28

Moving From Conflict to Collaboration

In 1993, when she was Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright was a member of President Clinton’s national security team. She and General Colin Powell, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not agree on whether the United States and NATO should intervene to stop ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. In retrospect, Albright conceded that the general was right to be cautious, right to ask questions, and right to consider alternatives.¹

A workplace conflict is a condition between or among workers whose jobs are interdependent, who are angry or frustrated, who perceive the other(s) as being at fault, and who act in ways that cause a business problem. Constant changes in today’s workplace can fuel workplace conflict. These include changes in demographics and dimensions of diversity, and changes in organizational structure. Less hierarchical structures and a focus on teams require a more collaborative environment but provide a greater opportunity for differences. Over dependence on technology also contributes to the potential for conflict. The subtleties that accompany face-to-face communication, such as body language or facial expressions, are lost when using technology to communicate.

Chapter 26 discussed the need for developing skill in having critical conversations. Two alternatives to having effective conversations in crucial situations are to avoid them and suffer the consequences, or face them and handle them poorly.² Conflict is often avoided because of a lack confidence in the ability to defuse the situation and to provide the right solution. Will we get results or will we make a bad situation worse? Are the underlying issues understood by all the parties? Conflict at work can be perceived as negative, and there is a fear of being labeled a trouble maker for bringing an issue forward.

Conflict is not always negative. Conflict is often growth that is trying to happen. Distinguishing the differences between negative and positive conflict is the first step in moving to collaboration.

Conflict is negative when:

    Differences are not addressed.

    Expectations are not managed.

    Assumptions rather than facts are central to the disagreement.

    The individuals involved or affected don’t want to be part of the solution.

In a good or positive conflict³:

    The value of conflict and differences are honored and respected.

    Issues are open and not masked.

    Ideas not personalities are central.

    Emotions are managed and points of view expressed in a skillful and respectful manner.

In a good conflict, relationships and the resolution process are valued. Just like positive critical conversations, collaboration at work requires some preparation in order to have positive outcomes. The resolution process involves three steps: Acknowledge it, assess it, and address it.

Acknowledge It

Acknowledging the conflict begins with dispelling the myth that conflict always has to be negative, and recognizing the characteristics and the advantages of a “good” conflict.

The parties involved must agree that there is a problem and identify the source of the tension. Creating an effective atmosphere is important to acknowledging the problem. For example, approach the other person and say, “We’ve been having difficulties lately when we talk about.”

The sources of tension in a conflict can include:

    Relationships.

    Fear of eroding good working relationships.

    Fear of involving others.

    Possessiveness of other parties, such as clients, employees, or teammates.

    Data—inaccurate or no information.

    Interest—competition between perceived or actual needs or conflicting interests.

    Structural/organizational issues (for example, limited resources or poor role definition).

Why do relationships matter? Flatter organizations and wider spans of control have dispersed power in organizations, giving lower-level managers and employees greater autonomy to take action and make decisions. With power dispersed, people need to negotiate solutions to problems with others over whom they may have little or no formal authority.⁴

Assess It

Assessing the conflict involves determining the facts and the individuals involved, including the differences in personal styles.

Avoid assumptions and get the facts by:

    Keeping the discussion focused on the information needed.

    What are the important issues that must be identified?

    Maintaining control of the discussion.

    Varying the types of questions used.

    Ask questions to uncover other’s interests, needs, values, and assumptions.

    Ask, “Why is that important?”

    Get the other person’s perceptions of the issues.

    Ask, “Would you clarify the point that you made about?” or “Regarding _____, what’s important to you?”

Getting the facts means getting and giving good information.

    Get to the root of the issue.

    Be specific and get the details.

    Be curious; probe.

    Ask open-ended, who, what, when, where, why questions.

    Clarify terminology.

    Avoid speculation.

    Adjust your assumptions based on what you’ve learned.

    Encourage dialogue and create a two-way exchange of information.

    Beware of:

    Finger-pointing and placing blame.

    Identifying victims and villains.

    Trivial issues and helpless stories.

    Not identifying the underlying or root issue.

Not identifying the underlying or root issue. A critical success factor in moving to collaboration is to understand that individuals differ in their approach to conflict. Know your own style and learn to recognize the style of others. You can consciously choose to use a different style when appropriate and should practice using different styles. Recognize that all styles can work at one time or another depending on the situation.

    Appendix: Managing Conflict Through Open Communication.

There are five recognized modes for dealing with conflict that describe an individual’s behavior along two basic dimensions: (1) assertiveness, the extent to which the person attempts to satisfy his own concerns, and (2) cooperativeness, the extent to which the person attempts to satisfy the other person’s concerns.

1.    Competing attacks and likes to argue and debate. This type is competitive, assertive, and uncooperative, and can be threatening and intimidating, causing others to give in to avoid the argument. The competing type takes the stance of “win or lose,” often pursuing his or her own concerns at the other person’s expense. Competing means “standing up for your rights,” defending a position which you believe is correct, or simply trying to win.

2.    Accommodating is unassertive and cooperative—the complete opposite of competing. When accommodating, the individual neglects his or her own concerns because of high levels of concern about others. This type needs to please and be liked by others. Accommodating might take the form of yielding to another’s point of view, or giving in during disagreements even when the individual believes his or her ideas are better.

3.    Avoiding is unassertive and uncooperative; the person neither pursues his own concerns nor those of the other individual. This type will not commit and is unsure where he or she stands on issues. Often the individual conceals his or her interests. Avoiding might take the form of diplomatically sidestepping an issue, postponing an issue until a better time, or simply withdrawing from a threatening situation.

4.    Compromising is moderate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. The objective is to find some expedient, mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties. It falls between competing and accommodating. Compromising gives up more than competing but less than accommodating. This style is comfortable talking things through with others, but is intimidated by direct confrontation and will look to gain consensus or seek a quick middle-ground solution.

5.    Collaborating is both assertive and cooperative—the complete opposite of avoiding. Collaborating takes a win-win stance and involves an attempt to work with others to find some solution that fully satisfies his or her concerns. This style approaches conflict with skill and balance, understands the value of positive conflict, and often acts as a mediator. The collaborator will explore the issues in much greater depth than the compromiser and work to find a creative solution. This style recognizes the importance of focusing on interests and creating options in order to arrive at that creative solution.

Each of us is capable of using all five conflict-handling modes. None of us can be characterized as having a single style of dealing with conflict. But certain people use some modes better than others and, therefore, tend to rely on those modes more heavily than others—whether because of temperament or practice.⁵

Address It

In their book Getting to Yes, Roger Fisher and William Ury present a four-step process for addressing and resolving conflict⁶:

1.    Separate the people from the problem.

2.    Focus on interests, not positions.

3.    Create options.

4.    Insist on using objective criteria.

A common mistake made in conflict resolution is to place too much emphasis on the individuals involved in the situation. This can be linked to a fear of not wanting to damage a relationship. If the real issue is not identified, collaboration cannot be achieved. In separating the people from the problem:

    Focus on the problem, not the people involved.

    Identify the real versus the perceived problem.

    Explain the problem as you see it.

    Discuss the situation as you see it and ask for reactions.

    Find common issues and shared goals. “We agree on the importance of . Shall we look into it further?”

    Maintain constructive relationships.

    Give and get feedback. Don’t assume that others see things the same way you do.

    Proactively work to uncover problems by asking questions. “Is everything happening as you expected?”

    Put your opinions aside and show interest. “I’d like to hear more about the situation from your perspective.”

What if people are the problem? People problems often require more attention than substantive ones. In these cases it becomes necessary to⁸:

    Untangle substantive issues from relationship and process issues. Substantive issues include terms, conditions, prices, dates, numbers, and liabilities. Relationship issues include the balance of emotion and reason; ease of communication; degree of trust and reliability; attitude of acceptance or rejection; relative emphasis on persuasion; and degree of mutual understanding.

    Build a working relationship independent of agreement or disagreement. Agree to disagree.

    Negotiate the relationship and the people problems on their merits. Raise concerns without judging motivations.

    Distinguish how they treat you from how you treat them. Avoid responding in kind, which may only result in reinforcing the undesirable behavior.

    Most importantly, don’t personalize the conflict. Focus on the issues. When dealing with difficult attitudes, ask yourself:

    Why do I care about the issue?

    Why does the other person care?

    Is the problem the type of issue that can fuel a creative spark?

    What are the consequences of not resolving the issue amicably—to me, to the other person, and to the organization, including its stakeholders?

Focus on Interests, Not Positions

Interests are rooted in needs, concerns, desires, and fears often shared by both parties. A position is a way to get what you want. An interest is what you need to accomplish.⁹

Consider the following situation. Bob and Jan are part of a team that provides customized products to their clients. Bob, in customer service, feels that the customer relationship is most important. Jan, in technical service, feels that product, excellence is most important. They frequently clash, as she accuses him of merely charming the client without understanding what it takes to produce a quality product and he retorts with comments about her poor interpersonal skills scaring away the customers. Now Bob has to call Jan and discuss some changes to a client’s requirements. The client has asked for a technical representative to be at the meeting. Their mutual interests are the customer’s needs and company reputation. Their approach to accomplishing the customer’s needs vary.

Consider the following statement made to Dawn by her boss: “If you don’t land a new account by the end of the month, I’m going to have to let you go.”¹⁰ Dawn’s boss is obviously not pleased, but what is the true interest? Does he really want to fire Dawn, or is that the position he is taking to get her to increase sales? What does he need to accomplish?

Reveal your interests. Remember that in a good conflict, issues are not masked, but are in the open. Explain why your interests benefit the organization and others. Explain why it is important, not just what is important. Collaborate with the other party or parties to understand the underlying issue and avoid arguing over positions. Ask yourself, “Do I have a good argument?”

Create Options

Creating options moves parties off their positions. It provides an opportunity to explore collective versus individual points of view and creates synergy. Brainstorm to create options for problem-solving and positive outcomes. Be curious and express genuine interest. A good brainstorming session will offer several points of view rather than opposing points of view.

Don’t use the brainstorming process to evaluate the ideas presented. Separate the process of generating ideas from the process of evaluating them. Every option should be on the table. Value the dialogue rather than the debate.

As you are creating options, ask yourself, “What assumptions am I making, that I’m not aware I’m making, that gives me what I see?”

And when you have an answer, ask yourself, “What options are now possible, that I haven’t yet considered, that would provide other choices?”

Use Objective Criteria

Use of objective criteria allows for efficiency and fairness. Time will not be spent talking about positions, but rather possible standards and solutions. Objective criteria are independent of each side’s will, are practical, and are legitimate. Fair standards may be based upon things such as market value, precedent, professional standards, scientific judgment, or equal treatment.¹¹ Safety or quality standards are examples of fair and independent standards. Objective criteria can include precedent, efficiency, and costs.

Objective criteria should appeal and relate to shared interests and shared standards. Shared interests can be common interests of the larger community, such as the organization or the industry in which the organization operates, as well as the mutual interests of the individuals involved. Objective criteria can be based on shared standards or values, such as equality, fairness, integrity, or quality.¹²

Research criteria that might best apply. Be prepared to show why those criteria are relevant. Look at external standards, as well as internal equity. In evaluating criteria ask, “Are the standards and criteria considered fair and reasonable?”¹³

Relevancy is important. It keeps the parties focused on the issues and prevents the conflict from being derailed. Always ask this question: “Is it relevant to the issue?”

Discussion Questions

1.    Jake has the office next to Beth and she has a difficult time working with him. He constantly interrupts her when she’s on the phone, talks too loudly, and asks nosy, personal questions. It seems as if he distracts her all day long. What would you do if you were Beth? What would you if Beth came to you and asked you to resolve the situation?

2.    What are examples of relevant criteria you could use in the following situations?

    Giving an employee who has reached the top of a salary range a raise.

    Giving an employee an increase over and above the approved budget.

    Negotiating salary and relocation with new hires.

    Negotiating a severance package with an employee who is being terminated.

3.    Organizations can do a number of things to address and manage conflict. These include training options for managers and employees, policies that address certain behaviors, and programs that offer guidance and assistance. What are the things your organization is doing or could be doing?

4.    Conflict is not necessarily negative; in fact, it may result in positive outcomes. Give some examples of how conflict can be a positive force in your organization. What can you do to optimize it when it is a positive force?