Posts Tagged ‘conflict resolution’

This post is now here.

I really enjoy looking for good examples of conflict escalation, poor communication, and personality style clashes. A few months ago, I saw this episode of The Apprentice, and I thought it perfectly illustrated a common people-oriented vs. task-oriented conflict scenario. It also shows how NOT to resolve a conflict.

The interesting action for this post starts at the 3 minute 40 second mark where we see the interaction between Scott Hamilton and Tom Green begin. The part I’m commenting on runs for a little more than 2 minutes.

Just guessing from their behaviors, I would say that Scott has lots of task traits and that Tom has lots of people traits. My best guess is that Scott has really high “Cautious” traits and that Tom has really high “Inspiring” traits. If I’m guessing right, their primary behavioral traits are complete opposites of each other.

I don’t know everything about these two men.  I’m just basing my guess on what I see in this short clip.

Tom frantically tries to get noticed. A common “Inspiring” trait is to seek recognition. He makes a comment about “keeping himself entertained” and he complains that “they’re not listening to me” as he waves his arms in the air and says “they’re so focused on the task they don’t even know I’m there.”  Also common “I” traits.

Scott’s goal is to be “calm and organized.” A common “Cautious” trait is to seek structure. He makes reference to Tom as the “derailer” and he tells Tom to “sit and relax.”

I also notice that Tom pushes harder for interaction and that Scott withdraws more into the task as the conflict escalates. Two common signs of a task vs. people conflict.

I think both of them behaved in ways that made the conflict worse instead of better, and I’m not really trying to comment on who was more or less “right.” I want to keep the focus of this post on their interaction dynamics.

Notice that as each of them fights for what they want, the conflict gets worse and neither of them gets what they want.

The lesson we can learn from this interaction is simple to say and difficult to do: slow down to understand the other person’s perspective so that you can move towards resolution and away from escalation.

I have seen “problem” defined as “a situation that you want to change.”

Under this definition, if I don’t want to change the situation, I don’t have a problem.

If, I want to change the situation, then I have a problem.

Every situation that I want to change has something wrong with it. In general, I don’t want to change things that are running smoothly.

If something is wrong with the situation, then something either has happened or will happen to make the situation undesirable. To solve the problem, I have to consider that my thoughts, ideas, and feelings about the circumstances surrounding the situation just might be wrong.

There might be a different way to describe the situation that allows me to see a better solution than the first one that popped into my head.

Staying open to alternative solutions was one of the most powerful lessons I learned as a process design and development engineer. Since then, I have read numerous books, articles, and essays on how to keep my mind open to different problem solving approaches. I have watched videos and listened to audio programs on creativity.

I keep striving to quiet the voice in my head that says, “the first solution I found is the one and only right way to solve this problem.”

In working with people, I have learned that resolving conflict is just like solving a problem.

An interpersonal conflict is generally a situation that I want to change. So, it fits in the definition of a “problem.”

So, when I attempt to resolve workplace or family conflicts, I need to consider that I just might be wrong.

I really dislike this idea. It forces me to get outside my own perspective in the moments when I really do not want to make the effort.

Sadly, the same little voice I mentioned above often tells me that the source of the problem I face in resolving a conflict is the other person.

This morning, I read a great post titled Kill Your Little Darlings over at Women on Business. M.J. Ryan, the author of this post, starts this way:

William Faulkner once said that writers needed to “kill their little darlings.”  It’s a message about how, in order for inspiration to enter, we need to let go of the ideas we’re so in love with to make room for something better. It’s a willingness that everyone in business needs these days.

What a great concept! This idea applies to writers, to business owners, and to people attempting to resolve workplace conflicts.

In order to resolve a conflict, I have to be willing to consider ideas, thoughts, and feelings other than my own.

I have to set aside my perspectives, if only momentarily, to step into the world of the other person. To to do that, I need to “kill my little darlings” and consider the thought that I just might be wrong.

In my blog reading this weekend, I read this great post by Kare Anderson over at Say It Better. Check this post on Getting Others to Stop Arguing: What We Can Learn From Obama’s Cairo Speech.

Tammy Lenski at Conflict Zen is taking a poll on what frustrates people most in conflict situations. I am really looking forward to seeing the results of her poll.

To voice your opinion, answer Tammy’s question here: What frustrates you most in conflict situations?

Tension between co-workers is one of the more common sources of emotional “pressure” build-up for people. Left unaddressed for long enough, the pressure can build to the point of a blow-up.  Fortunately, you can do something about it before the tension becomes a major conflict.

1. Create opportunities for people to better understand and appreciate their behavioral differences and similarities.

In my work with both teams and individuals over the last few years, this one concept has created more significant and long-lasting positive impact than any other that I have encountered.

Pretty much everyone can see that people come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and behavioral styles. Recognizing our differences does not always lead to better understanding and reduced tension. In many cases, just recognizing the differences without developing appreciation for them will increase the tension between people.

I use and recommend the DISC Model of Human Behavior as the tool to accomplish the goal of developing understanding and appreciation. Like any tool, DISC can be applied inappropriately. So, I also recommend that you work with a certified trainer or coach when you apply the principles of this model in your organization.

2. Give people a chance to improve their communication skills.

Misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and miscommunication form the basis for much of the tension between co-workers.

Studies of domestic violence indicate that poor communication skills are a major risk factor for personal conflicts to escalate to violence. The workplace does not generally trigger the same emotional response intensity as a family relationship. So, I seldom get concerned that workplace tension will reach the same intensity as many domestic disputes. Still, the learning point remains: better communication skills tend to reduce the tensions that lead to unresolved conflict.

3. Help people develop higher level conflict resolution skills.

Most people learn basic conflict resolution skills as they experience work and family situations. Sometimes, the nature, duration, or intensity of the conflict can grow beyond their normal skills in this area. When this happens, people do not know what to do to resolve the conflict; and the tensions begin to grow. Help people to develop higher level conflict resolution skills, and they will know how to reduce the tension without escalating the situation unnecessarily.

4. Clarify role responsibilities and how each person’s role aligns with both team and personal success.

Lack of clarity about role responsibilities and how each role aligns with team and personal success can create tension between co-workers. Taking the time to ensure absolute clarity about your expectations of each person’s responsibilities can reduce this source of tension in the workplace.

5. Create opportunities for low-stress “face-time.”

I once worked with a man who had previous experience as the vice-president of a major multi-national corporation. He told me that he saw people who had been friends, when they worked in the same office, begin to doubt and distrust each other when one of them moved to a new office in a different state or country. I have seen the same response in shift operations when one person moves to a new shift.

Part of our “trust wiring” seems to revolve around the social aspect of seeing people in person. Creating opportunities for low-stress face-to-face communications can provide some relief to low level tension between people.

Thought for Thursday: If you have unresolved tensions in your workplace, look for a solution in these five steps you can take to reduce tension between co-workers.

Last week, my wife and my youngest daughter experienced a communication breakdown. In short, my daughter, at age 13, changed her plans without consulting my wife. This created a problem for two reasons:

1. My daughter moved to a different location than the previously agreed upon location for pick-up, and
2. My daughter’s schedule directly impacts my wife’s schedule.

Understandably, my wife felt frustrated and angry. Rather than address the issue while she was angry, she waited until we could speak about it on Saturday morning.

As we discussed the appropriate parental response, my wife’s frustration from the previous day came to the surface. For a brief moment, she considered “punishing” my daughter. As we spoke, I asked one question: “What is your objective? Do you want to punish her because you are angry or do you want to make sure this behavior does not happen again in the future?” (I’m not convinced that I phrased this question in the best way for her in the moment.)

She stopped briefly. Then she said: “When you put it that way, I suppose I want to make sure this does not happen again in the future.”

In that moment, my wife’s intended actions began to move towards appropriate and natural consequences for my daughter’s behavior and away from consequences that would likely communicate vengeance and anger.

My daughter did not intend to cause problems for her mother. She just did not think through all of the implications of her decision. She has some things to learn. My wife and I need to help her learn them.

My wife did not intend to harm my daughter, she wanted to protect her from making poor decisions in the future. In the emotion of the situation, she initially had a difficult time seeing past her anger.

I had the “emotional upper hand” in this situation. I was not emotionally involved in the events of the previous day. I could easily, in this case, make an objective, third-party observation. My wife lived the situation, and her emotions were directly involved. She had a more difficult time making the switch in thinking because of her emotional investment. She did it. It just was not easy for her to do.

After my wife shifted her thinking about the situation, we then discussed it  further. After a few minutes, we came to an agreement about how to handle the situation in a way that would improve our odds of achieving our real objective – teaching our daughter a life lesson that will serve her well beyond the time she lives with us.

Monday Momentum Message – Be clear about your real objective before you confront another person.

     Many of the leaders that I work with express frustration with “attitudes” as they work to resolve workplace conflicts.

     Guy Harris, The Recovering Engineer

Related Articles:

Six Tips for Confronting Negative Behaviors

Address One Issue at a Time

Seven Ways to Improve Your Communication During a Conflict

Focus On The Future