09/ 28/ 2006
by Charles R. McConnell
Conflict is inevitable in the workplace. As long as two or more people are present, the potential for occasional disagreement exists. Frequently, the basis for a particular conflict is not apparent since an underlying issue can be camouflaged by a less important visible symptom. The principal causes of workplace conflict are:
- Unclear expectations or guidelines. Conflicts arise when employees don't know what's expected of them, or when rules, instructions or policies are ambiguous.
- Poor communication. Many conflicts result from poor listening and communication shortcuts, such as incomplete instructions, hastily scribbled notes or unedited e-mail messages.
- Lack of clear jurisdiction. Conflicts erupt when the limits of authority are not clearly defined, and when matters of who does what and how much are unclear.
- Variable temperaments or attitudes. Incompatibilities or disagreements often arise from differences among people; consider the oft-mentioned "personality conflict."
- Conflicts of interest. Disagreements arise between individuals and groups when their objectives clash at some common point; for example, when two groups are vying for the same limited resources.
- Organization changes. These can be many and varied, triggering some of the most troublesome conflicts encountered––those rooted in resistance to change.
Depending on the nature of a given situation, there are several ways the individual manager can approach conflict. Each strategy identified below is appropriate for the following situations:
Avoidance
Avoidance can be an escape mechanism, evident when one denies there's a problem, passes the buck or procrastinates. But avoidance can be appropriate when: It isn't your problem; there's nothing you can do about it; it's inconsequential and not worth the effort; the disruption of facing it outweighs the benefits of resolution; or you see that the situation will correct itself if you wait it out. And temporary avoidance can be a correct call when at least one party is emotionally upset.
Fight
There's often the temptation to fight, but doing so can be dangerous. A fighting posture often sparks retaliation and starts a "war." But an instant decision to fight can be appropriate when safety is at stake, or apparent ethical or legal violations occur.
Surrender
Non-assertive individuals may inappropriately surrender in the face of conflict. But surrender may be the wisest course of action when: You know the other party is right; you have no stake in the issue; giving on a small item can mean winning a more important one later; harmony and stability can be achieved; or your chance of winning is slim to none.
Compromise
This is the partial win strategy we all have to settle for on occasion. This allows all parties to get part of what they want, so there's some satisfaction for all. Union-management disputes, even international disputes, are settled by compromise. The downside is that no participants get everything they want. Also, compromise can involve a certain amount of time-consuming game playing (for example, asking for much more than what's wanted in order to "give up" something in turn).
Contrary to the beliefs of some people, "compromise" isn't a dirty word that conveys weakness; it's sometimes the only realistic way out of a situation. But the mistake most frequently made concerning compromise is settling on this alternative too soon, without first taking a serious shot at collaboration. Compromise can be fully appropriate when: attempts at a solution have stalled; opposing goals are incompatible, so neither side can realistically expect to "win"; or time constraints dictate a need for a quick solution.
Collaboration
The basis for collaboration is established when the parties to the conflict agree to attack the problem rather than each other, and difficulty is approached through honest and open discussion. One of the primary advantages of collaboration is that it usually uncovers more information than either side can set forth alone. This true win-win approach to conflict resolution usually requires more creative solutions, but it often reveals that the best answer is one that neither side had thought to demand.
Why aren't all conflicts approached through collaboration? It's time-consuming because it ties up the concerned parties longer than other approaches and thus delays decisionmaking.
Most of the ways in which conflict is actively addressed involve confrontation. Confrontation is something many people go to great lengths to avoid, thus the overuse of avoidance and surrender in coping with conflict. But no manager can long survive in the role by avoiding confrontation. Confrontation is one of those unavoidable practices at which the individual becomes better through repetition. Fortunately, confrontations are seldom as bad as anticipated, and entering a confrontation with a collaborative approach can set the stage for a better result than could be achieved otherwise.
