Conflicts and Conflict Management

Conflicts are a permanent fixture in organizations; a significant amount of a leader’s time is devoted to dealing with conflict issues.

There are basically two types of conflicts: a good kind and a bad kind. Good conflicts are constructive and maintain their focus on the task or objective. For example, leaders from different units of the organization may battle over budget dollars for a project that they independently believe will be best for the organization. They each state their case and, ultimately, a choice is made; if the culture is healthy, the “loser” accepts and supports the final decision because he or she knows his/her viewpoint was considered. ²

 

Alternatively, bad conflicts are destructive and have a tendency to focus on individuals and personalities. In this same example, a bad form of conflict would be evident by name calling or some other personal refocus; that is, the spotlight on the task is lost and has shifted to a personal attack.

The latter kind of conflict tends to be toxic and ultimately causes more problems in organizations. Given that conflicts are inevitable, the challenge for leaders is to prevent the negative form and keep the conflict positive. At some point, conflicts may move from constructive to destructive and wherever that dividing line resides, for a given situation, efforts to keep it on the positive side are vital. Even with attention, some episodes will cross the line (possibly in the healthiest of situations), but then there should be mechanisms that allow the situation to resolve so that ongoing relationships are not destroyed.²

The first step in managing conflicts is to understand how conflicts evolve and the typical reactions. Finally, leaders need to be trained and learn how to continually improve their abilities.

Conflicts begin with some type of triggering event or episode.¹ In organizations, conflict activation sometimes occurs due to role confusion; this happens when there is uncertainty about who is supposed to do what: “I am in charge…No, I am in charge.” This is preventable if the leader spends time defining responsibilities. Once the episode occurs, the parties in the conflict can have an emotional and/or cognitive internal response leading to an external response to the other party.¹

 

The external response tends to be based on the individual’s preferences for handling conflicts; usually an individual has a dominant style or approach. There are five common orientations:¹  

Competing: Focus is on “winning” based on one’s own personal goals.

Collaborating: The goal is to secure an outcome for the benefit of all parties.

Compromising: Seeking a solution so that all parties get some of what they want but not everything; dividing the “pie.”

Avoiding: Refusing to engage in the conflict, pretending it does not exist, or letting it happen.

Accommodating: Goal is to satisfy the other party’s interests over one's own goals.

Each party behaves in alignment (usually) with their preferred/dominant approach or style. This can lead to resolution if the styles match the situation and lead to the desired outcome for both parties. Alternatively, consider what happens if both parties follow a competing style; one can imagine two individuals screaming at each other to get what they want or using ugly, deceptive techniques to avoid losing. This generally means that following one’s preferred style could work, but as a default it may not work and, therefore, something different must happen to reach the preferable goal.

That is, ultimately the process ends in an outcome; that outcome is either constructive for the individuals or people involved and performance is enhanced or the opposite. ¹

The challenging part for the leader and the participants is to understand in advance what is desired and then behave in the conflict episode in such a way to reach the desired conclusion. It is uncommon in organizational settings to seek only personal results since usually the parties will likely end up working with each other again. Therefore, some type of conflict management strategy must be utilized that keeps the relationship intact.

Conflict management is not easy. It starts with an understanding of what outcome is desired on two issues: (1) the substantive issue of importance such as a clarification of the role issue described earlier. Perhaps the desired outcome is “I should be in charge.” And (2) the relationship outcome desired. The parties need to ask themselves what type of relationship they need or want to have with each other after the conflict. Both parties need to balance these issues and seek an outcome on both fronts that satisfies the twofold goal.

To maintain a positive relationship after a conflict, the parties must “walk in the shoes” of the other. Challenging as this may be, the individuals need to spend time considering the other, even if their goals appear illogical; understanding the other can occur by observation, contemplation or asking. Only with some understanding of the other’s desires will one seek a solution that will allow a relationship to continue; that is, the focus shifts to satisfying both sets of needs and not just one’s own.

Thus, one’s natural approach to handling conflicts may not work in all situations. For example, if we seek a positive go-forward relationship, the natural goal of competing may not work toward this outcome. It is not always easy (or possible) to violate our personality-based conflict behavior inclinations, but sometimes it is required to reach the desired objectives.

I have always believed that we each have the ability to behave the way we need to when we desire; I do recognize how idealistic and perhaps even naive this belief is. Just try changing a lifelong habit and see how difficult it is. Nevertheless, it is important that we understand the goals we seek (substantive and relationship) when dealing with a conflict episode and then behave accordingly, to the best of our ability. Even a slight shift can make our leadership more powerful and effective. This constantly needs to be addressed to improve.

Please feel free to make comments.

References

¹ Robbins, S.P., Judge, T.A. (2012), Essentials of Organizational Behavior, 11^th edition, Boston: Pearson

² Lencioni, P. (2012). The Advantage: Why Organizational Health Trumps Everything Else in Business. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.