I am a very standard pacifist and don't like to get into conflicts with others. As long as someone speaks in a tougher or more oppressive tone, my first reaction is usually to take a slight step back. If things can be resolved in a more rational and peaceful way, I will definitely choose that path—avoid arguments whenever possible, and clarify things if I can.
This personality certainly has its pros and cons. The advantage is that many situations don't need to become tense. When dealing with people who are prone to conflict, I try to soften my tone so the other person has a way to back down gracefully. Often, if their emotions aren't met with resistance, they naturally fade away. But the downside is that sometimes it makes me seem too easygoing, or even that my boundaries can be tested.
Over time, though, I've also noticed that a person's boundaries and personality gradually shape how others perceive them.
If you usually act with principles and don't casually yield where you should stand firm, people will eventually realize that "this person isn't someone you can just brush off." When similar situations arise, they'll think twice, speak more carefully, and even handle things more in the direction I hope for.
Today, I happened to witness a scene that perfectly illustrated this difference.
Two of my production control colleagues were discussing a signed document provided by a vendor. They noticed that the content on the document didn't match what was actually delivered, but for some reason, the items were still posted to the account.
There's a woman in our warehouse who is known in the company for being extremely meticulous and by-the-book. She works very carefully, but her personality and attitude are rather cold and rigid. She gives off the vibe of someone who says, "It's best not to casually bring up ambiguous things with me."
She happened to overhear my colleagues talking about this and immediately jumped in, saying, "You're misleading people. I only post accounts when there's a signed document, not just randomly."
My colleague quickly replied, "I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about cases where there are documents but no actual items were received, yet they were still posted."
The warehouse woman continued, "You're misleading people. What you should say is that the vendor's documents are wrong, not that my accounts have issues. I only post when there are documents."
At this point, my colleague exploded, "I've already said I'm not talking about any problem with your posting. We've been talking about the physical items the whole time. You're really overreacting—you're too sensitive!"
Watching the two of them go back and forth, the only thought in my mind was…
How terrifying.
If it were me today, I probably would have handled it differently.
I might have said in a calm, unemotional tone, "Oh, no, I'm not saying there's a problem with your posting. You might have misunderstood. We're talking about the discrepancy between the vendor's documents and the actual delivered items."
And then continued to finish explaining the matter.
Because for me, the best outcome is to prevent the conflict from escalating. Sometimes I even deliberately rephrase things in a less harsh way, knowing that as long as the other person doesn't feel attacked, many issues simply won't keep burning.
This is probably my usual way of surviving.
Resolve things peacefully when possible; if there's really no need to argue, then don't.
But watching my colleague stand her ground so directly, I couldn't help but feel…
Actually, I kind of admire her for it.
She didn't try to sugarcoat her words, nor did she back down because the other person had a tougher personality. Instead, she directly stated her point: "From beginning to end, I wasn't talking about you. Don't take it personally."
There was indeed conflict between them at the moment, and it even looked a bit frightening. But in a way, at least everyone clearly laid their positions on the table.
If you think I'm talking about you, then I'll tell you I'm not. If you feel your accounts are being questioned, then state your position clearly. If I think you're being too sensitive, I'll tell you directly.
No one has to guess what the other person is thinking.
On the contrary, my approach of "avoid conflict, smooth things over" can sometimes make the issue disappear quickly, but it might also swallow up things that really needed to be clarified.
So I think different personalities really lead to completely different ways of handling things.
I might choose to diffuse the conflict, while she might choose to state her position to the end.
I don't necessarily think I should become someone who's good at arguing just because I saw her do that—after all, that's not my personality. But I suppose I can slowly learn that when I need to stand firm, I don't always have to back down, and I don't have to polish every sentence until it's completely non-confrontational before I dare to say it.
Being peaceful doesn't mean yielding on everything.
Not liking conflict doesn't mean you can't have your own stance.
Sometimes stating things clearly, drawing the line, or even having a direct confrontation isn't necessarily a bad thing.
All I can say is that colleagues really come in all personality types, and I'm probably still slowly learning how to find that just-right spot between "don't start conflicts with others" and "don't keep backing down myself."