Conflict and Resolution: On and Off the Job

Conflict is bugging people.

When I check out the search terms that have landed people here, I'm seeing an increasing number of "conflict" and "conflict at work" searches.

I've met people who claim that they like conflict. I don't think so. They might like competition; they might like winning; but the idea of liking conflict in and of itself seems unhealthy at best and perhaps evil at worst. And since none of these people I know is particularly fond of "losing"--(a possible outcome of conflict)--I think that they are exhibiting a bit of competitive bravado. Which, of course, could be a major source of conflict.

What is Conflict?

Well, we know it when we feel it, don't we?

Wikipedia has a lot of entires, info, and resources. They also offer here what I believe are good definitions and discernment of different types of conflict:

Definition: "When two or more parties, with perceived incompatible goals, seek to undermine each other's goal-seeking capability".

One should not confuse the distinction between the presence and absence of conflict with the difference between competition and co-operation. In competitive situations, the two or more parties each have mutually inconsistent goals, so that when either party tries to reach their goal it will undermine the attempts of the other to reach theirs. Therefore, competitive situations will by their nature cause conflict. However, conflict can also occur in cooperative situations, in which two or more parties have consistent goals, because the manner in which one party tries to reach their goal can still undermine the other.

A clash of interests, values, actions or directions often sparks a conflict. Conflicts refer to the existence of that clash. Psychologically, a conflict exists when the reduction of one motivating stimulus involves an increase in another, so that a new adjustment is demanded. The word is applicable from the instant that the clash occurs. Even when we say that there is a potential conflict we are implying that there is already a conflict of direction even though a clash may not yet have occurred.

What Does This Mean In Real Life?

1. Competitive conflict. We are at odds about the "what" question. "What" we want to do will diminish the other person's chance of success if we succeed.

2. Cooperative conflict. Now there's an oxymoron. This one is about the "how" question. "How" you want to do something conflicts with how I want to do it, or think it should be done.

These are classic because they reflect the ongoing tension between goals (what) and process (how).

3. Values conflict. An action or direction violates  "who" we are at our core. 

What Can You Do?

(The suggestions below assume that the people involved are people of good will).

1. Competitive conflict calls for the possibility of re-defining each others' goals. This is the notion of "win-win." It requires honesty about why you are trying to achieve something. Until you understand each other's "why" the "what" will seem conflicting and self-serving.  It calls for a willingness to have a conversation that exposes each person's vulnerabilities.  Someone has to go first.  If your conflict is about the "what," then why not go first? Heck, you're already in conflict anyway. What do you have to lose?

2. Cooperative conflict. This is where the control freak managers lurk in organizations.

Stay with me here.

I can't state this enough. Job satisfaction and personal motivation are closely tied to one's ability to bring one's uniqueness to the task or team. When we sign on for a job, we are saying implicitly that we pretty much agree with the goals of the organization. What we now hope to do is  "ply our craft." And that uniqueness comes in "how" we are allowed to perform the job to achieve the goals.

A manager who has gotten commitment to the "what" and then wants to be involved in everyone's "how" is killing his  people's spirit and undermining the talent that they offer. (Note: certain jobs focused on safety and security do not leave room for personal creativity. I have often hoped that the pilot flying my plane was not feeling in a very creative mood that day).

What to do? Gotta have another conversation. Explain that the over-management is doing two things:

a. It is taking time away from you actually doing the job.

b. It is getting in the way of your ability to stay committed to what your boss wants to accomplish.

Then ask about your results. If you have a wrong perception of how you are doing, this is the time to get it on the table. If your boss tells you your results are good, then your boss will hopefully have an Aha! moment regarding your contributions.

The worst that can happen? You'll find out sooner, rather than later, that this isn't a place you want to be over the long run.

3. Values conflict. When asked to do something that violates your beliefs, you're about to experience a personal growth moment. Do you know why you believe what you believe? If you aren't sure, this is a primo time to find out.

Did you find out that your value wasn't really a value at all, or not in the way that you thought? Then maybe you can re-consider the request.

Your value is rock-solid? Then "no" is the only answer of integrity.

Conflict and Forgiveness

You may not be able to resolve the conflict, whatever it is. But how you respond will determine your peace of mind and ability to move forward. The act of forgiving following a conflict is important to your well-being.

Twice in my life I have been wronged in huge ways by anyone's standards:

I was once actually accused of a hideous crime. After a 2-year investigation and the attendant legal fees and law enforcement interaction, it was discovered and affirmed that I had been the object of a conspiracy.

In the second instance a client unilaterally walked away from a contract. It cost me nearly 1 million dollars. It is the only client in 30 years of practice who has reneged on a contract or payment. I have never had to "go to collection." My attorney told me that I would receive full payment if I took it to court. However. . .his investigation of this company revealed that the president had done this before: contracted with "boutique" consulting firms the size of mine and knew that his legal "team" could keep appeals going far longer than my ability to pay our attorneys. He informed me that although I would win I would be financially broke by the time it got to trial.

In both instances the strangest thing happened: I "let it go." Now, I'm not a saint and I know very well how to get ticked off and stay that way longer than I should. But in these two overwhelming cases I literally forgave and walked away.

Why?

Because bitterness and self-justification will kill you from the inside out. My reputation was still intact and there was nothing stopping me from continuing to run my consulting practice. You can't live well and help others if you are filled with bitterness. Life isn't fair. But it's a wonderful life if you choose to live it that way. And that means emptying yourself of real and perceived wrongs.

Chances are, someone is going to bug you at work today.

What choice will you make to ensure that your personal joy is intact?

photo source: www.und.nodak.edu

Comments

[Jo]

It took me a long time to get my head around "masculine culture". I finally got it when I watched Goodbye Mr Chips. Early in his career, the protagonist is hopeless at keeping order in a classroom. Then one day he manages to respond to the jeering of a schoolboy with a couple tricks. The boy is humiliated in front of his peers and the master's authority is restored.

Both the old version of the movie with Petula Clark and the modern one with Martin Clunes are good family entertainment BTW.

Anyway, so that is masculine culture and one of my three top search terms of yesterday!

The other was Mama Mia!

[Frode H]

Hi Steve.
This is a very interesting post. Conflicts at work can be a killer for the mood and work happines, not only to those involved, but also to the rest of the crowd.

I personal find conflict of values, the hardest to solve; you write: Your value is rock-solid? Then "no" is the only answer of integrity.

Saying no could cost you the job. I have during my life walked out of one job on the spot, due to a crash with my family values, but it was a hard decision to make.

If you are an average worker, you will experience in most cases that you cannot afford to say no if something cross your values. That is a big challenge. Your company might set goals that you do not agree on at all? Then what? Should you stay and try to make it your best? Or quit? Do you have a chance of getting respect for your opinion? If you are in charge try to respect ones personal choice, as it will keep your employee happy. Many employees do not agree with their managers. As a manager you should allow them to disagree without being punished, respect their view on the matter and move on. But like in marriage, you must find ways to agree, and if you absolutely can't seem to meet on any terms, get out of there. All in all, and my point is that if you have a crash on values, you might face your toughest decisions in your career, and that can be extremely hard, on the breach of health hazardous.

[Shaun Kieran]

Just a quick comment on your very enjoyable post. The part that I don ‘t quite see included in your 3 types of conflict formulation (competitive, cooperative, and values) is the more elemental conflict based on raw aggression – an eternal tool for both leadership and business success.

Maybe it’s the type of workplaces I’ve consulted to, but there are so many where honest disagreements about “what” and “how” would actually be gifts received gratefully by employees. Instead, conflict turns out mostly to be about real and imagined assertions of dominance and submission – the elemental, human underpinning of social interaction:

Who gets to reproach whom? Who’s the fair-haired boy the boss likes best? Who said what in a meeting that made someone else look bad? Your complaints about my performance are really about you looking to get rid of me.

In fact, attributing motives to someone else’s ideas and behavior, some of which couldn’t possibly be accurately known, is so common it’s hardly remarked upon.

When I was younger, I was fairly positive that sorting through the misperceptions, looking for, and finding, shared interests, and appealing to reason and high-mindedness in pursuit of an organization’s mission, would empower and favor the ones who aspired to high-quality careers and personal integrity.

And it certainly did, for some. But only some. What’s especially true is that we’re not just talking about messy, blue collar workplaces, it can be just as wild in professional environments where almost everyone has an advanced degree.

Workplaces are mini-cultures. A critical threshold of emotionally mature human beings is necessary to a cultural environment in which “losing” a conflict doesn’t mean loss of dignity, organizational status, or perceived power. Win-win moments can and do occur – of course – but almost always in organizations with the leadership and collective maturity to steer things that way in the first place.

[peter vajda]

Hi, Steve,

Thanks so much for this post on conflict. You certainly have a knack for looking at “root causes” and “root solutions.”- i.e, for me, the truth.

Some thoughts, if I may:

You write, “I've met people who claim that they like conflict. I don't think so. They might like competition; they might like winning; but the idea of liking conflict in and of itself seems unhealthy at best and perhaps evil at worst.

I have another perspective. Allowing (being OK with) conflict to arise from the deeper place of “Why is this happening FOR me (instead of TO me)” is a conscious and healthy doorway into emotional and spiritual intelligence and growth.

The “TO me” reactivity to conflict comes from a victim consciousness and focuses on the ego-intellect-intelligence approach which most often points to the polarity of competitiveness (e.g., I need to be right, so you need to be wrong; I’d rather be right than happy; it’s my way or the highway-type thinking…) which comes from a win-lose, zero-sum game approach to life and living. That’s a choice, often unconscious, but a choice nevertheless.

The “FOR me” approach to conflict comes from a deeper place of cooperation, collaboration, and a win—win approach to life and living. It comes from the place that the Master Rumi points to when he writes, “Out beyond right-doing and wrong-doing, there is a field; I’ll meet you there.” The emotional and spiritual intelligence approach to conflict rests here. This, too, is a conscious choice. In this place, “losing” is not the issue’, nor is “winning” from the ego perspective.

Compromise, collaboration, and the “good of the order”, and mutuality, drive the conversation and the interaction.

I like your point: “Competitive conflict calls for…honesty about why you are trying to achieve something. Until you understand each other's "why" the "what" will seem conflicting and self-serving.”

For me, it means seeking to understand before being understood – very challenging for many folks today. Is this type of approach to conflict something I choose, or not, and why?

You also say, “ You may not be able to resolve the conflict, whatever it is. But how you respond will determine your peace of mind and ability to move forward. The act of forgiving following a conflict is important to your well-being.”

This is the area of emotional and spiritual intelligence and growth and largely determines how/whether one chooses to move forward in their own personal and professional growth…..to have gained insight into one’s values, motives, intentionality, purpose, ability to self-manage, collaborate and cooperate, or remain emotionally and spiritually stilted and look to fight another day - having gained no insights into one’s self.

This is the difference between being reactive with in-your-face, hearing-but-not-listening, and defensiveness strategies and coming from a place of “right knowing”, “right understanding” and right action”- these latter of which come with an energy that is soft, yet firm and fair and a place of really “seeing” the other from a humane perspective as opposed to an objectified person that I need to defeat.

You write, “In both instances the strangest thing happened: I "let it go." Now, I'm not a saint and I know very well how to get ticked off and stay that way longer than I should. But in these two overwhelming cases I literally forgave and walked away….Because bitterness and self-justification will kill you from the inside out.”

This relates to my comment, yesterday, to another of your posts in which I said, in part, “…I also believe that it's about upping the ante on one's quality of life in the moment....living longer as a fearful, angry, resentful, begrudging, sad, unhappy, defensive individual who has for all intents and purposes lost their appetite for life serves no one...perhaps not living "longer" but experiencing true and real joy on a daily basis, "living a higher quality life" is another choice.” We live by our choices and we die (inside and out) by our choices.

As you suggest, “…You can't live well and help others if you are filled with bitterness. Life isn't fair. But it's a wonderful life if you choose to live it that way. And that means emptying yourself of real and perceived wrongs.”
You say and ask, “Chances are, someone is going to bug you at work today. What choice will you make to ensure that your personal joy is intact?”

A conscious question. And, I would add, again, asking, “Why is this happening FOR me?”

The tone and tenor of one’s approach to conflict will be a function of asking three questions I also suggested in an earlier comment:

What do I want for me?
What do I want for him/her/them?
What do I want for the relationship?

Finally, most folks’ response to conflict was determined in childhood in the way they experienced conflict between their parents and among immediate and extended family members. As adults, their childhood reactions (deeper, unconscious feelings and emotions, in addition to what one “thinks” about conflict”) are at play.

So, it might be helpful if one were to inquire and explore deeply inside and ask: “What’s right about conflict?” and “What’s right about avoiding conflict?” to get at the deeper, unconscious feelings and emotions that constitute one’s response (positive) or reaction (negative) to conflict. Emotional and spiritual growth can often arise with such an exploration when one really “sees” what’s up with one’s self when it comes to who one is and how one is when relating to conflict.

Thanks for your post, I very much enjoyed reading...and reflecting.

[Wally Bock]

Great post, Steve. Let me add some nuance to the "conflict over means." I see that very often as part of a development process and one where even good bosses struggle.

Imagine a continuum running from left to right and indicating competence on a particular skillset. At the far left is Incompetent and at the far right is a point where you, as the boss, can hand off the work with only a statement of your intent.

On the left side you as the boss do quite a bit of telling and making decisions about the details of the work. As your team member learns the work, you move through stages where you discuss the work with them, then make the key decisions to a situation where you discuss with them and let them make the decisions to the point at which you simply hand off the work because your team member can make all the detail decisions. At least that's how it's supposed to work.

In my work and research I've found that bosses are most comfortable with discussing but making the final decisions. They tend to stay with that style too long. Conflict results.

They are least comfortable with discussion followed by allowing the team member to make key decisions. So many bosses try to skip this phase and jump to simple delegating handoffs. That creates a different problem when the team member may make choices that create problems because they're thrown in the deep water without all the skills they need.

When we talk about "micromanaging" and conflicts over method, we have to understand that many times they're bound up in the training/development process. We also should recognize that even the best managers are sometimes uncomfortable letting go of decision-making as team members develop.

[Kevin]

Steve, I really like what you say about integrity and joy.

I've been working with a client who wrote a book about Leading With Kindness. One of his premises is that if you are kind (and that doesn't mean wimpy) with your clients and employees, you can sleep well at night. And that makes a huge difference.

[Steve Roesler]

Jo,

Petula Clark?

I was thinking about Greer Garson.

[Steve Roesler]

Frode,

Indeed, the most difficult situations are those that involve a conflict of values. Yet these are the moments that also define us as well as our integrity.

Sometimes the consequences could be extreme (loss of job, for example). But if someone really does "value" something deeply--and there is a genuine conflict--the individual is faced with holding onto what is valued or losing respect for himself or herself.

The choices made in these situations have ramifications that can be far reaching; so the decisions cannot be made lightly.

Thank you, Frode.

[Steve Roesler]

Shaun,

Well-stated. Your experience shows through.

I hadn't really thought about the notion of "raw conflict" until you mentioned it--and am still pondering it.

Like you, I don't see a difference in the conflict based on the type of workplace: blue collar vs. professional. Only in how it sometimes gets acted out.

Since the three categories are designed as a way to attach meaning to the source of conflict, they may still embody what you are suggesting. Am going to go back, have a look, and see if there is something else to be observed.

Thanks, Shaun.

[Steve Roesler]

Peter,

Your desire to live in this arena certainly shines through on this one.

It would be superfluous to add anything, so I will reflect on it and offer the same to others.

My learning: Why is this happening for me?

[Steve Roesler]

Wally,

I'm smiling at this one because I'm in the middle of a consulting gig that fits your comment perfectly.

The "decision" issue is causing conflict. Not because people don't want him to make a decision but because he pulls the trigger too quickly based upon perceived external demands on him. Therefore, the decisions are stop-gap, things are never completely resolved, and each quarter the same problems need to be re-visited.

[Steve Roesler]

Kevin,

Will have to check that out...thanks for the title.

And I have to agree: kind doesn't have to mean wimpy.

Unfortunately, I have seen plenty of people who appear to have no problem sleeping at night regardless of their actions.

[Jim Stroup]

Steve,

Keep that attorney.

[Steve Roesler]

Jim, if he sees your comment he's liable to up the retainer:-)