Article
Article No.: 10-2
Article Title: Turning Conflict into Collaboration
Author: Linda Gravett, Ph.D., SPHR, CEQC
You may have glanced at the title of this article and
thought, "There’s no way you can end up with a happy ending if
there’s conflict." In the next few paragraphs, I’d like to discuss
some steps you can take to accomplish just that. Conflict
doesn’t have to be negative; it can bring out different yet valuable
perspectives, minimize group think, and challenge a stale status
quo.
If you work with at least one other person, there’s the potential
for disagreement and miscommunication from time to time. Since
most of us spend our days with others beside ourselves, conflict is
an inevitable part of life. However, conflict can be an
opportunity for ultimate agreement, not disagreement.
My research over the past five years has surfaced six major sources
of conflict in the workplace, stemming from:
- Issues of possession (this is my cubicle/my lunch hour/my mentor)
- An environment that is demotivating
- Differing opinions and philosophies on life in general
- Different methods, or ways of doing the work
- Beliefs (such as “you have to pay your dues to succeed”)
- Desire for control
These sources of conflict can emerge between groups or
departments; among group members; or between individuals. This may
be making you wonder, “Do I really want to go to work tomorrow?!”
The key to turning conflict into collaboration, I believe, is
acknowledging disagreement sooner than later so that disagreement is
merely frustrating or causes a few anxious moments. This is
preferable to doing nothing and letting frustration with another
person or people escalate to the point where you’re intensely angry
and ready to fight or flee.
We all have different responses to conflict, and the four I observe
most often in the workplace are: avoidance; rationalization;
“Yes” really means “No”; and refusal. Many people will go to
great lengths to avoid confronting a person if they believe the
discussion might be uncomfortable. The most typical tactic
I’ve seen is to either send emails after hours or leave voice
messages before work starts, hoping to avoid an actual
voice-to-voice discussion. Rationalization occurs when a
directive comes down from the top or an immediate supervisor and the
employee tells herself that the edict applies to other people and
she doesn’t have to respond to or deal with the directive.
Some people will say “yes, that’s a good idea” to your face and then
go about doing what they’ve always done instead of saying that they
disagree with or don’t want to do something. Then again,
others will simply say “No” without explanation and shut the door to
further conversation.
Different responses to conflict call for different tactics to
prevent and overcome unpleasant outcomes.
If people seem to avoid confronting or disagreeing with you,
consider whether the feedback and input you provide to others is
constructive or destructive. Destructive feedback is hurtful
and demotivating (i.e., yelling or using demeaning language).
In constructive feedback, you:
- Focus on the issue at hand (instead of bringing up five transgressions from the past six months)
- Avoid calling people “stupid” or “lazy”, or other personal and demeaning terms
- Emphasize key points – what do you want the other person to consider or do? Be specific and concrete so there’s no room for doubt.
- Acknowledge the other person’s point of view – maybe it’s a good one!
If you observe that coworkers or team members try to rationalize that impending change doesn’t apply to them, I suggest you work through some phases of the change process with them, which I call the P-A-C-E of change:
Prepare rationalizers for change by providing advance information
about how and why the world around them is changing: through staff
meetings, one-on-one meetings and data. Build acceptance by
asking for their input and ideas on how to work through impending
changes together. Commit as a leader by establishing policies
and procedures to implement change and stick to the target date for
beginning the new way of doing things. Empower execution by
providing resources and encouraging rationalizers to take risks and
make mistakes as they learn.
For those who respond to a request or direction by outright refusal
or saying yes to your face and then proceeding as usual, it’s
necessary to set consequences for not carrying out directives.
Otherwise, you enable them to go their own way without even breaking
stride. I’ve found that helping people understand the
“W-I-F-M” (What’s in it for me?) that comes with a request or
directive is more productive than the usual “this is for the good of
the organization” explanation.
When faced with potential conflict, I urge you to consider moving to
win-win right away, rather than thinking that there will be one
winner and one loser in the discussion. You can move towards
win-win by focusing on common goals and objectives you both have
(such as the Mission of the organization) rather than your position
(I want to do this because I’ve always done it this way). You can
move towards win-win by:
- Defining the problem you’re both trying to address
- Disagreeing clearly and objectively; be straightforward
- Don’t make personal attacks
- Find shared concerns (i.e., limited budget or resources)
- Focus on facts, not opinions
If you have any questions or need more information about this article, please complete our Contact Form, or contact Dr. Gravett by telephone at 513-753-8870 or e-mail info@gravett.com.