In the Queen’s IRC Strategies for Workplace Conflicts course, we start by asking participants what they would particularly like help with in their workplace.  A common response is “difficult / high conflict people”.  However you define it, this is a huge challenge in today’s workplace and, unless it is handled well, it takes significant time, energy and expertise away from the work to be done.

Most people have heard about Serena Williams’ public outburst at the U.S. Open this fall.[1] Her behaviour and words were shocking and unexpected.  Does that make her a “difficult” or “high conflict” person?  If so, then how does that change our thinking about the situation and the complex issues that emerged afterwards?

When we encounter these situations in the workplace, it is important to try to avoid the very human desire to label people and move on.  There are better ways to handle things.

The focus of this article is to suggest three key principles:

1. Start with self-assessment
2. Focus on the behaviours not the person
3. Find and use accessible tools and skills to handle these situations effectively

1. Start with self-assessment

Tammy Lenski quotes psychologist Jeffrey Kottler:  “Every person you fight with has many other people in his life with whom he gets along quite well.  You cannot look at a person who seems difficult to you without also looking at yourself.”[2]

It is probably safe to say that the chances that we can actually change another person are pretty low.  So it makes sense that we need to start by examining ourselves.

Because we view the world only through our own eyes, it is often very hard to see how we may have contributed to a situation or to certain difficult behaviours.  Categorization is a cognitive tool to help us assert control and manage uncertainty or complexity.  In some ways, it simplifies our lives to put people in boxes, like calling someone who disagrees with us “difficult”.  We all have blind spots (the things that we don’t know we don’t know) and the minute we label someone we deprive ourselves of the opportunity to identify and learn from our blind spots or to see the situation from the other’s viewpoint.

In addition, if we label we open ourselves up to a variety of implicit biases, most notably:

• Confirmation bias which causes us to look only for information that supports our original preconception
• Stereotyping which can lead to “us” and “them” approaches
• Fundamental attribution error, a bias which causes us to attribute another person’s poor behaviour to a serious personality issue, but attribute our own poor behaviour to a tough context or situation

What is the best way to uncover our blind spots?  Curiosity plus vulnerability (which Brené Brown wisely says also involves great courage).[3]  We need to pause and ask people we trust about the situation and our perceptions. Are they fair, balanced, accurate?

We can also benefit from strengthening our empathy muscle.  More on that below.

2. Focus on the behaviours not the person

I can be very “difficult”.  I remember a time when I was trying to advocate for a very ill family member in the health system.  Looking back, I was probably perceived to be like the proverbial “dog with a bone” because I had a particular question I needed to be answered and none of the experts seemed able to provide an answer in a clear way.  If the experts chose to label me as “difficult” in that situation they would be more likely to dismiss my concerns instead of trying to find out what my underlying issues were and how to resolve them.

Tammy Lenski points out that most of us can be difficult in certain situations or with certain people but that doesn’t merit the label of “difficult person”.[4]  When confronted by difficult behaviour we need to resist the temptation to conclude that someone is crazy, stupid or evil.

I suggest that in conflict, people’s “difficult” behaviours can fall into four broad categories:

• Upset – anyone can be upset for a wide variety of reasons
• One off or contextual behaviour seen as difficult – most of us
• Repeated patterns of difficult behaviour (the group Bill Eddy refers to as “high conflict personalities”) – some of us
• Personality disorders – a few of us

The fourth category needs training to diagnose, but if it is present, it may be helpful to call in various kinds of skilled support (EAP, counselling, etc.).

Bill Eddy’s reference to “patterns of behaviours” is helpful because it focuses on the behaviour and not on the person.[5]  We need to avoid a quick judgment (e.g. “difficult person”) since our assumptions may hide helpful information.  There may be something else going on.  Sometimes they are people who are being scapegoated.  Sometimes they are raising important issues that the organization needs to hear but would rather avoid.

Research confirms that the most successful teams (and organizations) have high levels of “psychological safety”, which means a culture which actively fosters the belief that one will not be criticized, rejected or punished for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes.[6]

Further, Amy Edmonson (Harvard Business School) found that:

“.. the best employees for promoting organizational learning are often those who never leave well enough alone, pointing out mistakes and flawed practices. But those who management rates as top performers are often those who silently do what they’re told and what has always been done—and don’t annoy their superiors with complaints and questions about flawed practices.”[7]

In a setting with low psychological safety, it is likely that the employee who “never leaves well enough alone” will be labeled as “difficult” and his or her input will be discounted or ignored.  This result could be an enormous loss to the organization.  How can we continue to value the person and their input, and focus on addressing any inappropriate behaviour in a healthy way?

Professor Julie Macfarlane commented on the Serena Williams scenario:  “What I am trying to point out is that Serena shows us how easily and quickly we buy into a demonized evaluation of someone and their behaviour.”[8]  The tennis court is Serena’s workplace.  Did this situation involve a clear pattern of behaviour or was this a one-off unfortunate event?  Many people were quick to judge her and some of the comments have the hint of confirmation bias working behind the scenes.  In the middle of her tirade she was trying to make a point about important issues at least worth talking about.  I’m not saying her behaviour was acceptable.  It wasn’t.  But it is easier to dismiss or ignore what she was trying to communicate if we label her as a “difficult person”.

3. Find and use accessible tools and skills to handle these situations effectively

After doing our self-assessment and considering the nature of the behaviour, what do we DO to deal with a person’s difficult patterns of behaviour in the workplace?  This is where our empathy muscle comes in handy.  Some people in the workplace who create or participate in patterns of difficult behaviour:[9]

• Experience conflict as part of who they are. It’s a life-long personality pattern of thinking, feeling, and acting.
• May be starved for empathy, attention and respect
• May have alienated everyone around them
• Are used to being rejected, disrespected and ignored
• May use conflict as a way to get attention – even negative attention is better than none at all
• Tend to attack those closest to them or those in authority
• Are usually incapable of logical talk about or insight into themselves or others
• Have trouble feeling empathy
• Tend to blame others (Brené Brown describes blaming as our brain’s way of discharging pain or anger and avoiding accountability[10])

Knowing this, I feel compassion for people whose patterns of behaviours eventually sabotage their own happiness in inexplicable ways.  They can end up very lonely people since they push everyone away, even those who are very caring and want to help.

Bill Eddy advocates for starting with curiosity and then developing and communicating empathy, attention and respect.  Curiosity and active listening help us to avoid snap judgments and implicit biases and can improve psychological safety.  Empathy can lead us to different responses that can have a profound influence on how we deal with the behaviours.

These approaches seem, at first, counter-intuitive when we see the impact of difficult behaviour on the people we work with.  But remember that if we start with punishment, we may just be feeding that person’s need for attention rather than helping to shift the behaviours.

There are effective tools, skills and training available to help you navigate difficult behaviours.  I highly recommend both Bill Eddy’s High Conflict Institute[11] and Tammy Lenski’s website, podcast and blog.[12]  Both provide very valuable resources on this topic.  I have found that knowledge alone is not enough.  We need to learn skills that take practice to master.  I encourage you to seek out training and you will see a difference.

The good news?  These skills are useful with everyone – not just those exhibiting difficult behaviours.  Bonus.

Join us at the Queen’s IRC Strategies for Workplace Conflicts program to learn more about dealing with difficult behaviours and many other things.

About the Author

Kari D. Boyle is a conflict engagement practitioner, consultant, trainer and retired lawyer. She served as Executive Director of Mediate BC Society for ten years followed by one year as its Director of Strategic Initiatives. She enjoys using her legal, mediation and management experience to improve citizens’ access to viable and affordable conflict management options in the workplace and beyond. Previously, she practiced corporate commercial litigation in Vancouver for 14 years, worked in-house for 6 years specializing in legal services management, led mediation research initiatives at UBC, served as an adjunct professor at UBC Law School and provided support to the Civil Justice Reform Working Group and the initiative to create a new set of Supreme Court Civil Rules in British Columbia. She is currently the Coordinator of the BC Family Justice Innovation Lab, a member of the Access to Justice BC Leadership Group.

Kari is a facilitator with the Queen’s IRC Strategies for Workplace Conflicts program.

Footnotes

[1] ESPN. (2018, September 08). 2018 US Open Highlights: Serena Williams’ dispute overshadows Naomi Osaka’s final win | ESPN. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiBrForlj-k

[2] Lenski, T. (2017, December 04). How to deal with difficult people: A mediator’s strategy. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from https://lenski.com/how-to-deal-with-difficult-people/

[3] Brown, B. (n.d.). The power of vulnerability. Retrieved September 28, 2018, from https://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_on_vulnerability

[4] Lenski, T. (2017, December 04). How to deal with difficult people: A mediator’s strategy. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from https://lenski.com/how-to-deal-with-difficult-people/

[5] Eddy, B. (n.d.). Who Are High Conflict People? Retrieved October 1, 2018, from https://www.highconflictinstitute.com/who-are-high-conflict-people/

[6] Lewis, A. R. (2018, June 28). The Two Traits of the Best Problem-Solving Teams. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from https://hbr.org/2018/04/the-two-traits-of-the-best-problem-solving-teams

[7] Sutton, R. I. (2018, August 13). How Bosses Waste Their Employees’ Time. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-bosses-waste-their-employees-time-1534126140

[8] Macfarlane, J. (2018, September 10). Crazy, Uncontrolled, Bad: How Serena Williams was Punished. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from https://representingyourselfcanada.com/crazy-uncontrolled-bad-how-serena-williams-was-punished/

[9] Eddy, B. (n.d.). Who Are High Conflict People? Retrieved October 1, 2018, from https://www.highconflictinstitute.com/who-are-high-conflict-people/

[10] Hurlock, H. (2018, June 05). Two Lessons on Blame from Brené Brown. Retrieved from https://www.mindful.org/two-lessons-on-blame-from-brene-brown

[11] High Conflict Institute. (n.d.). Retrieved October 1, 2018, from http://www.highconflictinstitute.com/

[12] Lenski, T. (n.d.). Retrieved October 1, 2018, from http://www.lenski.com/

It may seem like an oxymoron to have the words “benefit” and “conflict” in the same sentence. Our workplaces today often involve varying levels of interpersonal and institutional conflict and so much energy is devoted to prevention and management it is understandably difficult to understand how conflict could possibly have a positive side!

It helps to remember that conflict (including disagreement, difference of opinion, concern, complaint, friction, etc.) is not inherently good or bad.1  It is an inevitable result of human beings associating with each other in the world, in our families and in our workplaces.  There are many articles and blog posts trumpeting the “benefits of conflict” but, on reflection, this phrase is much too simplistic.  It is not the conflict that directly creates benefits, it is dealing with the conflict well.2 The key to unlocking the benefits of conflict is learning to engage effectively with conflict when it arises.

I have learned much about conflict and conflict engagement from Bernie Mayer. In his Queen’s IRC article The Paradox of Leadership: Cooperating to Compete, Following to Lead 3, he emphasizes that how we “set the stage for the effective use of conflict and how we respond to conflict is critical to our effectiveness as leaders”.  This is a leadership competency and these skills are becoming more and more in demand.  We can’t deny, avoid or prevent all conflict. So what can we, as leaders, do?  Bernie suggests what to some may be a revolutionary concept:

The more important challenge is to create the space for conflict to occur in a constructive way for people to raise difficult and contentious issues, and for leaders to be exposed to often uncomfortable disagreements.  Otherwise, problems fester, important views are squelched and effective communication is inhibited.

So there are good reasons NOT to allow conflict to fester, but what are the potential positive benefits that could flow from providing such a safe space for conflict to occur?

My research and experience has revealed many benefits from engaging well with conflict. Five of the most important benefits which relate to workplace conflict are:

1. Earlier Problem Identification

Workplace conflict can shine a light on deeper problems that need to be addressed.  Even the most seemingly trivial disagreements might stem from underlying unaddressed issues that, if not addressed, are likely to fester and then explode down the road.  Thoughtful managers can watch for patterns in the workplace and engage early with the involved staff before the workplace is disrupted by a full-fledged conflict.

Similarly, conflict can identify practices and processes that need to be improved or replaced.

2. Better Problem-Solving

The best ideas and solutions flow from healthy discussions involving a diversity of perspectives.4 But this goal can be difficult to attain.  It is challenging when our work colleagues disagree with our opinions or suggestions.  Different viewpoints can sometimes result in friction or even outright conflict.  Sometimes one or two voices tend to dominate discussions in the workplace leaving others without real opportunities to express their views at all.  These dynamics can lead to disengagement, poor buy-in and less than optimal solutions.

If staff members can learn to engage with these kinds of conflicts in constructive ways, then disagreements are not only normalized but can be seen to be an important piece of joint problem-solving.  If everyone feels comfortable expressing their views, more ideas are generated and differences of opinion become opportunities to hone and improve ideas into workable solutions.  These are critical life skills which can be applied in the workplace and beyond.  In addition, conflict engagement is an important leadership skill and employees who seek training and experience in this area may have better chances for advancement within the organization.

3. Healthy Relationships, Morale and Commitment

Conflict that is denied, avoided, suppressed or handled ineffectively can harm relationships.  Human beings can form inaccurate assumptions about the intentions of others which, unless surfaced and examined, can undermine important working relationships.  On the other hand, if staff feel comfortable raising differing views, concerns or complaints and they see that these are heard and respected by their peers and management then their relationships with each other and with the organization can be strengthened.

In one organization I was involved in, some members of a critical stakeholder group felt disenfranchised by a decision made by the organization that they argued didn’t take that group’s interests into account.  While initially denying their concerns and escalating the conflict, the organization was able to pivot by expressing willingness to participate in an open dialogue about the issues.  Three well-facilitated circle processes were held and were well attended. Participants reported that they felt their concerns were heard and respected.  The organization benefited from the healthy dialogue and relationships were strengthened.

4. Improved Productivity

There will likely be an investment of time and energy at the outset to prepare individuals and teams to recognize and engage well with various kinds of workplace conflict.  However, conflict that is handled well will free up people to focus on their jobs rather than tensions in the office which will lead to higher productivity, efficiency and effectiveness.

The most successful teams involve a diversity of backgrounds and approaches.  By virtue of their training and experience, many lawyers are “black hat thinkers” who tend to focus on risk and possible negative outcomes.  When we are trying to change things or encourage innovation and creativity this approach can be annoying.  Some team members may dislike having their ideas challenged in this way, which can cause discord.  However, a well-functioning team with training in effective conflict engagement can benefit from rigorous black hat and other types of thinking in order to hone and improve its ideas.

5. Personal Growth and Insight

Conflictual situations can help us to learn more about ourselves and others.  There is nothing like a difficult disagreement to reveal not only what we care about, but also our default approaches and reactions.  We may not always show up as our “best selves” when in the midst of a heated discussion or when confronted by stinging criticism.  However, in each of these situations, if we are open to it, then there is likely to be an important insight about ourselves that is worthy of learning.  Self-awareness is the first step to managing ourselves better in the future.

We can learn about our work colleagues in the midst of conflict.  It may be helpful to know, in advance, how they react in certain situations and to take that information into account when we are working with them in the future.

If I look back on my life so far, I realize that much of my greatest learning came not from those moments of peace and tranquility (although they were lovely!) but from experiences of conflict with others, including colleagues in the workplace.  By reflecting on those experiences I have realized that my personality (or perhaps my legal training) led me to be defensive and unaware of my many blind spots.  Self-awareness then led me to a determination to unlearn some responses and to nurture other (more healthy) approaches.  I am still a work in process but I am grateful for those difficult conflictual experiences.

Conflict is hard.  Imagine rather than expending our energy and time avoiding or “preventing” conflict, you, your team or your organization could welcome conflict, knowing that you have the tools and skills to harness multiple benefits from engaging with conflict well.  The good news is that these skills can be learned and, if you haven’t already done so, I encourage you to seek out training to support your efforts.  You will not be sorry.

About the Author

Kari Boyle is a conflict management practitioner, mediator, trainer consultant and retired lawyer.  She served as Executive Director of Mediate BC Society for ten years followed by one year as its Director of Strategic Initiatives.  She has a particular interest in effective conflict engagement, access to justice and system change and recently completed her term as Project Manager for Mediate BC’s “Family Unbundled Legal Services Project”. She is currently Coordinator of the BC Family Justice Innovation Lab, a member of the Access to Justice BC Leadership group and a Board member of the Courthouse Library Society of BC.

Kari was also a facilitator for the Queen’s IRC Strategies for Workplace Conflicts program.

Footnotes

1  With the exception of conflict resulting from behaviour which is violent or abusive.

2  The opposite is also true: conflict can be harmful if it is not dealt with effectively.  “Dealing well with conflict” will look different in each situation.  Sometimes it means helping the parties to reach a full resolution; sometimes it is necessary to escalate a conflict in order to make important social change. A boycott, protest or strike is an example of this dynamic.

3 Mayer, B. (2016). The Paradox of Leadership: Cooperating to Compete, Following to Lead. Queen’s University IRC.  Retrieved November 15, 2017 from https://irc.queensu.ca/the-paradox-of-leadership-cooperating-to-compete-following-to-lead/ 

4 Rock, D. & Grant, H. (2016, November 4). Why Diverse Teams are Smarter. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved November 15, 2017, from https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter.