Creating Kinder, More Productive Workplaces: Ongoing and Everyday Conflict Engagement

 Ongoing and Everyday Conflict EngagementConflict is tough for most of us. According to many physiologists, we tend to tap into several simple strategies when faced with conflict: fight, flight, or freeze. As a result, we likely aren’t reducing unnecessary conflicts, and effectively dealing with necessary conflicts in productive ways. So many opportunities are lost because we aren’t engaging well. Being effective at conflict, both in a proactive and reactive way, demands that we work at it as an ongoing and everyday activity. In essence, it is a lifestyle choice in how we talk, problem solve, inquire with others, and arrange our processes and teams.

There are a number of choices, activities, and strategies that can be used to enhance your organization’s ability to handle conflict in a better way. The following are just a few:

  1. Hold People Accountable for Negative Behaviors and Celebrate Positive Behaviors
    In working with organizations and leaders in many fields, I have found a few common missteps in conflict. One is the mishandling or lack of dealing with toxic people in our workplaces. They often get passes because they are good at their jobs or they are retiring soon, among various other reasons. The trouble is that they are doing grave damage to our teams and they also are setting a norm that bad behavior is allowed. Ultimately, we create workplace monsters by allowing the negative behaviors. Therefore, skills are needed to hold people responsible and foster realistic change.Additionally though, we also must praise those team members who collaborate, share work, ask questions, are kind and gracious to their peers, and participate in a culture of radical candor (the topic of an outstanding book by Kim Scott). It can be as simple as saying “thank you” for asking a question or providing well-informed constructive feedback. It may include features of a performance review and therefore financial incentives for sharing work and helping others with work. The key is to celebrate those times when people are exhibiting positive conflict behaviors.
  2. Ask More Questions. Ask Better Questions
    Experiences in our youth do little to promote the use of questions as a leadership tool. Therefore, it can be difficult to ask thoughtful and strategic questions “on the spot” when we are struggling with problems. Questions are such an important tool in conflict and any problem-solving activities. They lead to better problem identification and therefore more robust problem solving and even relationship building. People feel honoured, trusted, and included when they are involved via good questions and responses.Brainfishing: A Practice Guide to Asking Questions by Gary Furlong and Jim Harrison, is a particularly helpful book that provides tools for improving the strategic and relationship-building use of questions. It provides ideas and steps for improving how you ask questions. First though we must disregard any natural tendencies to think that asking questions is a sign of weakness or dimness. We need to admit we don’t understand or that we need to understand more deeply. This leads to curiosity, which can lead to better outcomes for the people on our teams and on our projects. Just think about the last time you asked someone a genuine question. I imagine that thoughtfulness on your part led to a great discussion and an enriched relationship.
  3. Involve People Strategically
    The pendulum can swing really far when it comes to collaborative decision making and processes. Some organizations have embraced the principles of collaboration and yet they aren’t using it strategically enough. Signs of this include: people speaking disparagingly about meetings, people not implementing plans and decisions, and process fatigue (“Are we ever going to get anything done?”). Great leaders are thoughtful about the when, how, and who of inclusion. I liken it driving a stick shift; it takes practice and you have to push, release, and shift at the right moment for the transition to be smooth. The parts need to be moving together in a coordinated fashion at the right moments.It is important to ask people how and when they want to be involved, and then respond when you can’t meet those needs and include them in the ways they want when possible. Additionally, team members need to advocate for themselves and their peers when they need to be included in an important plan or project decision. People don’t need deep involvement in each and every step typically, yet we need to consider how we involve them in order to provide the opportunity for their voices to be heard and our processes and final products to be that much better.
  4. Provide for Various and Dynamic Conflict Modes
    Conflict competent teams are part of conflict competent organizations, meaning that every person in the system has some degree of conflict-engagement skills and there are clear avenues for handling conflict. The modes have to work for the people in the system. Some systems include online features, clear policies and processes, more ongoing and consistent performance review channels, training workshops, committees/boards, purposeful interpersonal interactions, policy/procedure reviews, one-on-one conversations, coaching, formal processes (e.g. mediation), and disciplinary processes. By no means is this list exhaustive but it gives a sense of the many moving parts of a conflict competent organization.Identifying the appropriate modes for any organization involves steps; talking with people to identify the right ways of handling conflict, designing how these processes will operate in your organization, building awareness around the modes, experimenting with the modes, correcting any inadequacies, and evaluating in an ongoing way are just some of the steps. These steps can take time and may need outside help, but they are invaluable in having a conflict competent organization.

In order to do all of the above, there is a fundamental characteristic of the organization and it is to:

  1. Gain Executive-level Support for a Collaborative Culture
    It is entirely possible for a team in an organization to do #1-4 in an organization that doesn’t, but they are limited by their surroundings, policies, norms, and executive leadership that foster those surroundings, policies, and norms. In order for conflict competency and collaboration to occur in every team and in every meeting, disciplinary process, and strategic planning session, the executive team must support the principles and build and use the skills themselves. This doesn’t mean simply setting policies and changing the hierarchical structure. It means diving deep into the organizational culture in order to create new systems, structures, and therefore relationships. Too often, this isn’t the starting point but it should be.

The “why” of this is important. People are demanding this type of interaction in their workplaces, communities, and other team-oriented activities more. This is particularly true of our emerging generations. Each of these helps people to feel more connected to their employers and fellow team members. Rather than mistreating one another over unnecessary conflict, coworkers can work alongside each other while also engaging in problem solving (i.e. conflict resolution) in a more robust way. People can start solving the problem that their organization is having. Numbers 1-4, in particular, provide a clearer path to helping our workplaces become kinder, more collegial spaces. Work can be tough at times, often because of how we interact with our colleagues. It is so much better to work in an environment in which there is the expectation that we are supportive, collaborative, and kind to one another through even the most difficult of times. This frees our time at work to be more productive and doing so in a collaborative and supportive way.

 

About the Author

Joan Sabott

Joan is a facilitator for the Queen’s IRC Strategies for Workplace Conflicts program. Joan Sabott is a practitioner, consultant, trainer, teacher, and coach in conflict engagement and resolution. Currently, she is an adjunct faculty at Creighton University in Omaha, NE, USA, on leadership and conflict.  Joan is an Affiliated Practitioner and former Senior Program Manager with The Langdon Group. She has consulted on various projects in the organizational sector for businesses and public agencies, and on environmental projects in the substantive areas of water, transportation, and land use and planning.  From one day (or hour) to the next, she is mediating, facilitating, coaching, advocating and providing impromptu training sessions on conflict-related topics. Joan holds a B.S.B.A. in History, a Certificate in Secondary Education, and a Masters in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution, all from Creighton University.

 

If you are interested in custom training on this topic, please contact Cathy Sheldrick at cathy.sheldrick@queensu.ca.

 

References

Furlong, G. T., & Harrison, J. (2018). Brainfishing: a practice guide to questioning skills. Place of publication not identified: FriesenPress.

Scott, K. (2019). Radical candor: be a kick-ass boss without losing your humanity. New York: St. Martins Press.

3 Bad Habits that Impede Successful Conflict Resolution in the Workplace

3 Bad Habits that Impede Successful Conflict Resolution in the WorkplaceA habit can be defined as a “usual manner of behavior.” But what I know about conflict is that there is often nothing “usual” about it. What happens to those of us who support others in conflict is that we tend to reach for the same set of tools each time, although we often are trying to solve very different problems. Even with the best of intentions, these habits can result in frustration, shallow or even bad resolutions, and won’t meet the needs of the people in conflict. Here are some common habits when dealing with conflict and what can be done to overcome them.

Habit #1: Intervening With the Wrong Process

When problems, disputes, and conflicts arise, we habitually fall back on solutions that have worked in the past, or processes and policies with which we are comfortable. But using the same set of tools to help resolve all conflicts can’t take care of every job in our organizations any more than a hammer can fix a broken dishwasher.

Here are some examples and potential pitfalls:

  1. Mediation
    Mediation goes in waves of being the popular go-to conflict resolution strategy and a box to be checked. Mediation is an outstanding conflict resolution tool, but it isn’t appropriate to put some parties through this process. If used in the wrong scenario, one or both parties can walk out harmed by the session and its outcomes. This can make real resolution to the conflict seem or be out of reach.
  1. Open-door Policies
    Open-door policies emerged when managers were attempting to create more transparent and conversational workplaces in which conflict was addressed at the most local level and became the de facto system for resolving any problems. Unfortunately, this policy works only for those bold enough to walk through that open door. Thus, many problems are left unknown and, therefore, unresolved.
  1. Arbitration
    Arbitration has become a boiler-plate feature of many contracts, employment and otherwise. It has its place, but often doesn’t meet some of the underlying needs of parties to have a stronger voice in the resolution of the conflict.
  1. Evaluations, Investigations and Fact-finding Processes
    Some organizations use evaluations/investigations/fact-finding processes as a means to resolve conflict. While good answers may come out of these types of processes, additional processes may need to be undertaken in order to build skills, address systemic conflict, and deal with underlying issues between individuals in the organization.

Interventions in conflict can do damage in some cases, when done inappropriately or ineffectively. Often, the best of intentions can lead to anything but the best outcomes.

Bernard Mayer, a prominent conflict writer and practitioner, writes, “the conflict resolution field has too often failed to address conflict in a profound or powerful way” and “this doesn’t mean abandoning old rules; rather, it means building on them and dramatically expanding what we offer to people in conflict.” (Mayer, Beyond Neutrality, 3). There are so many roles that great leaders, managers, human resource professionals, union representatives, etc. can play when problems arise between people.

I have been a part of conflicts where there was one difficult question that really needed to be asked. When the question was finally asked, it served as an intervention that led to resolution and even transformation; this can even occur after failed mediation sessions. Having a well-developed and broad spectrum of strategies and tools is helpful in addressing conflict in a tailored, appropriate way.

Habit #2: Trusting the Organization’s Selection of Conflict Process

Many people are unfamiliar with conflict processes, formal or informal. This is the case even when processes are agreed-upon terms of a contract or are part of an organization’s regular system for handling conflict. It can become a habit to use the standard conflict resolution process rather than spending the time to assess and ask the difficult questions to know what intervention they want and need.

Early on in my conflict career, a mentor once told me how she would often get calls asking for a mediator. They would explain the problem to her (people who aren’t versed in conflict resolution rarely portray their problems or issues as “conflicts”) and she would immediately start to ask them questions to better understand the story being told. The responses sometimes led her to the use of mediation. Sometimes though they led to her implementing some training for the organization, combined with a localized mediation for parties that might need and want it, and the establishment of some new processes to support the organization in the management of future conflict. Other times, the responses to her questions led her down a totally different path. No prescription was exactly the same, even if there were common strains among these organizational conflicts. Each intake conversation for a conflict led to a unique intervention or series of interventions to help the party or parties move forward.

Fostering good outcomes takes deliberative work that treats each conflict as something that can be understood better through best practices and a thorough attempt to assess the unique conflict at hand. Diving into well-developed tools, like the Wheel of Conflict (Bernard Mayer) and features of basic assessment outlined by Susskind and Jennifer Thomas-Larmer, partnered with curiosity and good communication skills, can help us to better understand all of the dynamics of a particular conflict. Then we can identify the best intervention to positively affect that particular conflict or problem and the people involved.

A harmed party may demand a certain process for handling a dispute. A friend or colleague may have gone that route before or they might want to use a process that was mentioned at a recent union meeting. Slowing down and doing an assessment before jumping into a process, even ones that the parties might be adamant that they need, is the first and most important step before jumping into an intervention.

Habit #3: Implementing a Process the Parties Do Not Understand

Sometimes conflict processes within organizations are so understood by those implementing them that they often leave the conflict parties in the dust. Meaning, the people in conflict feel like they are having processes done “to” them instead of “with” them. Time is limited (e.g. we only have two hours for this mediation session) and so we jump into the thick of it. As a result, people can feel uninformed, unsafe, and unsure about the process and consequently, they may not trust the outcome. This doesn’t mean that our processes have to be easy for people or not include consequences when legitimate wrongdoing has occurred. It just means that educating them and checking in with them before, during, and after processes is part of implementing good conflict interventions. This is how we can do processes “with” people.

I liken this to a doctor’s visit. It is much better to know what a doctor is doing to us when poking and prodding so that we understand the follow-up visits, the lab orders, and the after-care instructions. When people are in conflict, whether they present themselves as the victims or offenders, they are uncertain and maybe even a bit afraid. Part of supporting people through conflict is ensuring that they understand the process, and that we are modifying our processes to better suit their needs. Imagine asking someone working through coaching or a mediation, “How is this working for you?” and “How can I make this work better for you?”

In addition to informing those in conflict about the processes being undertaken, being nimble and adapting our processes to work for the parties can be essential in working through conflicts.

Breaking Bad Habits

We all know that bad habits are easy to form and hard to correct. It takes time and practice to develop the skills and the habits that lead to good results. To get started:

  • Slow down. Ask questions before beginning an intervention.
  • Utilize well-researched tools to analyze and assess the conflict to determine appropriate intervention(s).
  • Communicate clearly and “check in” often with the parties in conflict.
  • Get training to expand your conflict resolution toolset.

By taking these steps, you can maximize opportunities to resolve conflict and reach better outcomes, while also promoting more effective engagement in conflict and within teams (or with coworkers) on a daily basis.

 

About the Author

Joan Sabott
Joan is a facilitator for the Queen’s IRC Strategies for Workplace Conflicts program.
Joan Sabott is a practitioner, consultant, trainer, teacher, and coach in conflict engagement and resolution. Currently, she is an adjunct faculty at Creighton University in Omaha, NE, USA, on leadership and conflict. Joan is an Affiliated Practitioner and former Senior Program Manager with The Langdon Group. She has consulted on various projects in the organizational sector for businesses and public agencies, and on environmental projects in the substantive areas of water, transportation, and land use and planning. From one day (or hour) to the next, she is mediating, facilitating, coaching, advocating and providing impromptu training sessions on conflict-related topics. Joan holds a B.S.B.A. in History, a Certificate in Secondary Education, and a Masters in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution, all from Creighton University.

 

 

References

Mayer, B. S. (2004). Beyond neutrality: Confronting the crisis in conflict resolution. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mayer, B. S. (2012). The Dynamics of Conflict: A Guide to Engagement and Intervention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Susskind, L., McKearnan, S., & Thomas-Larmer, J. (1999). The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. London: Sage Publications.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.