What To Do When People Avoid Conflict?

When we talked about Conflict At Work?, management authorities Jamie Notter and Wally Bock extended the discussion as a result of their experiences with conflict.

But there's another side to the dynamic: Some people on your team or in your family will have a tough time expressing--or even acknowledging--anything related to "negative" feelings. These folks want to keep the peace at any cost and are skilled at pretending that everything is fine. The ironic result:  underlying resentments that grow and eventually destroy relationships on and off the job.

Five Ways To Be Helpful and Effective

What do you do when you find yourself in a relationship with someone who totally avoids disagreement?

Here are some thoughts that will help you encourage those who are uncomfortable to work with you toward healthy problem solving. The goal: Get some honest conversation rolling before small irritations morph into significant issues that harm productive relationships.

1. Create opportunities for give and take.

By definition, people who avoid conflict really won't take the initiative to come to you about things that are bothering them. What to do? Create regular, scheduled times for discussion in which you invite the airing of issues, pro and con.

2. Emphasize how helpful accurate information and feedback--even the critical type--is to you.

Let's face it: folks who shun disagreement are often “nice” people and want to be seen that way. Take a moment to show them  that critical feedback is a way of helping you and that it's something you value highly.

Something along these lines could get it going: “One thing that helps me is to have someone who sees my ideas from a different point of view. That way,  I can refine the way I think about things and be more effective. Would you be willing to help me with that?"

3. Watch non verbals.

We have the human tendency, through unconscious body language, to show that something is bothering us even though we remain silent. So, those who avoid conflict verbally will still give off a signal--even if it is total silence--that something is going on "inside". This may also come in the form of a change in normal behavior or habits.

Let's say that a colleague has been completely engaged in a discussion, then becomes strangely quiet.

You can use this objective observation to non-threateningly dig a little deeper. “Meaghan, I’ve noticed that you became very quiet in the meeting yesterday and haven’t talked much with me since then. Is that would be helpful to talk about?”

4. Make conflict normal.

When starting off meetings and discussions, consistently set the norm with: “We all have ideas and ways in which we disagree at times. That keeps things interesting. What really matters is how we respond to these differences to discover what's really there and what there is to learn."

5. When someone tasks a risk, respond with support.

Understand that people who don't like conflict are taking a risk when they do speak out. Acknowledge the comment or suggestion and thank them. 

What else do you do to help people engage rather than "drop out" when there are conflicting views?

Comments

[John DeFlumeri Jr]

Non-verbals, to me, are the scariest part of any conflicts, because our imagines run WILD!

John DeFlumeri Jr

[peter vajda]

Some thoughts, Steve:

John FeFlumeri makes a great point. Many folks are really not well-versed in reading non-verbals (interested? yes, well-versed? no) - the folks who say, "Gee, I once read that when someone folds their arms, they..." or "Gee, X said that when someone looks away, they..." and they fill in the blank with a response - a judgmental behavior that is neat, simple, quick, and most often, incorrect.

I said it before in this thread and will say it again, when folks have their hip-pocket conflict resolution guide (or other quick-fix management or leadership guide or "x-steps" how-to technology) and yet don't know how to have an open, honest and sincere conversation, a dialogue, conflict (and mis-management) will usually abound.

I like your questions and "invitations," above. The kicker, for me, is that if one who is usually conflict averse feels physiologically uncomfortable asking/answering such questions, inviting others "in," and thus doesn't, and yet is still rushing to "logically" and "cognitively" get to a "resolution," there's a good chance they, themselves, are contributing to the conflict.

I think one of the issues that augurs against folks engaging in constructive conflict experiences is one's need to be right. If that's the operating principe, then conflict avoidance rules the day. I think it serves folks well to take a moment and reflect on their relationships at work, (and at home and at play) and ask, “How much does the ‘I’m right – you’re wrong’ dynamic play out in my everyday interactions?” The answer often will point to the degree to which one is willing and able to engage in conflict resolution experiences.

Lastly, the element of "trust" is paramount. If one has a workplace history of not being open, not engaging others from a heart-felt place, of being judgmental and critical, of needing to be right, of being political, etc., then, "pulling out my conflict resolution guide" at 9 am Monday and assuming a "we" role vs. an historical "me" vs. you" role, and does not create a container of safety beforehand (that takes conscious and intentional "work"), then I would bet that conflict resolution efforts will be of little to no avail, or that, yes, conflict might be resolved but at the expense of morale while (further) alienating a lot of folks.

[Rodney Johnson]

I would add another, Steve. This would be to create a language that would make it less confrontational, less direct, less insulting, yet more effective. I've discussed the term "silent problem" on your blog before - these are problems that are being avoided, neglected or going unnoticed. And if you have a silent problem, 95+% of the time, the problem will grow in intensity and toxicity over time. When an organization embeds the silent problem structure into the common language of the organization, it takes much of the confrontational nature out of the equation, yet elevates the problem. This is a win-win proposition. Embedding the silent problem language is possibly one of the most important things an organization could do to elevate performance.

[Rachel Playfair]

Speaking as a person with a natural tendency to avoid conflict, myself (but working to overcome this) those are excellent suggestions, Steve. If most partners, co-workers, managers etc. adopted those practices, there would, indeed, be little reason to avoid expressing thoughts which go against the flow. Not the case, unfortunately. It's enough to send a recovering conflict avoider back into the closet!

[Karl Staib - Work Happy Now]

When someone does stick their neck out and fails we have a tendency to attack. We have to quell this habit and give them support. The greatest ideas are usually the riskiest.

I've been guilty of this, but recently I've been taking a few deep breaths before I respond. This gives me time to find appreciation for the person who tried something new.

[Steve Roesler]

John,

That one-liner speaks a huge truth.

Although we see people on TV and in print who claim to be able to accurately interpret a single movement, it just isn't so. And, indeed, the mind tends to race to provide meaning (it abhors a vacuum and is more than happy to have it filled with anything but space!).

To put things into perspective: What we need to be aware of is that something isn't "matching" and take that as a sign to ask for information or clarification and not to offer an interpretation.

Thanks for opening the discussion with that.

[Steve Roesler]

Peter,

Well laid out.

I'm voting for the "I'm right/you're wrong" posture as the one that most gets in the way of deep, thorough discussion. I don't even think we all even need "resolution" if we really know that we've been heard, considered, and then hear honestly what the other person's position is and why.

[Steve Roesler]

Rodney,

I was wondering if you would weigh in on this, since the issue has to do with a "silent problem". You don't disappoint:-)

Your approach to the issue addresses the issue by giving it a name. And we do better once we've named something rather than treating it as something amorphous.

I'm sure some of our readers will latch onto the "silent problem" concept. . .

[Steve Roesler]

Karl,

That's darned honest of you. And risky to put your own challenge in print. I applaud you.

It's also a useful reminder to (all) the rest of us to take those deep breaths (there's a good physiological and psychological reason why "deep breathing" exercises reduce stress).

BTW: Had a client who was one step away from the top position at his company. Unbelievably successful at making/exceeding the numbers and even with direct reports. However, the killer instinct with others led to outplacement.

Deep breathing seems like a very small price to pay. . .

[Steve Roesler]

Rachel,

Print it out, pass it around, and see if you can generate support in creating a change that will make a genuine difference.

[bba india]

I’m really impressed with your article. Cool in looks informative in Material