Publications
Partners
Since Adam and Eve, humanity has struggled to deal with conflict. We typically either try to avoid it at all costs or tackle it incompetently and let it spiral out of control.
Research shows that conflict is costing us dearly. A recent study, which polled 5 000 employees in Europe and the Americas and 660 HR practitioners in the UK, found that the average employee spends 2.1 hours a week dealing with conflict.
In the UK alone, “workplace disagreement that disrupts the flow of work” translates to 370m working days lost every year.
So if we cannot avoid conflict, how can we become more competent at dealing with conflict and save our organisations millions?
Distinguish between healthy and unhealthy conflict
Conflict is often thought of as something that is negative per se – something to be avoided like an intrusive virus. But is it?
It is through exploring conflicting views of reality, through challenging set opinions and engaging in robust debate that civilisations progress, societies grow, innovation flourishes and organisations prosper.
Yet, conflict that spins out of control has cost civilisation dearly, in lives and money.
When building conflict-competent relationships and teams, to use a term coined by Craig Runde and Tim Flanagan, authors of Becoming a Conflict Competent Leader, one should distinguish between task conflict (constructive) and personal conflict (destructive).
Task conflict is essentially when we disagree about something outside ourselves. This is absolutely needed and is associated with a process of healthy, robust debate that allows the exploring of options, such as a strategy, a process, a way of doing something.
Allowing ourselves to be challenged by others’ opinions, views and approaches is an essential element of creativity and innovation, and counters the brain’s natural drive towards pattern making (where we figure it out, then stop consciously thinking about it and shift it to the habit or limbic brain).
Conflict goes wrong when it shifts from being task-focused to being person-focused. Evidence of this is when we start blaming others and attributing undesirable characteristics to the person with whom we are having the task conflict.
“You don’t listen”, “You always …”, “Can’t you understand/think…” are often indications that we have shifted towards unhealthy personal conflict, and this is where things often get counterproductive and potentially destructive.
Know your hardwired conflict approach
Irrespective of the level of leadership development work I do (personal, team, strategic etc.), my experience has been that a deep level of understanding of the blueprint of our own personality DNA, more commonly called self-awareness, is one of the critical keys to progress and success.
An important component of such self-awareness is understanding our personality’s hardwired response in conflict.
A great tool that helps individuals and teams to build self-awareness in conflict was developed by the psychologist Elias H. Porter. Porter found that conflict typically has three phases.
In Phase 1 conflict still has the potential to be productive and positive as we remain able to entertain the issue on which we disagree, our own interest and the interest of the other.
This is the territory of robust and constructive debate.
However, in Phase 2 we stop considering the interest and views of the other party and we lose some objectivity; and in Phase 3 we drop the issue under contention and argue only for our own interest or point of view – in this phase the conflict is likely to get out of control and risks becoming personal.
A critical element of building conflict competence is to learn to catch conflict before it goes beyond Phase 1.
To achieve this, we need to understand our own approach to the first phase of conflict, and identify and respect others’ first phases of conflict.
Every individual deals with these three phases in a predictable manner by following one of three approaches in different sequences. Porter outlines these approaches as follows (see table):
Considering ways of accommodating the other (blue); debating
or engaging more forcefully (red); reflecting and gathering more information
(green). The sequence with which we go through these strategies differs from
person to person.
For example, in the first phase of conflict, I personally want to engage, debate and take the issue head on (red), while my partner would literally stand back, cross her arms and become quiet (green).
I experienced this as withdrawal and felt ignored, which made me angry and want to argue even harder (more red), which made her even quieter.
Very quickly we were in Phase 2 of conflict and heading speedily down the spiral of destructive conflict.
Understanding that her green Phase 1 meant that she needed to reflect and think first before engaging, was massive in helping us manage conflict far more competently.
Building foundations of trust
Conflict competence in longer-term one-on-one or team relationships requires trust.
Trust is the thread with which effective human relationships (and dealing with conflict competently) are woven together over time.
There are many elements to building this type of trust, but my experience has been similar to that of business management writer Patrick Lencioni, namely that an easy entry to developing trust is for people to really get to know one anothers’ stories.
Whether as part of leadership development, working with teams, or diversity training, this can be done through a structured process of getting to know one another through sharing personal stories.
It requires a level of openness, vulnerability and authenticity that has the ability to shift relationships in a short space of time.
Play by the rules
Every game has rules. The clearer the rules, the better all can play the game.
I often find that leadership groups and teams are conflict incompetent because they lack clear rules for dealing with the challenges of day-to-day interaction, disagreement and debate.
Providing structure and rules for when and how we interact and communicate goes a long way in building conflict competence.
I often find teams are surprised by how quickly they can solve challenges and make progress if they rigorously implement rules for ensuring quality conversations.
An open heart, mind and will
Listening well, as part of communicating well, is another one of those things that humankind has always struggled with.
To be competent in conflict and go against what your own personality DNA might be shouting at you to do requires exceptional levels of listening competence.
True listening implies being and staying open to what the other says. The MIT’s Otto Scharmer says this requires an open mind, open heart and open will.
An open mind requires me to keep my brain quiet. This means going against my limbic brain that guides me to jump to conclusions based on old knowledge, and really staying open and curious to the possibility of new facts and a different truth.
An open heart means that I need to keep my emotion positive towards the other.
I need to try and see reality through the other’s eyes and not fall into personal conflict, where I start attributing negative characteristics to the other.
And an open will requires me to stay open to a different possible outcome – forcing me to remain in Porter’s conflict Phase 1 and holding the possibility open for a different decision.
Reflect, adjust and celebrate
We are not always going to get it right. Sometimes being competent in conflict situations means calling for a timeout, letting the adrenaline and cortisol levels drop, and deciding to reconvene later.
It is often not profitable to reflect on process in the heat of the moment.
And, when you do get it right, reflect on it, celebrate it and bank it for future use.
This article originally appeared in the 12 May 2016 edition of finweek. Buy and download the magazine here.
