Managing conflict through communication

Conflict Comm

Using Communication to Manage Conflict

One of the most important principles of organizational success is effective conflict management. While it might be tempting to avoid conflict and skirt the issues driving disagreement, discussions in the text and personal experience both demonstrate the importance of confronting disagreement and navigating toward compromise. Indeed, in my own professional experience, I have found that the use of critical communication tactics in order to bridge gaps in perspective is essential to bringing conflict to a harmonious end. An example from memory found me in disagreement with some members of a working team on how best to address a marketing issue. While I and some of my colleagues took a particular position calling for the investment of more economic resources into advertising and branding, a number of others in the company determined that the best way to improve market performance was to improve processes and internal efficiencies.

Consistent with the conclusions offered in our primary text, this experience would demonstrate one of the biggest dilemmas contextualizing conflict management. Namely, it may be argued that neither side in this dispute was necessarily wrong. Both sides certainly wanted what they perceived was best for the long-term vitality of the company. And from their respective vantage points, the two sides both believed that theirs was the best way to utilize existing resources and to help the company to realize it potential more fully.

The most important concept from our reading which would enter into the process of navigating this conflict is that of compromise. Indeed, this is a concept which must be at the resolution of any conflict management endeavor the process is to effectively remove barriers to consensus. My experience was such that a majority of company members and a number of company leaders agreed with my team's emphasis on marketing. However, there were a number of influential employee leaders who objected to this approach and who made their position widely known through channels both formal and informal. The latter dissemination of discontent was particularly problematic as murmurings filled the company concerning the presence of some internal resistance. Most importantly for our company was the removal of the impulse for resistance. It was our view, and the view of the present text, that any such dissension could lead to serious morale issues. Therefore, it was incumbent upon us to at least weight the position offered by our dissenting colleagues.

Our strategy for navigating the conflict toward compromise -- as this is defined by our primary text -- would be to select those opposition leaders who had been most vocal and influential to form internal teams and develop competing proposals. These proposals would require that the selected representative developed and delineated plans for the improvement of processes and efficiencies that might fall within the scope of the company's new marketing emphasis. In other words, without ceding any ground up from on the dedication of resources to marketing, we would ask company members to offer alternative marketing plans which met our projected advertising goals but which still left resources for the meaningful improvement of the operation itself.