abusive Behavior
The Epstein Case A Failure to Impose Consequences on Abusive Behavior © 2025 by Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq. and Ekaterina Ricci, MDR, MLS Politics aside, the case of Jeffrey Epstein is a powerful example of how setting limits is meaningless unless they are backed up by imposing appropriate consequences. The need for everyone to learn how to set limits and impose consequences on harmful behavior is the core message of our new book SLIC Solutions™ for Conflict: Setting Limits and Imposing Consequences in 2½ Steps. In this book we give over 30 examples of Setting Limits and Imposing Consequences (SLIC) in families, at work, in communities, and online. The Epstein case is not discussed in the book, but this article will demonstrate how we can apply the 2½ steps of the SLIC Solutions technique to highlight the tragic failures that occurred legally and financially in this example and some lessons learned. The 2½ Steps As with all of our techniques with High Conflict Institute, we have made SLIC Solutions short and easy to remember under stress. Here are the 2½ steps: Step 1: Setting Limits – This is the easy part, stating in writing or in person what behavior is undesirable and/or what behavior is desired. This may be your personal limit or may already be established in law or organizational policies. Step 2: Imposing Consequences – It helps to think ahead about this when you are setting your limits and to consider stating the possible consequence when setting the limit. To assess the appropriateness of your consequences we have 5 questions: Is the consequence proportional to the limit that I have set? Have I considered both positive and negative consequences? Is the consequence safe? Am I ready to enforce my consequence? Do I need to get help in imposing my consequence? Then, if the limits are violated, go ahead and impose your consequences. Step 2½: EAR Statement™ (or Not) – In about half of cases it helps to give a statement that shows Empathy, Attention, and/or Respect (EAR) while setting your limit and while imposing your consequence. This helps to reinforce your connection with the person and motivate positive behavior change. On the other hand, in about half of cases the person receiving the limit may be very manipulative and will use your EAR statement to undermine your consequence. In such cases, it is recommended to avoid an EAR statement and stay focused and firm on imposing your consequence. Epstein Background The Jeffrey Epstein case shows how dangerous it is when limits exist but consequences are weak or missing. Laws and regulations already forbid sexual abuse of minors, and financial institutions are supposed to prevent suspicious transactions that could support trafficking. Yet according to public reports and legal findings, in Epstein’s case authorities and banks failed to enforce meaningful consequences, allowing harm to continue for years. This example highlights the critical importance of the SLIC Solutions approach, which provides a framework for not only setting limits but also imposing consequences that truly fit the violation. The following information is drawn from the Miami Herald newspaper in Florida. By the year 2000, Epstein was paying teenage girls several hundred dollars in cash to come to his house to give him massages, which then became sexual assaults. In 2005, a 14-year-old girl and her parents reported to the police that he molested her. That year, the police began an investigation and discovered evidence that Epstein had several underage girls come to his house. In 2006, local police wanted to charge him and two assistants with multiple counts of unlawful sex acts with a minor. However, the Florida State Attorney instead convened a grand jury which, based on one girl’s testimony, returned an indictment of just one count of solicitation of prostitution that did not mention that she was a minor. Frustrated by the State’s minimization of the seriousness of Epstein’s behavior (it had become clear to police that dozens of girls were involved), the local police chief contacted the FBI, which began a larger investigation interviewing potential witnesses and victims from Florida, New York and New Mexico. The Legal Case Step 1: Setting Limits What were the existing laws (limits) that were violated for which Epstein would be finally charged with violating? In 2008, the U.S. Attorney negotiated a plea deal and Epstein pled guilty to two state charges of “one count of solicitation of prostitution and one count of solicitation of prostitution with a minor under the age of 18.” With this plea deal, the federal investigation and possible federal charges were dropped, even though by 2008 federal charges could have put him in prison for ten years. Step 2: Imposing Consequences What was the consequence for violating these two state laws? Epstein was sentenced to “18 months in jail, followed by a year of community control or house arrest.” But he was allowed to serve his sentence through work furlough, which means that he was “picked up by his private driver six days a week and transported to an office in West Palm Beach, where he accepts visitors for up to 12 hours a day.” He returned to the “jail” in the evenings to sleep. However, he got released from this “sentence” five months early and was placed on probation for a year. He was supposed to be confined to his Palm Beach home “except to travel to his office in West Palm Beach.” There is evidence that he also visited his New York office and his home in the U.S. Virgin Islands during this time period. How did this consequence fit with the “5 Questions” that should be asked? Is the consequence proportional to the limit that was set? Clearly not. Since there was a possible 10-year federal prison sentence for this behavior, the consequence was a slap on the hand. Did I consider both positive and negative consequences? When prison sentences are ordered for crimes it is common to shorten the sentence for good behavior in prison. However,
Leaders and Limits: How to Set Limits and Impose Consequences with Empathy, Attention and Respect
Leaders and Limits: How to Set Limits and Impose Consequences with Empathy, Attention and Respect © 2025 by Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq. Leaders set the tone for the culture of their organizations. The leader plays a large role, whether one is a parent in a family; a manager or administrator at work; or head of a homeowners association, condo board, or city council. In order to maintain a healthy and motivated organization, it’s up to the leader to demonstrate how to set limits and impose consequences when necessary. Unfortunately, in today’s world of high-conflict people who regularly push the limits, many leaders are unprepared for this newly essential leadership task. This article addresses some of the issues about setting limits that leaders in organizations face and also describes our training called New Ways for Work® for Leaders. This article draws on some of the concepts described in our new book SLIC Solutions™ for Conflict: Setting Limits and Imposing Consequences in 2½ Steps, which can be helpful for anyone anywhere and will be available in November, 2025. High-Conflict Behavior High-conflict behavior includes a preoccupation with blaming others, a lot of all-or-nothing thinking, unmanaged emotions, and extreme behaviors that 90% of people would never engage in. People with such behavior can show up anywhere in an organization and create difficulties, either as the lowest person in the pecking order, someone in the middle, or even those at or near the top. People with repeated patterns of high-conflict behavior may be 5-10% of adults, so that your likelihood of having to deal with them is very high. There appears to be an increase worldwide in high-conflict behavior since Covid. Take, for example, a low-level employee who is caught taking office supplies home that he doesn’t need for work. Or a manager who is selling real estate during his work time. Or a surgeon who screams at the nurses in the Operating Room that they are idiots. None of these behaviors are the end of the world and these workers may be very good at their jobs. But these behaviors are also problematic. Should a workplace leader intervene? And how should they do it? The Assertive Approach Many leaders have not been trained in management skills. Some of them tend to take a passive approach, which means they often avoid dealing with such problems because there are always more pressing priorities. They just don’t like to confront people and don’t want to make people angry at them. Other leaders take an aggressive approach, criticizing the employee personally and sometimes publicly. They question the employee’s competence, intelligence, commitment and personal morals. These leaders may believe that humiliating someone will motivate them to act better, although that rarely is the result except in movies and TV shows. The most successful leaders take an assertive approach. They don’t delay dealing with problems because they know that they may grow much worse. But they also don’t attack the person, they focus on behavior. They want to know the facts of the situation and then want to motivate behavior change once they have enough information. The SLIC Solutions method encourages this approach. Sooner Rather Than Later Setting limits and, when necessary, imposing consequences is better done sooner rather than later. In scenario after scenario of difficult organizational behavior we have addressed as High Conflict Institute, we have found that leaders have waited too long to deal with these situations; sometimes a year or two or three. In some cases, good employees have left because they saw that high-conflict behavior was tolerated, even when they reported it. In other cases, high-conflict employees have felt empowered by the lack of consequences and escalated their difficult behavior. In cases where organizations have been sued, it is not unusual to read the history and find that the problems went back several years before they were seriously confronted. Often this is because the organization wants to give the difficult person a chance—or two or three or four chances. Ironically, once high-conflict behavior reveals itself as a pattern of ongoing behavior, it is very unlikely to change. One of the characteristics of people with high-conflict personalities is that they rarely reflect on their own behavior (it’s always someone else’s fault) and they rarely change. Once this pattern is clear, perhaps after being given one chance to change that had no effect, there is little benefit in additional chances. Yet that means that leaders need to take uncomfortable action sooner. Let me reassure you it will be harder later on, not easier. Step 1: Setting Limits Most organizations have rules and policies that lay out what is acceptable behavior and what is not. Most employees follow the rules. Occasionally, a new situation arises that no one faced before so that the rules are not clear. However, the most common situation for setting limits today is that someone violates an obvious limit (like taking supplies, selling real estate during work hours, or screaming at nurses). In these situations, it makes sense for a leader to talk with the person and explain what the limit it. “Hey buddy. I heard you’re taking supplies home. If that’s true, that’s not allowed and you’ll get in trouble for that. So bring them back and don’t do that in the future. I’m just trying to help you out and give you the heads up. I want you to succeed here.” In some situations that’s all that it takes. However, with high-conflict people, that is usually not enough. They often just become more secretive or persistent in their negative behavior. What they really need is to know that there are clear and credible consequences waiting for them if they violate the limit. This is why we talk about SLIC: Setting Limits AND Imposing Consequences. Step 2: Imposing Consequences When you set a limit it helps to think through what the consequence will be if the person violates that limit. Then you can warn the person about the possible consequence when you