5
Conflict Management Skills
Conflicts cannot be avoided; we need to manage them with passion, persistence, and patience.
—ALFONSO BUCERO
Complete project managers are not immune to conflict. Sometimes they may even welcome it, for it shows that people are engaged in their work. Integrating the conflict management molecule with other skills is crucial as people may disagree with or resist efforts to become more complete. In this chapter, we investigate sources of conflict, discuss how to deal with difficult people, focus on the people side of conflict, and use a reframing technique to achieve better outcomes from conflict. We also touch upon decision making in times of conflict.
Sources of Conflict
The sources of conflict are many. We list a few in Table 5-1. The potential outcomes of these conflicts are:
• Disputes
• Competition
• Sabotage
• Inefficiency or low productivity
• Low morale
• Poor communication
• Strained relationships
On the other hand, lack of conflict may point to disinterest, lowered motivation, and indifference—all which limit the ability to achieve higher-performing outcomes. A goal is to establish constructive contention, wherein people engage each other and seek better outcomes, fostering an attitude of “Let’s work together to figure this out.”
A lesson I (Englund) learned about handling issues and especially risky ones came from working as a young man at a county fair where livestock and showmanship were judged. The winning animal showers did not always have perfectly behaved animals, but they won because of how masterfully they reestablished show positions when necessary and how they demonstrated their leadership. In this case, conflict is an opportunity. Complete project managers do not avoid conflict; rather, they are skilled in conflict management.
A simple process we suggest for dealing with conflict on a project starts with answering these questions:
• What was the conflict?
• Why did it occur?
• How did you attempt to resolve it?
An assessment based upon this checklist helps to determine if the conflict stems from R, assigning the right people or getting resources for the project; O, differences regarding objectives about what needs to be done; or I, deep-seated issues regarding personal beliefs, principles, historical precedence, or identity. (See Toolset “A Technique for Resolving Conflict” in The Complete Project Manager’s Toolkit.)
Table 5-1. Sources of Conflict
| Source | Example |
| Resources | Scarcity of money, time, personnel, or materials may cause conflict. |
| Goals | Difference in goals (e.g., quality vs. quantity) can cause conflicts to arise. |
| Expectations | Conflicts can arise when people’s expectations are different and when one or more expectations are not met. |
| Perceptions | People’s perceptions of the world are often different, and these differences may manifest themselves in conflict. |
| Values | Values of individuals working together may be different, and when addressing problems in which values play a role, conflict may erupt. |
| Needs | Individuals have different needs (e.g., recognition, safety, dignity, participation), and when these needs are not met, frustration and conflict can surface. |
| Culture | A lack of understanding surrounding cultural differences may lead to disagreements and conflict. |
Dealing with Difficult People
One of the great sources of stress on a team is putting up with difficult people. Difficult people are those who impede the actions and progress of others. Their behaviors reduce productivity and curtail teamwork. Dealing with difficult people can be almost painful—they seem to inflict an emotional pain on others. Difficult people have power over a team because they can control the team’s interactions.
According to Zachary Wong, PhD, a manager with over thirty years of managerial and project management experience, difficult people tend to favor predominantly lower-level behaviors—in other words, those that fall below the “set point” line in Figure 5-1—and consume team energy (Wong 2007). They take away time, resources, attention, and cooperation. Everything becomes an effort. The team feels diluted, tired, discounted, and frustrated when dealing with a persistently difficult person. People feel devalued because the team accepts negative behaviors and makes continual compromises and appeasements to placate them.
A persistently difficult person will pull the team down to a lower level. If the team settles into a lower dynamic state, then performance and quality suffer. Operating at a lower level means that the team is functioning with less energy and synergy—the team has a lower “set point.” The team’s set point represents the collective mindset and spirit of the team. Instead of striving for the best, a team with a low set point is happy just to finish the work. Such a team practices poor team behaviors (such as resistance, impatience, fearfulness, and defensiveness) more often than collaborative behaviors (such as listening, giving to others, and transparency).
Figure 5-1: Examples of Behaviors Above and Below the “Set Point.” Adapted from Zachary Wong, Human Factors in Project Management, 2007. Reprinted with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Conversely, you know a team has a high set point when:
• Disagreements are encouraged, and conflicts are quickly resolved.
• Everyone is transparent about their views and feelings.
• The team wants to work together rather than apart.
• People care about each other.
• The team’s work output is greater than the sum of its parts.
• The team regularly seeks behavioral feedback.
• Reinforcement and recognitions are behavioral norms.
One approach to solving problems with difficult people is to involve your manager. Ana explains how her manager approaches problem solving: “My boss has to constantly deal with difficult situations, since he is in charge of the IT department and the entire organization cannot work if, for example, there is a network problem, the Internet connection fails, etc. He does not waste time thinking about assumptions and who could be the culprit. He tries to go always to the point and find the solution as quickly as possible. One of his most famous phrases is: ‘Do not bring me a problem if you cannot suggest a solution.’”
I (Englund) used to believe in that phrase, and I’ve heard other managers use it too. This is well and good for routine problems. Where I find it limiting is with perpetually difficult people or with opportunities or complex situations where there is no perfect solution, trade-offs are required, or the problem is too large for a single person to suggest a solution. If the requirement is to come up with a solution before bringing up a problem, the manager may not be forewarned early enough because people are afraid to speak up. This kind of environment may do more damage than an open environment where people bring up problems early and everyone engages in brainstorming or collective reasoning to determine a range of options. Because difficult people can be toxic to the whole organization, urgent action may be required by a higher authority.
We mention this viewpoint just so people do not overpropagate this phrase. Complete project managers view themselves not just as problem solvers but also as capacity expanders. That means they embrace situations that may not have any easy, apparent, or clear solutions. By taking on these situations, they open paths to creating new knowledge and solving difficult challenges.
The People Side of Conflict Management
Not surprisingly, people view conflict management in various ways. Núria Blasco Pastor, a managing director with Tepsa in Barcelona, Spain, says:
I’ve been learning a lot about conflict resolution over the last few years … my children are great teachers! But those little smiles now and then remind me that there is still a lot to be learned. And the little tears now and then remind me that there is potentially a risk of damage in any conflict. And—this is often forgotten—a chance for improvement, a positive risk.
Conflicts are part of our professional activity. Project management is the art of integrating parts into a whole while satisfying the triple constraints. Think for a moment about the word “constraints.” Conflict is inspired by constraints, since they are never-ending sources of issues.
Step by step I’m improving in conflict resolution, even though sometimes I’m a conflict generator. Let me share my tricks with you:
In the past, when in trouble with schedule, cost, or changing specifications, I tended to identify and try to solve conflicts only under my viewpoint. It’s hard to admit it was obviously a partial viewpoint. I’ve learned to, first of all, review the potential conflict as a third party. I do an exercise of describing the conflict mentally as if I were an independent person. By doing that I gain perspective and I’m able to view a more complete picture, from both sides. It’s essential to separate personal feelings from professional issues (although difficult) and by putting myself in an independent perspective I focus mostly on the professional side….
There will always be conflicts, and solving them is a tough activity. Maybe we’d like to ignore the conflict and wait until it gets resolved magically by itself. But this is not true and is not professional. Therefore, if I have to tackle a tough situation, I do it first thing in the morning. If you have to eat a frog, do it as soon as possible … and the rest of the day will be plain and easy. Invest some time preparing for it and eat the frog!
The win-win approach is classical in management theory. It’s a big truth. I force myself to consider the less aggressive way of conflict solving and avoid hurting other people’s feelings. Hurting people is obviously bad, but even more, it is not efficient. And, this is the most important thing, in the long term only a win-win approach is applicable. A simple trick I do is to compensate the “losers” in a conflict with extra emotional attention, like public congratulations for a well-done job, awarding them with nice tasks, let them know I understand their concerns or … just a good-morning chat with a good coffee!
Norton Healthcare in Louisville, Kentucky, had an enterprise program management office (EPMO) that led the construction of a new facility. This massively successful program qualified as a finalist for PMI’s Project of the Year 2010. We asked Janice L. Weaver, PMP, former system associate vice president in the EPMO, to describe her approach to conflict:
Conflict is one of the toughest and most avoided areas in project management. Even though we have conflict every day in our lives, many people don’t feel comfortable dealing with it. Most would rather look the other way and hope it goes away.
Unresolved conflict rarely goes away on its own. If left unchecked, it usually festers and frequently becomes a huge problem that impacts the project in negative ways. This just compounds the situation, causing more conflict. The key is to deal with it as soon as possible before it gets to that point.
Leadership skills include the ability to deal with conflict. As project managers, how we deal with conflict separates “good” project managers from “great” project managers.
I am frequently asked, “How do you deal with conflict on a project? It can be so frustrating!” My answer is usually, “It depends.” It depends on the project, the players, the situation, and the impact to the project.
There are models designed to guide project managers through the conflict resolution process. But in the real world, there is no cookie-cutter approach to conflict resolution in project management. And, like it or not, it is the project manager’s responsibility to ensure conflict is addressed promptly and efficiently.
There can be many sources of conflict on a typical project. It’s not uncommon to experience technical issues on a project that result in conflict. Technical issues tend to be easier to resolve. Conflict that involves people issues needs to be handled carefully to avoid causing permanent damage to relationships and the project.
There can be a myriad of people-related issues on projects, especially when the project is high risk, high visibility, high dollar value, and has a short timeline. Expectations from senior leadership are high. In this situation, project managers need to focus on the people side versus the process side of project management, where most project managers are most comfortable.
Let’s examine a not-so-theoretical situation: One of six project leaders on a new information system implementation is not responding to emails and phone calls in a timely manner. I’ll call this person the “invisible project leader.” The project will impact the entire enterprise of 11,000 employees. The project has an aggressive timeline, a high price tag, and the attention of the board. The other five project leaders and several project team members are complaining about the lack of responsiveness. This is negatively impacting their tasks. They expect the project manager to resolve the issue for them.
Left unresolved, people start complaining amongst themselves about the invisible project leader and the lack of response to requests for information. It soon becomes a productivity issue because too many people are involved in the water cooler chatter and email traffic instead of working on project tasks. Several tasks have already fallen behind schedule. Many times, all of this is boiling under the radar of the project manager.
What would you do?
Doing nothing is always an option but is not recommended in this situation. Too much is at stake. The project will fall further behind. Quality will suffer and eventually, the project sponsor and the project manager’s manager will be demanding to know what’s going on and why it isn’t being addressed. Avoid that situation at all costs.
One of the primary tasks of a project manager is to anticipate and avoid issues. This is where risk management comes in, which is closely tied to conflict resolution. So, what could or should be done to anticipate and avoid the situation?
Many issues and conflicts in project management are due to unclear roles and responsibilities. This causes duplication of work, missed work, and tension in general—all of which are costly.
Instead, clearly document the roles and responsibilities by role in the project human resources management plan. Clearly lay out what is expected of each role, starting with the steering committee through the project team members. Also include vendor personnel if applicable.
They are part of the project team too and must abide by the same rules as internal project team members.
Here is a sample of the responsibilities by role:
Project leaders:
1. Are accountable for the success of their assigned major deliverables
2. Ensure all planning tasks are completed as requested
3. Resolve issues promptly and escalate to the project manager for resolution as necessary if unable to resolve issues on their own
4. Manage expectations to ensure all project team members know what is expected of them
5. Identify potential risk events and develop a risk management plan for addressing those risks
6. Manage the execution of the project timeline including the detailed tasks, activities, durations, resources, and milestones
7. Communicate the status of the deliverables according to the project communications plan
8. Instill a team spirit and cooperative attitude with project team members and between project teams
Project manager:
1. Is accountable for the success of the entire project
2. Ensures all planning deliverables are completed for the entire project
3. Resolves issues, escalating to the project sponsor for resolution only as necessary
4. Manages expectations to ensure all project leaders know what is expected of them
5. Ensures potential risk events are identified and documented in the risk management plan and ensures implementation of mitigation plans
6. Communicates progress to all stakeholders according to the project communication plan
7. Monitors the overall budget and secures any additional funding requests as necessary
8. Instills a team spirit and cooperative attitude among and between the project teams
There are many similarities between the two lists. Both roles require accountability. Both roles are responsible for resolving issues, managing expectations, communication, and instilling a team spirit and cooperative attitude. The difference is the span of control between the project leader and the project manager. The project leader is responsible for a piece of the project. The project (or program) manager is responsible for the whole project.
Discuss these at the beginning of each project even if the team members have seen them before. A refresher is usually welcome. This gives everyone an opportunity to ask questions if they don’t understand or don’t agree with a responsibility included in the project management plan. If new team members are added midstream in the project, it is the project leaders’ responsibility to bring them up to speed if a project team member has been added, or the project manager’s responsibility if a project leader has been added.
Now back to our “theoretical” situation. Let’s assume first that this project leader has been assigned to the project from the beginning and attended the meeting when this was discussed and agreed to as a project management team. You are one of the project leaders waiting for critical information from the invisible project leader. Review the responsibility list for project leaders and decide which ones apply to this situation.
The answer is that the project manager and the project leader are both responsible for ensuring project success. (Responsibility #1: Are accountable for the success of their assigned major deliverables.)
First, check the email you sent to the invisible project leader to make sure the request was clear and included a date by which you needed the information. If not, send a courtesy follow-up email ensuring the message and due date are clear. Ask for a response back if it is not possible to meet this date. In other words, did you create the delay by not asking the right question in the first place? (Responsibility #4: Manage expectations to ensure all project team members know what is expected of them. Responsibility #5: Identify potential risk events and develop a risk management plan for addressing those risks.)
Next, assess the situation. Is the invisible project leader new to the project, department, and/or the organization? Is the invisible project leader experiencing possible personal issues that could be clouding his work (e.g., a family member who is ill)? That doesn’t resolve the conflict, but it does help to inject some compassion into the situation. Stand back and make sure you address the situation professionally. (Responsibility #3: Resolve issues promptly and escalate to the project manager for resolution as necessary if unable to resolve issues on your own.)
Third, talk with the invisible project leader in person, preferably, or by phone if necessary. Explain your situation and ask when the information will be available. Be willing if possible to budge a little on the due date if that will help. If the task is not on the critical path, a little wiggle room will go a long way to creating a strong working relationship. (Responsibility #8: Instill a team spirit and cooperative attitude with project team members and between project teams.)
If all of these things fail, then go to the project manager with the situation and a request for resolution. State the facts, and don’t dramatize or exaggerate the situation. It doesn’t help solve the issue or put the project back on track.
It is easy for project managers to get so involved in the project itself and the processes associated with getting the project completed that we forget it is people that make it happen. People have feelings, and we need to be professional and compassionate in dealing with people-related issues. The project may end up being successful from a scope, time, quality, and customer satisfaction standpoint. But if no one wants to work with you again on another project, then you have failed as a leader and as a project manager.
Constructive Contention
Some amount of conflict is healthy. As shown in Figure 5-2, middle ground between the flight-fight extreme reactions can be productive and more effective.
There are two styles typical of the ways in which people approach conflict:
Flight: Avoid conflict whenever possible.
Fight: Confront conflict in a somewhat combative way.
A more effective approach is:
Engagement: Where conflicts are proactively surfaced, discussed, managed, or resolved.
Figure 5-2: Fight, Flight, or Engage?
Constructive contention involves:
• Common objective—everyone supports the same goal
• Contribution—each participant has value to contribute
• Significance—what we are doing is important
• Empowered—people believe they have power to resolve conflicts
• Accountability—by accepting responsibility for success of the whole, people more willingly work through conflicts
Complete project managers are advised to seek a “sweet spot” in between exclusive behaviors such as being reactive or withdrawn. A more inclusive approach is flexible in balancing giving and taking, speaking and listening, leading and following—strive for win-win in all interactions.
CONNECTING WITH OTHERS
In describing The DNA of Strategy Execution, Jack Duggal highlights challenges faced by PMOs to reorganize and reinvent themselves, often a rocky process with lots of opportunities for conflict management:
The PMO’s staff found itself duplicating work as it partnered with business units that weren’t talking to each other. It struggled to deliver value on a day-to-day basis. Various pain points emerged in the PMO, including lack of priorities (or conflicting priorities), too-slow decision-making, lack of engagement on the part of business units, and stakeholders who were unclear about the purpose and role of the PMO. There were also multiple dependencies (some hidden) across projects and programs it supported, and something familiar to any project manager: scope creep due to stakeholders who wanted different things.
There’s a theme in all this: disconnection…. Leaders felt cut off from other parts of the organization … and felt strategically adrift….
The new PMO director realized it was incumbent on the PMO to create the connections necessary to deliver on its mission. It could be the change agent that fixes the broken mirror, allowing everyone across the company’s business units to feel part of the same picture….
The PMO team began to look for opportunities to identify disconnects across the company landscape where the PMO could build bridges, bust silos, and connect all elements of the DNA of strategy execution. (Duggal 2018, 137–138)
In describing the power of connections, Duggal adds, “Connection is the foundational circulation that breathes life and adds complexity. Just like you cannot connect and communicate without a good Wi-Fi connection, similarly, you cannot get things done without connection” (2018, 139).
The types of conflicts he describes are not uncommon for other areas within project, program, and portfolio management. We believe good communication focused on forging connections has the power to solve most conflicts.
Reframing
Reframing is seeing conflict or decisions through different lenses, each with a different frame around it. At its very basic, reframing means viewing project management as people management, with the purpose of achieving strategic goals instead of just assembling tasks and timing charts. Reframing means adding more alternatives, options, and considerations for review. A wise leader introduces reframing very early in a conflict in order to get people out of ruts and into thinking differently. This process opens doors to better compromises or creative solutions. Successful complete project managers apply multiple frames to the same—and possibly every—situation. This technique helps connect with reticent people who each have a different view or way of seeing the world.
A historical example of reframing occurred when U.S. President John F. Kennedy was facing the Cuban missile crisis. He demanded that Russia remove their missiles from nearby Cuba. Russia responded with two messages: the first one was conciliatory while the second was hard line. The reframing by Kennedy’s cabinet was when they decided to ignore the second message and act on the first. Along with offering to remove U.S. missiles from nearby Russia—a negotiating concession—a major crisis was averted.
The political frame used in this crisis may be accompanied by other frames, such as structural/rational, human resource, and symbolic. When seeking to influence others or reach decisions, describe the situation in many ways, depending on the context and preferences or motivations of various stakeholders. Take strategic planning for example:
• Structurally, define strategies to set objectives and coordinate resources.
• The human resource frame describes strategic planning as gatherings to promote widespread participation.
• Politically, these are rallies to air conflicts and realign power.
• The symbolic gesture embraces rituals to signal responsibility, produce symbols, and negotiate meanings.
Multiframe thinking requires movement beyond narrow and mechanical thinking. Complete project managers who master the ability to reframe are rewarded with a liberating sense of choice and power, are less startled by organizational perversities, and are better attuned to people and events. They anticipate turbulent twists and turns of organizational life, develop unique alternatives and novel ideas about what organizations need, see new possibilities, and determine wider ranges of outcomes when dealing with uncertainty. They are like artists who reframe the world, so others can see new possibilities. For example, in Janice Weaver’s “theoretical” situation, she reframed a different view: people are not problems—instead, everyone possesses accountability and needs to behave accordingly.
Personally, project examples of reframing occurred a number of times for me (Englund). Sponsors wanted projects framed a certain way. Based on my research, I reframed each project to more accurately solve the problem. Sponsors agreed, and we were successful.
More examples of reframing, as well as other conflict resolution tools, may be found in The Complete Project Manager’s Toolkit.
Summary
Conflict is ever-present and may be a good thing. For effective decision making in times of conflict, follow these steps:
• Focus on goals and objectives.
• Assess the depth and type of conflict. Is it related to resources, objectives, or identity?
• Implement a checklist of steps to follow, depending on the situation.
• Follow a decision-making process that addresses people issues.
• Reframe, within the context of the environment.
• Involve team members.
• Be creative.
• Get closure and follow through.
Evaluate conflict through multiple frames and reframe project-based work decisions in areas beyond just the financials. Think about how decisions will affect people development and the quality of project work. Point out the ramifications of lower set point behaviors; encourage, and set the example for, upper-level behaviors. Apply systematic tools that enable proactive—and timely—resolution of conflicts.