Posts Tagged ‘resolving conflict’

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.

Photo by Menage a Moi

Have you ever looked at someone else’s behavior and thought that it made no sense at all? Did your confusion over their reasoning lead you to criticize them? Did your criticism lead to conflict?

If you have ever gone down this path to conflict, I can certainly understand. I have done it, too.

I used to wonder why so many people did things that just did not make sense. Sometimes, this line of thinking led me to “help” the other person by attempting to “correct” their thinking.

This approach did not help them or me in very many situations.

So, I started to keep my mouth shut and carry my frustration with them inside. I found that this internal frustration with others also led to conflict in many situations.

Then, I learned something really powerful: everything that everyone does makes sense – to them.

From an innocent two-year old child to a serial killer, everyone’s words and actions make sense to them. In their view of the world, it makes sense. From their perspective, what they did or said made perfect sense at the time.

People might later reflect on their behaviors and wonder what they were thinking when they did or said something. Still, at the time they did or said it, it made sense to them.

Since learning this idea, I have learned a number of behavior models, communication strategies, and interaction processes to help me better understand other people’s perspectives. As I have learned these additional concepts, I have also learned to make sense of their words and actions even when their words and actions are completely different from my normal reaction.

While I have learned many tools to help me in this area, the real path to lower frustration and conflict with others began when I realized that everything other people do makes sense to them.

In The Phantom Menace, the great Jedi master Yoda says: “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

Fear in one or both parties is often the root of conflict, and we all fear something.

Some people fear losing control. Some fear looking bad in front of others. Other people fear confrontation. Still others fear having to make a decision with limited information. I could go on and on listing the fears we confront in our interactions with others.

To successfully resolve conflict, someone has to step outside the fear and get a handle on it so that it doesn’t lead to anger, hate and suffering.

The question for today is: What are you afraid of?

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.

My Daughters

I prefer to be alone. I value people. I respect people. I can appreciate people. I don’t necessarily like people.

I am doubly task-oriented. That means I have significantly more task orientation than people orientation. I don’t want bad things to happen to people. I don’t want people to be harmed. I just prefer to be alone and working than with people and interacting. Even relational activities tend to become tasks in my mind.

Some people will read this post (roughly 65% of all people are more people-oriented than task-oriented) and feel that I am a little bit rude and inconsiderate.

Other people (the other 35%) will read this post and think that they finally found someone who “gets” their perspective.

Potential conflict looms in that difference of perspective.

Here’s a story to illustrate my point.

Several years ago, my wife and I began taking our daughters to school on most mornings to have time to connect with them for a few minutes in the morning. One morning about 18 months ago, I came almost entirely unglued with them as we were leaving because we were “behind schedule.”

For clarity sake, let me explain the situation. If we leave home before 7:40 am, we get ahead of the school buses, and I get back home at about 8:10-8:15. If we leave home after 7:40 am, we travel behind the school buses, and I get back home at about 8:30-8:45. So, a 2 or 3 minute variation in departure time can make a roughly 30 minute difference in my total drive time. Either way, the girls get to school on time. The only issue is when I return home.

On the morning in question, I had no appointments or specific time commitments that would be impacted by the extra drive time. Still, I was ready to kill my daughters because they were making me “late” for appointments that I didn’t have.

Looking back, it’s really pretty funny. I chose to do something for a relational purpose and, for me, it became a task. I completely forgot the relationship side of the “drive the kids to school” plan, and I started to focus only on the task component (the time invested in it).

Fortunately, I realized my misplaced focus, and I apologized to my daughters that evening. We all learned from the experience, and we moved on to a higher level of mutual understanding.

Conflict can come from many different things. In my experience, a large number of workplace conflicts come from a difference in these perspectives. Task-oriented people viewing relational activities as tasks and people-oriented people viewing tasks as a chance to interact with people. When the two perspectives collide, sparks can fly.

In my case, I have to force myself to see the importance of investing time in building relationships with others. I have to quiet the voice in my head that constantly asks me what I am accomplishing every waking minute. I have to accept that building a relationship can actually be “doing something productive.”

I have learned that one of the keys to effectively resolving conflict is the ability to see both the people AND the task side of an issue instead of taking a people OR a task perspective. Both are important. Both bring value.

Which way do you naturally lean? What do you need to do to be more in balance? When you are in balance, you can be the catalyst for resolving many workplace conflicts.

Today, I read two really good posts concerning the work of Albert Mehrabian. I enjoyed reading and comparing the two interpretations of Mehrabian’s work by both Bert Decker and Olivia Mitchell.

There seems to be some good-natured contention about what his research actually indicates, and I don’t know enough about the details of the research to add my two cents to the discussion. I do want to draw attention to both his research and the discussion about it from a workplace conflict resolution standpoint.

When we are in conflict with people close to us (at work, at church, at school, or in our family), we generally have ample opportunity to observe them in all sorts of situations. Over time, we start to pick-up on little non-verbal clues emanating from their body language.

Here’s what I draw from the discussion about Mehrabian’s work with regard to its application to resolving conflict in teams: the non-verbal message conveys a significant portion of the emotional message communicated.

I won’t even begin to discuss what percentage of the communication it represents. I’m not going to offer any interpretation of whether his study represents the listener’s feelings about the speaker, the listener’s thoughts about the speaker’s feelings, or the listener’s feelings about the speaker’s feelings. I haven’t read the actual study. I’ve just read other people’s interpretations of his findings.

Here is one point that seems to be pretty well accepted (I think), when non-verbal messages and verbal messages are inconsistent (or perceived to be inconsistent), the non-verbal message trumps the verbal message.

I’m sure that all of us have been on the receiving end of an “I’m just fine” said with a sarcastic tone and a roll of the eyes. In those moments, most of us realize that “I’m just fine” actually means “I’m really irritated, but I don’t want to tell you that.”

So, my thought for workplace and family conflict resolution is this: watch your non-verbal messages. People have a sense for your real emotional state no matter what words you use in an attempt to cover it up.

Instead of insinuating your true emotions with non-verbal clues, develop good conflict communication habits that honestly express your thoughts and feelings so that you don’t leave them open to interpretation (or misinterpretation) by others. Learn to use assertive communication techniques that clarify emotions in place of passive or aggressive communication techniques that tend to escalate rather than resolve the conflict.

Photo courtesy of www.sxc.hu

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.

When people are physically uncomfortable, they generally have difficulty focusing on the work at hand, and they tend to become emotionally sensitive and irritable. Both of these conditions contribute to reduced productivity and higher levels of workplace conflict.

Here are three of the most common issues I see as I work with my clients:

1. Space Constraints

This constraint can take many forms, but it always adds some level of stress to the work environment. The constraints might be caused by file cabinets, equipment, physical limitations of the building, or just other people in the workplace.

Many business leaders do not have the spending authority necessary to build a bigger facility. Even if they do, the business income may not support the desire to add space. While you may not have the ability to increase the physical space, you can be sensitive to the issue and take whatever action is in your control.

For example, you might be able to:

• Give people more short breaks so that they can “stretch their legs” for a moment.
• Find ways to reduce or eliminate extra “stuff” that takes up space unnecessarily.
• Add mirrors or change the color so that the space “feels” bigger to people.

2. Resource Constraints 

In an ideal world, we could give our team everything they need to do the job, and they would completely understand when we cannot. They would also have a team-oriented mindset that would stop them from bickering with each other when they find themselves competing for limited resources.

Maybe you work in the ideal place. I have not seen it happen very often. In virtually every business where I have worked, some level of stress and conflict happens as the result of people competing for resources. The resource could be tools, the coffee pot, the copier, the department administrative assistant, or your time. Whatever resource is limited, it will generate tension between people and their environment. This tension creates emotional pressure that might relieve in unhealthy and unproductive ways.

Again, you might not have complete authority or sufficient budget to fix the problem entirely. You can acknowledge the problem and do what you can to mitigate it.

For example, you could:

• Help people develop better communication skills so that they can discuss the resource limitations without judging, blaming, and labeling each other.
• Work with people to develop an agreed upon schedule for resource use.
• Acknowledge the problem and make it safe to discuss.

3. Room Temperature 

This is a big one. I have seen some major workplace conflicts break out over room temperature. I have also heard leaders discuss how childish and immature this conflict can become. I acknowledge that the bickering created by stress over room temperature can look pretty silly to an outside observer. I also realize that the discomfort is very real for the people involved, and that physical discomfort creates emotional pressure that must be acknowledged and, as much as possible, relieved.

Again, completely fixing this problem or finding a compromise solution may be beyond your control. Here’s what you can do:

• Recognize that physical discomfort is a real source of frustration and emotional pressure.
• Make it safe to discuss by putting the issue in the open without judging, condemning, or criticizing the people involved.
• Work to resolve each person’s interest in being comfortable at work. Discuss the actions each person (including you) will take to find a solution that is as workable as possible for everyone involved.

If you can spend the money to remove these stressors, I encourage you to do so. In many cases, you cannot pursue that option. If you do not have the budget or the authority to truly fix the environmental issue, you can take action to provide safe, productive outlets for the emotional pressure that can build when these issues remain unresolved for a long period of time.

The first step to providing a safe, productive outlet lies with the leader recognizing and acknowledging the reality of the frustration without minimizing or criticizing it. You cannot fix the problem just by talking about it, but you can help to relieve the pressure so that it doesn’t “blowout” somewhere else.