Resolving Conflict In The Workplace

One of the biggest causes of stress in the workplace is not feeling able to resolve a situation that is not working for you.  Sometimes people don’t even know where to start to get an issue addressed that is troubling them. That is a ticking time-bomb, both for them and the organization. A healthy workplace will provide a safe environment in which concerns can be raised in an open, honest and direct way without fear of adverse repercussions and with confidence that efforts will be made to address matters in a fair and respectful way.  Effective leadership is essential in creating the right atmosphere in which individuals can flourish by having their needs as individuals met and at the same time give their best to the organisation.

Wherever people work together there will always be difficulties and a certain amount of conflict is inevitable.  After all, decisions of all sorts have to be made on a daily basis and it is unrealistic to expect that there will always be spontaneous and unanimous agreement over what should be done.  But not resolving conflict well is unhealthy and can lead to tension, lack of cohesion, inefficiency and low rates of retention. The key to effectively resolving disagreement is through deploying good communication skills. Effective leaders model clear and clean communication and provide support to those below them to acquire the necessary skills.

A high performing team has:

• A good balance between advocacy and enquiry. A leader who dominates discussion or tries to steer a decision is unlikely to welcome challenge and will not be genuinely interested in what others have to say. He will agree with opinions expressed that support his point of view and rebut those that don’t rather than enquire what lies behind what has been said and welcome a different perspective.
• A healthy balance between self-expression and listening to others. Listening to another person does not mean that you have to agree with what they say.  But the simple process of allowing others to speak and validating their point of view goes a long way to making people feel part of a team and is more likely to carry even dissenting voices along with the overall decision.
• A disproportionately high degree of positivity over negativity. In providing feedback it has been said that the proportion of positive to negative criticism should be as high as 6:1 if the one piece of negative feedback is to be properly received and acted upon.[1]  So also in group meetings, the amount of encouragement and positivity in approaching the task at hand should vastly outweigh any negative comments or criticisms.  The content of what is said should be distinguished from the manner or tone in which it is conveyed.
• An atmosphere which is buoyant, trusting and expansive.  People are allowed to think outside the box and challenge received wisdom without having to censor what they say before they speak. People look forward to meetings and the decision making process is experienced as a collaborative enterprise where anything is possible, rather than going through the motions to rubber stamp a decision that has already been made.
• A high degree of connectivity between its members.  There is mutual respect regardless of seniority, status or earning power.  There is little or no correlation between one’s status and one’s ability to have an idea that is best for the organization. For example, even a relatively lowly employee may have a business proposal that will increase earnings for the company as a whole.
• Flexible and innovating dynamics. There is a sense that everyone is important whatever their role.  Challenges to the status quo are seen as opportunities to learn and grow rather than as threats to the way things should be done. These are the organisations that flourish and are satisfying places to work.

By contrast, low performing teams have a low level of connectivity which leads them to get stuck in negativity as well as a high degree of advocacy and self-absorption. All of this generates a stultifying dynamic and draining atmosphere which is very difficult to shift. Some members may withdraw from contributing to group decisions, feel afraid to raise concerns or may even leave.  There is often courteous compliance and covert opposition, such as occurs where members of the team appear to acquiesce to a decision made in a meeting, but can be heard bitterly disagreeing (and worse) around the water-cooler outside the room. Such organizations become distrustful of its members, cynical about the process and ultimately disloyal to the team itself.

Making the shift from a dysfunctional organization where performance is not as high as it could be to a more functional one is not easy.  But communication tools and management skills can be learned, if necessary with the assistance of a trained mediator.  A good start is to understand the four basic categories of speech:[2]

• A Move – which initiates action, but if over-used can feel like dominance and control
• A Follow – which completes an action, but if used too much can feel weak or wishy-washy
• An Oppose – which brings correction, but if deployed too often can feel like obstruction and bloody-mindedness
• A Bystand – which brings perspective, but if too heavily relied on can be regarded as aloof and non-engaged.

As individuals we tend to gravitate to one or more actions in our communication, depending on the context. A discussion which gets stuck in Move-Oppose-Move-Oppose can be described as count-counterpoint and is unproductive. To get out of this impasse someone needs to follow (even if only on a “what-if” basis) or make a bystand, observing, for example, that the discussion has got stuck in a series of moves and inviting or suggesting another approach to arrive at a decision. A good leader, like a good facilitator, will use all four actions at the appropriate time, feeling confident enough to let go of a need to control the direction of a discussion without ultimately relinquishing responsibility as navigator to bring the ship home safely.  This requires trust in the process at arriving at the overall best result and not being too attached to one’s own preferred outcome.  Ultimately, it’s a recognition that the collective wisdom of the group is greater than the sum of its parts – or any one part.

© Iain Christie, 2013.  Iain offers a mediation service through StressExperts to help resolve conflict in the workplace etc…

[2] The four player model, from the work of David Kantor (2012), Reading the Room.