Conflict — what is it?

Can conflicts in the workplace be exploited positively?

Conflict is universal in people's lives. Let us think for a moment about the word, there is much that can be considered from a conflict point of view: Our laws can by far be read as the written history of how the people of our culture have dealt with their conflicts throughout the ages; our political system regulates the conflict between divergent views on how to use society's resources and power; our economic system can be regarded as a continuous conflict governed by certain rules of the game: call it free competition. At the opposite end of the scale we find the individual, with the inner conflicts we can all experience, for example when life presents us with difficult and perhaps painful choices.

Yet we find it easy to think of conflict as a kind of state of emergency, with which we rarely associate anything positive, in the workplace or other arenas. Conflict, however, is two-sided: it can be a devastating problem, and it can be a source of energy, innovation, development and learning. In conflict theory, there is talk of ensuring that conflicts in organizations are kept within “the productive interval”: through proper handling, the energy that resides in disagreement and conflict can be controlled, so that in both strength and expression it creates dynamism rather than destructiveness. This is the theoretical ideal, which, of course, is not always feasible in practice. However, there is no doubt that many companies can have a lot to gain from applying the knowledge that actually exists in this area. Competence in conflict management comes under what we might call interaction skills in organizations, and this is a form of competence that is going to be increasingly important in the future.

It is customary to define conflict as a situation in which incompatible interests between parties result in strife between them. My experience of conflicts in organizations is that this definition is too narrow. Not infrequently it proves impossible, even in intense workplace conflicts, to identify any genuine conflicts of interest between the parties. The conflict lives its own life; it is “the problem that is the problem”. Of course, what we might call “real” conflicts of interest exist, but in many cases their handling is almost institutionalised and regulated by clear rules of the game — the relationship between employers and workers' organisations on wage issues can serve as an example. Other forms of conflict, especially in the informal and interpersonal arena of the organization, are to a lesser extent addressed in this way. Then it is the organization's and our own problem-solving skills that are put to the test.

Causes of conflict

There is a widespread belief that in order to manage conflicts, we need to understand “the underlying cause”, and then do something about it. In some contexts, such an analysis is fruitful, and then it can be useful to use models as a tool for thought. The following is an example of such a model, which sorts conflict types by cause:

1. Structural causes of conflict, e.g.

Distribution of resources, power, reward
Gap between claims and means
Unclear goals, procedures, roles
Situations of change

2. Cultural/historical causes of conflict, e.g.

Different value systems
Different traditions
Different norms of behavior

3. Personal/interpersonal conflict causes, e.g.

Different personalities
Mental problems/defense mechanisms
Stress

This represents a mindset borrowed from medicine: we observe symptoms, arrive at the underlying cause of the disease, and then prescribe a cure. But here it is important to remember that in reality what we are doing is thinking in metaphors: A medical conceptual apparatus applied as an image to an organizational reality. Metaphors can be clarifying, but can also blind, and I know many examples that this approach has proven to be a dead end in dealing with conflicts and cooperation problems.

Indeed, once the conflict has reached a certain level, in many cases it is a waste of time to dig for causes. Things are so tangled that it proves impossible to identify the “cause”: Everything is both cause and effect, everything is difficult; as previously said, it is “the problem that is the problem”. The emotional elements are also so strong (something the parties will deny, of course, with pathos), that “factual” analysis is almost impossible. It is a striking feature of many conflicts how absurd they appear from the outside. I myself know a workplace where each employee had their own toilet paper in the desk drawer, because it was impossible to agree on whose job it was to change the roll in the bathroom... As wondering observers, we ask ourselves, “What exactly are they arguing about?” or with the feeling: “Now they will then soon have to understand that this is nonsense, and resort to their senses.”

Unfortunately, we know that's precisely what they don't do. The parties to a strong conflict are already unwavering, each in his corner of the ring, in a sacred conviction that I/we alone represent reasonableness, objectivity and reason. It is the other person (s) who are irrational and emotionally driven. We know that humans, even under normal conditions, are what we call limitedly rational. Moreover, in a strong conflict, we fall victim to reactions flowing from deep and “primitive” parts of our brain. Mechanisms that were developed millions of years ago to enable us to respond with fight or flight from wild animals and enemies are still being activated: in the workplace, there is rarely talk of physical threats, but when we feel our self-respect threatened, for example, we react in the same way.

A feature of our reaction pattern in such situations of threat is that the perspective is narrowed; the ability to see things objectively and act rationally is far out of play. We get “tunnel vision” in what has to do with the conflict, the nuances disappear, the counterparty becomes unilaterally dangerous, difficult, evil. With such a mental image of the counterpart, it is easy to find “rational” reasons for setting aside most of the rules that regulate normal interpersonal interaction. “Evil shall drive out evil” becomes the slogan. At this level of conflict, utterances of the type “it's not for me, it's the principle!” are often heard. The courtroom could then be the next stop. Unfortunately, very few human tragedies have followed the shock of experiencing what is obvious and obvious to me — namely, that I am right! It's not as obvious to the court.

Help from a third person

Fortunately, in many cases, people manage to “lift” themselves out of their conflicts, most often by taking the initiative to resolve and reconcile. But this is not the rule when the emotional reactions have reached a certain intensity. Then so much bitterness and soreness can sit in, so much prestige and “face” be invested in the conflict from both sides, that it locks up, and it becomes psychologically impossible for either party to take the initiative for reconciliation. When this is the case, it happens that a third party — a broker — can be of help.

An effective mediator must be perceived as neutral by both parties; appear competent and trustworthy, be able to control their own emotional reactions, and master conflict management skills — the craft itself. Being able to deal constructively with conflicts is not only about good will, but about competence, and the concept of interaction competence is again central.

When attempting to help, the most important ally is the discomfort the vast majority of people experience by being in conflict. Conflict is a state normal people want out of, but the parties' perspective may be limited to seeing only one way out: To get right, to win over the other party. The mediator's task is to help the parties through a process where strong emotional “venting” may be required, before working through painstaking and patient effort to a point where the parties become psychologically able to turn from the past, guilt and accusations and to the future, opportunities and solutions.

From the past to the future

The mental turnaround from the past to the future is the critical factor. It's a widespread delusion that we have to agree on the past before we can talk about the future. This way we can spend infinities of time discussing up the bar and down the wall what actually was the cause of the conflict, who did what, who said what to whom when... in short, the desertless quarrel we often describe as “getting the facts of the matter out”. About human memory, however, we know that it is a wonderful but largely subjective instrument. A researcher who wanted to test the function of memory asked happy married couples to write down their memories of a day he could know with reasonable certainty they were experiencing together, namely their wedding day. The descriptions given by husband and wife were similar in some external facts, e.g. the church in which they were married—but in detail and emphasis they differed. They simply remembered completely different things. In interpersonal conflicts, where the parties cannot precisely be described as happy couples, this effect is of course even more pronounced: There are at least as many versions of the “facts of the matter” as there are parties involved, and the discussion of who “owns” the right description of the past is a quagmire. It is impossible to agree on past tense. However, if the parties can be made to understand this and, moreover, can produce a drop of will for reconciliation, it is often possible to agree on a solution that will apply in the future. And, cliched but true: That's where we're going to stay for the rest of our lives.

A leadership responsibility

Conflict in the workplace affects both efficiency, quality and work environment. We all have responsibility for our own workplace, but there is no doubt that the employer - in practice, that is, the management, perhaps even the board - has a special responsibility to actively take the initiative to ensure that conflicts are dealt with in a constructive way. Our knowledge of conflicts clearly shows that once it has locked up, one cannot expect the parties alone to “clean it up.” No matter at what level of the organization the conflict is, it is incumbent on that level above to actively go out on the field, as early as possible. Refusing to “interfere” in this context is most often completely misguided.

It may be wise in some cases to seek support, from the HR/HR department (where one exists), or from outside expertise, but the first commandment for the manager is: Do something yourself! Don't be so afraid to make mistakes — the biggest mistake is inaction! Shows management escapism, it can go right wrong. I myself know a myriad of examples of this, including the sad experience of having conversations with the entire staff of a company where an elusive management had let a conflict rage for 15 years (and this is not a record of permanence!). I was able to see direct damage to the health of all co-workers — from anxiety symptoms, difficulty sleeping and depression to indigestion, muscle disorders and cardiovascular problems. The conversations left no doubt that the suffering was either directly caused, or was exacerbated, by conditions in the workplace.

What the price of such omission is, in human suffering as well as sickness and loss of productivity, is left to the reader to ponder.

Some advice on conflict management

What is the message for organizations, especially leaders? The following are some advice:

Recognize that conflict and disagreement are natural parts of the interpersonal interaction and of the organization's rhythm of life.
Recognize that conflict in itself is not evil or good. Conflict can cause energy to be tied up, cooperation blocked, distrust, hostility and stress — but it can also provide energy, increased engagement, problem-solving, learning and new perspectives. It all depends on the way things are handled in the organization.
Take the development of interaction competence seriously, on par with professional competence. Recognize that qualities such as cooperation and openness, which are also the foundation of good conflict management, do not come by themselves. They cannot be “declared” in party speeches, but must be learned, incorporated and rooted in the culture of the organization.
Be realistic in what can be achieved if the conflict is first there. It is not necessary in a workplace that everyone should be “heart friends”. The responsibility of every business is to manage conflicts so that they do not become a nuisance to the working environment, health, safety and productivity.
Overcome the barriers to constructive conflict management. The two most important, usually two sides of the same issue, are: — A discomforting climate, e.g., the tendency towards misguided power and competitive glorification that seems to be a feature of certain organisational cultures and environments. — The discomfort we experience in involving ourselves in interaction problems and conflict situations, which in turn is rooted in our own fear of going wrong, being rejected, ridiculed or ridiculed. add into a game where we lose control and get stuck with “blackheads”.
Don't sweep conflicts under the rug -- that's where they grow best.
Intervene early. Rather once too much than once too little.

Quality criteria for good conflict management

In a workplace conflict, there are three main elements: THE CASE, THE PARTIES, and THE ORGANIZATION. They must all be taken care of, and in sum, what we must aim to achieve is the following:

Good conflict management in the workplace means that the THING (problem) gets a solution that is