By Ric Shriver
In the famous line from the late Kenny Rogers’ classic song “The Gambler,” the choices we have about how to play our hands in a card game rings true for how, as leaders, we manage the many ways conflicts arise in our work environments. No doubt some of you have experienced negative outcomes from conflicts you have been engaged in. In some cases, you may have even felt that your jobs were in jeopardy because of an ongoing or single significant conflict you may have experienced. One of the more energetic and outspoken executives I worked with during my career said, “If you are doing your job and executing as expected, after 5 to 7 years in your job, you will have had conflicts with enough people to put your position in jeopardy.” That leader was so right!
Should we shy away from conflict? The answer is a resounding “No”! Conflict is inevitable in our work environments. The key to effectively managing conflict is to fully understand the root causes and, with the other parties involved in the conflict, work together to construct mutually agreeable resolutions – (much easier said than done!) Three key factors drive our natural response to conflict: 1) our ability to comprehend the nature and causes of the conflict, 2) our personal values as they relate to the conflict and the issues involved, and 3) our subconscious, natural tendencies for engaging in conflict.
The Root Causes of Conflict
As human beings, we all possess unique perspectives and beliefs about how decisions should be made, how problems should be solved, what the outcomes of certain actions should look and feel like, and what is best for the organization and the customers served. When we enter a conflict with other parties, we must seek first to understand the perspectives and motives of the conflicting party(ies). That requires active listening in a non-threatening, calm environment.
Personal values and beliefs influence how we manage conflict. Our values are a unique combination of the environments we were raised and grew up in, often modified by the unique and often significant life experiences we have been exposed to. But beyond our personal values, the big question that must ultimately be answered is “does my business culture place more of an emphasis on tasks and results or on people and relationships?” Answering that question may ultimately shape the nature of the conflict resolution process. If your organization places a higher priority on tasks and results, then a more confrontational approach may be necessary. If your organization places a higher priority on people and relationships, then a more collaborative and tempered approach will be called for.
Our Natural Conflict Styles Can Impact Our Approach
A self-assessment and conflict styles instrument I have used successfully with many different groups and individuals is the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Styles Inventory (1974). Through a process of self-discovery and team transparency, those teams I have worked with have addressed chronic and disabling conflicts they may be experiencing by examining their natural conflict tendencies and understanding the circumstances and forces creating the conflict. Once the influencing forces are understood, the team members can discover an approach to developing and implementing sound strategies for addressing the conflict in ways that benefit the enterprise and are consistent with the cultural expectations for resolving conflict.
We rarely approach unexpected conflict in a collaborative mode, and that is why leaders need to know what their natural tendencies for dealing with conflict. The Thomas-Kilmann Inventory categorizes the natural conflict styles, or tendencies, into five different groups: Competing, Avoiding, Accommodating, Compromising, and Collaborating. If we are aware of what our natural conflict styles are, we can adjust our styles to respond appropriately to the situation. That is why the “deep breath” pause is so often the best initial approach to conflict. The pause gives us time to think through how to manage the conflict in the most productive way.
Our Natural Aversion to Conflict
I have observed that most people in the workplace are conflict averse. Although sometimes an effective style, “avoiding” conflict can be detrimental to the welfare of the individual, the team, and the organization. In Leadership Whack-A-Mole: Actionable Strategies for Leadership Challenges, Jeff Fierstein describes a conflict that he experienced:
“I worked with a team member who created a great deal of conflict with me. As I was told, they applied for my position at the same time I did but did not get the job. Someone told me that the other person was disappointed not to have been chosen. They would often go over my (and my boss’) head to talk to the Vice President of Operations to propose new programs without my knowledge. The Vice President told them to speak with me about the ideas each time, but they never did. As I implemented new programs, they did whatever they could to undermine the programs’ success. Twice, they manipulated leadership into putting newly developed programs on hold. I had several discussions with this individual, trying to understand the root of the conflict. I used a Compromising style and then a Competing style. Neither worked. The Vice President was unwilling to intervene to manage the conflict or make a decision on the programs. This toxic person was working from jealousy about someone else getting the job. They were self-centered and thought more about themself than the business – and management let them get away with it.”
It’s amazing that with all the conflict management training we have provided employees and leaders over the decades, we are still not good at resolving conflicts. For a manager to condone a team member for creating conflict (as described in the preceding paragraph), one can understand the culture of this organization – and it’s not a productive one! Organizational cultures are no less susceptible to such behaviors and practices. We tend to behave like our leaders and how they expect us to act.
Patrick Lencioni, the author of The Five Dysfunctions of a Team (2002), believes that fear of conflict keeps teams from achieving commitment, accountability, and results (as well as damaging trust within the team). Lencioni argues that conflict can be managed in healthy and constructive ways to create and positively influence a thriving team. While it can be managed, our fear of dealing with conflict also exists. In one large manufacturing company I was familiar with, participants were expected to “challenge” each other about work processes, customer expectations, and quality. This challenge expectation was a form of “controlled conflict.” In most organizations, this approach would be unwelcome and ineffective. In this company it was an endorsed, constructive practice that promoted innovation, collaboration, and continuous improvement. So, if it is handled constructively, organizations can use conflict as a productive tool.
As we enter the new age of work, the ability to manage and resolve conflict will become critical. With the dissolution of the command-and-control, authoritative leadership style, conflict suppression tactics like the scenario Jeff describes above will be replaced with an earnest effort to utilize a more practical, collaborative approach for managing conflict.
