週一嗎哪
服事全球工商界
2007.5.21

攻擊、或逃避－－或其他更好的方法？

許多年前，在大學上心理學時，我學到當面對衝突時，人類的兩個反應是攻擊或逃跑－－也就是逃避問題或反擊。從那時起，我就發現逃避或報復是最自然的反應。但這是正確的反應嗎？

耶穌在當時，常常被認為是激進派，祂在今天還是如此。例如，祂不像心理學家，祂對衝突建議一個非常不同的回應：「不要與惡人作對，有人打你的右臉，連左臉也轉過來由他打。有人想要告你，要拿你的裏衣，連外衣也由他拿去。有人強逼你走一里路，你就同他走二里」（馬太福音5章39-41節）。祂說，這種回應是能夠使衝突變為建立良好關係的唯一方法。

衝突是人類常看到的情形，它發生在各個階層：在我們的家庭中、與朋友的關係、在職場、在政界、在國際關係、甚至在宗教場合。我們處理衝突的方式顯示我們的個性與器度。不論情況如何，衝突的解決方式都一樣。耶穌所教導處理衝突的方法與我們的自然反應完全相反。這方式似乎很奇怪，但它可補救破裂的關係。

史丹利．馬克士是一家高級百貨公司的創辦人。他說，曾有一位婦人來店抱怨她的輪胎沒用多久就磨損了。經理向她解釋說，他們百貨公司沒有賣輪胎，而且根本沒有汽車部門。但那婦人堅持她的輪胎是在這家百貨公司買的，且要他們立刻換輪胎。

雖然史丹利有權拒絕那婦人的索賠，但他最後多走一里路。他為她買了一組好輪胎，並為她付換機油的錢。他其實不需這麼做，但這種超級的客戶服務使他的百貨公司成為零售業的傳奇，且為他帶來一大群非常忠誠的顧客。

我們周圍有些人似乎總是在逃避困難，而不解決問題。面對自己受到的不公平待遇，其他人則選擇反擊、報復。但耶穌建議一個除了反擊或逃避以外的第三種選擇－－用愛心與理解回應－－這是最好的方法。

以色列的所羅門王被認為是世界上最有智慧人，他也提供一個類似的觀察。他發現不需用憤怒回應一個生氣的人：「回答柔和，使怒消退；言語暴戾，觸動怒氣」（箴言15章1節）。用仁慈的態度回應一個惡意的評論或甚至是嚴重的言語冒犯，才是真正高尚的品格。在以上三種回應衝突的方式中，用愛心回應當然是最困難的，且需要極大的力量與自制力才能作到。

在工商界，我已學到，用愛心與同情去回應問題，是建立顧客忠誠度的理想方法。當顧客不公平地抱怨時，我們很容易反駁。但若他要求你「陪他走一里路」，而你走超過一里路時，通常你不止得到一位朋友，也得到一位終身客戶。

在我所經營的咖啡店裡，有顧客抱怨咖啡不夠熱。雖然我可以證明那溫度夠熱，但我不會反駁。我只是道歉，並將他們的咖啡再加熱一點。如史丹利所說：「顧客永遠是對的。」他的意思是，若你以他們認為對的方式對待他們（即使他們是錯的），結果會讓你驚奇。


思想 / 討論題目

1. 當你面對衝突時，你一向如何回應？你是逃避或攻擊？請舉一個最近的例子。

2. 耶穌建議我們，面對不公平待遇時，不要攻擊或逃避，而要以耐心、愛心及理解去回應。你對這建議有何看法？你認為在今天的工商專業界，這種作法是否合適、合理？請解釋。

3. 面臨顧客明顯的錯誤，你對史丹利的回應有何看法？你認為他為何要那麼做？那種作法是否實際？

4. 請想想你曾面臨的衝突，最後是以逃避或攻擊收場。若你選擇以尊重、同情、理解回應對方，結果會有何不同？


註：若你有聖經請看有關此主題的其他經文，請看：
箴言12章16節，14章29節，16章32節，18章19節；26章21節；馬太福音5章13-16節，33-37，43-48節

MONDAY MANNA
A service to the business community
May 21, 2007

FIGHT, OR FLEE – OR SOMETHING BETTER?

By: Jim Mathis

Years ago in a college psychology class, I learned that when faced with conflict, the two human responses are “fight” or “flight” – the choice of either fleeing from the problem or fighting back. Since then I have observed that running or retaliating seem to be the most natural responses. But are they the correct responses?

In his day, Jesus was often regarded as a radical and in many ways, he remains so today. For instance, unlike the psychologists, he suggested a very different response to conflict: “Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic,
let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles” (Matthew 5:39-41). Such responses, he was saying, are the only ways to turn conflict into positive relationships.

Conflicts are a normal part of the human experience. They occur at all levels: in our families, relationships with friends, in the workplace, in politics, in international relations, even in religious environments. How we handle conflict says a lot about us – it reveals our character, as well as our stature in society. Regardless of the setting, accepted rules of conflict resolution are the same. Perhaps this is why Jesus’ teaching about how to deal with conflict seems so contrary to our natural response. It may seem radical, but it can also be very redemptive.

Stanley Marcus, a founder of the upscale Neiman-Marcus department stores, told the story about a woman who came into the store complaining that the tires on her car had worn out prematurely. The store manager explained Neiman-Marcus did not sell tires and did not even have an automotive department. But the woman insisted that she had purchased the tires at Neiman-Marcus and wanted them replaced immediately.

Although he had every right to refute the woman’s claim, Stanley Marcus essentially went the extra mile. He bought her a new set of tires and for good measure, also paid for an oil change. He did not need to do this, but such outrageous customer service made the Neiman-Marcus chain a legend in retailing and enabled them to develop a large, extremely loyal customer base.

All around us, some people always seem to be running from trouble rather than staying and dealing with issues. Others choose to constantly fight, retaliating against every perceived injustice. But Jesus suggested that rather than fight or flight, a third option – to respond with love and understanding – is the best choice of all.

A similar observation was offered by King Solomon of Israel, reputed to be the wisest man of all time. He observed that rather than responding to an angry person with anger, “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” (Proverbs 15:1). Responding to an unkind comment or even a serious spoken offense in a kind manner is a true mark of character. Of the three possible responses to verbal conflict, responding in love and grace is certainly the hardest and requires the greatest strength and self-control.

In the business world, I have learned responding to a problem with love and compassion is the ideal way to build customer loyalty. It is easy to fight back when a customer complains unjustifiably. But if they ask you to “walk with them a mile” and you go beyond that, more often than not you gain a friend – and a customer – for life.

In the coffee shop I manage, I have had customers complain their coffee was not hot enough, even when I could prove that it was the recommended temperature. But whenever that happens, rather than disputing with them, I simply apologize and warm it a little more. As Stanley Marcus used to say, “The customer is always right.” What he meant is if you treat the customer as if he or she is right, even when they are not, the results will amaze you.

Jim Mathis is Executive Director for CBMC in Kansas City, Kansas and Kansas City, Missouri, U.S.A., where he oversees Homer’s Coffee Shop. He and his wife, Louise, formerly were co-owners of a camera and photo processing shop in Overland Park, Kansas.

CBMC INTERNATIONAL: Robert Milligan, President
1065 N. 115th Street, Suite 210 ▪ Omaha, Nebraska 68154 ▪ U.S.A.
TEL.: (402) 431-0002 ▪ FAX: (402) 431-1749
Please direct any requests or change of address to: www.cbmcint.org

Reflection/Discussion Questions


1. What is your typical response when you are faced with conflict? Do you prefer to flee, or to fight? Give a recent example.






2. What do you think about Jesus’ suggestion that rather than either fighting or fleeing, we simply respond to injustices we suffer with patience, love and understanding? Do you think this is appropriate and reasonable in today’s business and professional world? Explain your answer.






3. What do you think of Stanley Marcus’s response to the customer who was clearly in error? Why did he react in such a way, in your opinion? Was it realistic?







4. Think of a situation when a conflict in which you were involved did result in either the flight or fight response. How might it have turned out differently if the parties involved had chosen instead to treat one another with respect, compassion and understanding?






If you would like to look at or discuss other portions of the Bible that relate to this topic, consider the following brief sampling of passages:

Proverbs 12:16, 14:29, 16:32, 18:19, 26:21; Matthew 5:13-16, 33-37, 43-48