Conflict Management: Not a Contradiction

Conflict Management: Not a Contradiction in Terms

Conflict management may sound like an oxymoron, an inherently contradictory phrase like 'jumbo shrimp.' But some amount of conflict is necessary for all organizations to thrive. When two workers are engaged in a project, if one worker does not protest that he does not think his colleague is on the right track, the ideal solution might never be achieved. Without conflict, change is impossible. The key to managing conflict is to ensure that disagreements are handled in a productive fashion and do not cause hurt feelings any more than is needed, which hampers rather than facilitates workplace productivity.

Conflict management is especially necessary in today's increasingly diverse workforce, where employees bring conflicting assumptions as to what makes good and fair business, and how discussions and negotiations should be navigated. Conflict can arise about work matters on a team as to how a project should proceed, in "salary packages and severance agreements to labor contracts, employee accommodations, disciplinary actions, misconduct allegations, and disputes between workers and supervisors" (Tyler 2004:1). The greater the range of experiences, personal and organizational cultures, competing desires and personalities of individuals the greater the potential that conflict will arise in the workplace.

Of course, diversity can be an asset for an organization, creating a more sophisticated, astute, dynamic and responsive workforce in an era of increased globalization. Yet it is essential that managers, to meet the challenges posed by such interpersonal dynamics improve their ability to engage in active listening, remain adaptable to the needs of the workforce and hone their personal tools of effective decision-making. "These core skills can assist supervisors and managers in tackling difficult issues that may arise within their workforce" (Roper 2005:1). Conflict management must not be viewed as a mysterious, personal quality; rather it is a learned skill that all managers can benefit from studying.

By defining active listening as one of the core competencies in managing conflict, there is the corresponding implication that ignoring conflict is deadly -- denial is not a way to contain the possible negative effects of conflict: "instead of avoiding the problem, address it and speak up" (Roper 2005:1). This is easier said than done, for quite often even managers, for fear of offending employees or higher-ups bite their tongue and let conflicts fester until they become open, argumentative wounds. Wanting to be a people-pleaser is one reason that people "have a difficult time articulating their needs, wants and desires," which results in miscommunication and misunderstandings and unproductive conflict. Also, the desire to make everything seem as well-functioning as possible may make managers loathe bring up a potential conflict they see brewing between two colleagues.

A good example of trying to hide a problematic conflict is an example of an employee in disagreement with a colleague or a superior who, instead of addressing the matter directly, references a less important concern to a manger, and appears to be making a great deal out of a triviality, like the person talking too loudly on the phone in the nearby cubicle. But when the employee articulates the real root of the conflict, this also requires the employee to listen to the other person's side (once again, active listening, not merely hearing the words the other person says, but truly apprehending the other person's meaning) and to understand that "there is another side in the first place" (Roper 2005:1). The conversation between the parties in conflict must be two-sided, not with one person "doing all of the talking" (Roper 2005: 2). Often simply airing and acknowledging a conflict can "help provide a short- or long-term solution to the conflict" provided the two people listen to one another and acknowledge one another's points and simple, mutual humanity and shared interest in resolving the dispute (Roper 2005:2). "Try to find out what really is driving the other side's agenda. it's vital to know the real need behind a person's position" (Tyler 2004:2).

Conflicts should also be expressed as rationally as possible, without too much unnecessary emotion, although if emotional difficulties are at the heart of the issue, it is not inappropriate to allow them to enter the fray, so long as it is done respectfully. Saying that 'you hurt my feelings' is an accurate statement, saying 'I know you meant to hurt me,' comes across as an attack and imputes motive onto the other party. In fact, in highly fraught matters, it can be "important to acknowledge the emotions first and get those out of the way" (Tyler 2004:1).

But allowing emotions to be expressed does not mean a no-holds-barred verbal boxing match; rather it is best to avoid all intentionally harmful statements that communicate nothing but anger. "When you verbally attack, you create enemies and put individuals on the defensive. This means that you are reducing the chances of quickly resolving any conflict. Just remember the Hippocratic Oath: 'Do no harm'" when resolving a dispute (Roper 2005:2). Expressing anger is not the same thing as attacking, and attacking accomplishes nothing productive. This is why it is critical to "set your priorities," when entering a mediating or a negotiating session, so that the point of the discussion doesn't become vengeful (Tyler 2004:1). Revenge is not a constructive priority.

Some helpful advice when tensions rise are to review what the other person has said, who has just spoken and to "ask questions to get answers to the things" that remain unclear, or remain points of serious contention, "for example, say, 'To get at the crux of the issue, I need answers to my questions. Why did Ken hurl a racial insult at Mohammed?'" (Roper 2005:2). In fact, sometimes all people desire is the sense that their feelings have been 'heard' and that they have a chance to tell their side of the story. One professional mediator cites an example of a woman who had worked for a lumber milling company and brought a suit against the owner's son, when all she really wanted, she said later, was an apology (Tyler 2004:1).