Four ways of handling conflict
Thursday, January 13, 2011 at 5:13PM Company performance is limited by conflict and lack of dialog. Each and every department seem to work well but the way they talk about other parts of the organization is fraught with emotional outburst - "those guys are totally incompetent..." and the like.
Photo by Jfgornet Flickr CC
We tend to look at ourselves as complex and balanced but view others as simplistic and unbalanced, Bertrand Russel wrote:
I am firm, you are obstinate, he is a pig-headed fool!
I am righteously indignant, you are annoyed, he is making a fuss over nothing!
I have reconsidered the matter, you have changed your mind, he has gone back on his word!
Productivity through dialog
The honest exchange of views through dialog between adults has the potential to greatly improve productivity without any investment. It is the the next logical step after the publishing of ISO 26.000 and its focus on Corporate Social Responsibility.
To treat others as competent, responsible human beings is the first step in any serious CSR initiative. Through a well functioning inner dialog the company will find the resources and moral right to approach other organizations in its surroundings.
Four practical techniques
To bring this discussion from concept to reality there are four practical techniques that I have used in the past and would recommend. They are all about handling conflict through "reframing" and are inspired by the NLP principle that all behaviors are valid, if they are effective and acceptable depends on when and where they occur.
Looking from three directions
Imagine marking the floor in three places. From the first you ask your coachee to look at the person standing at place nº2 (the other part in the conflict), ask about what he can observe, what he feels, how the other speaks and moves.
Then ask your coachee stand in place nº2 and look back at himself in place nº1. Once again ask about what he can observe, see, feel, etc.
Lastly, ask your coachee to look down from above, place nº3, at the two discussing in places nº1 and nº2 - ask for observations, feelings etc.
What usually happens by observing the behavior from these three vantage points, is that the feelings calm down and what needs to be done and said becomes obvious.
Locus of control
How you look at what happens to you will determine how you act. To say "I really ruined that presentation..." or "I did my best, but there are some things I still have to learn..." will make the difference between ever wanting to do a presentation again or looking forward to a chance to grow and develop.
If you feel responsible or more like a victim, will also have an impact. The more you feel responsible, the more likely you are to do something positive. For example, if you say to yourself "He really makes me angry..." or "I let him wind me up..." is the difference between having what psychology calls an inner or outer locus of control.
When mediating a conflict, to show the antagonists the importance of an inner locus of control can help significantly.
Evaporating Cloud
Goldratt, in his "Theory of Constraints", developed a method for conflict resolution called the Evaporating Cloud. The idea is that a single goal can generate different and conflicting "wants". Imagine that a salesmanager books a sales conference the same date as a salesman has a meeting planned with the main client. Both things are important for increasing sales.
To solve the conflict, the solution is to look at the structure. There is the "I want to visit the client" opposing the "I want to take part in the conference". Behind both are needs like "I need to preserve my relationship with the client" and "I need to comply with the Salesmanager's directive". The link between the "wants" and "needs" are based on assumptions, when those are exposed and discussed the cloud hanging over the persons in conflicts - dissolves as mist in the morning sun.
Coaching questions
If structuring the conflict through markings on the floor, drawing evaporating clouds and other techniques are impractical, there is always the following list of questions you can ask your coachee:
- Does the problem really lie in the task, or the way you look at it?
- What "rules" are you using that could be challenged?
- What would the best manager in the company do in this situation?
- What would you try if you knew that you could not fail?
- What would you do if your life, job or bonus depended on the good resolution?
Do you agree with my assumption that conflict and lack of dialog is a huge limiting factor for productivity? Could you use any of these tools to help the situation?
Reader Comments (2)
[...] One of Altshuller’s base principles is that invention stems from contradiction. The contradiction is what defines a problem, the conflict of interests if you will. This way of defining the conflict/contradiction as the source of invention interests me since the identification and elimination of conflict is a key principle of Open Management. [...]
[...] Management principle that productivity can be increased through “interface management” (productivity through dialog), and that the future could bring companies without inner borders – productivity will surely [...]