AN ILLUSTRATED WALK-THROUGH OF A CONFLICT SITUATION
IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, you will see an unfolding conflict between Pat and Terry, two group managers. Pat’s distribution group handles international customers and Terry’s group distributes to domestic customers. Although the groups share many things in common, different perspectives about staffing, processes, and strategy are creating conflict between these two high-performing managers. At the end of this illustrated scenario, there are questions you can reflect on to measure how the ten-step process described in this book might play out in the real world.
Refer to the illustrated example on the preceding pages to walk through the ten-step conflict-analysis and strategy process. The following questions will prompt your use of the concepts and tactics in this book. Each question carries a possible response. Following these guided questions, you will find a worksheet designed to help you analyze a conflict you experience and make a strategy to deal with it.
STEP 1
What is the root cause underlying Pat and Terry’s conflict? On what, specifically, do they not see eye-to-eye?
Terry wants Pat’s international distribution group to follow the same process as his domestic distribution group. Pat wants to have the flexibility to run international distribution in a way that will meet the needs of the organization’s widely divergent client base.
Is the conflict between them a difference over facts, methods, goals, values, or interaction approach?
Terry and Pat have different goals. This conflict is over competing goals.
STEP 2
What are the key influence factors at play in their conflict? Which of the factors are affecting their conflict? What is the balance of factors at play between Pat and Terry?
POWER. Pat’s international distribution group is smaller and newer than Terry’s domestic group. That suggests that Pat has less power in this conflict and Terry has more power. However, given the growth of the international group, the power dynamic between Pat and Terry may shift over time. Balance: Pat = Low, Terry = High.
IMPORTANCE. Pat thinks it’s important that international distribution be autonomous in determining its processes. Terry believes it’s important to achieve a uniform process for both domestic and international distribution. Balance: Pat = High, Terry = High.
DEGREE OF PERSONAL CONVICTION. Pat sees no reason for her group to mirror Terry’s domestic group, given the growth of international distribution and the unique challenge of its diverse customers. Terry believes his opinion is more valid because it will be more efficient if Pat’s group adopts the proven processes already in operation in domestic distribution. Balance: Pat = High, Terry = High.
INFORMATION. Pat has a tremendous amount of information about the situation the organization faces in terms of distributing internationally. Terry knows the domestic side of the business very well but lacks current knowledge about international distribution challenges. Balance: Pat = High, Terry = Medium.
TIME PRESSURE. Pat isn’t in a rush to change the way her group is doing its work. Terry appears impatient to resolve this issue quickly. Balance: Pat = Low, Terry = High.
TIMING. Pat would like not to have this issue as part of the agenda of the next distribution managers’ meeting. Terry wants to resolve it before or at that meeting. Balance: Pat = Medium, Terry = Medium.
RELATIONSHIP. Based on their remarks, it seems that Pat doesn’t particularly like Terry and that Terry does not appear to like Pat. Balance: Pat = Low, Terry = Low.
NEED. Pat needs to get along with Terry well enough so that they can work together for common clients. Terry also needs a collaborative environment to keep his group working smoothly. Balance: Pat = High, Terry = High.
AUDIENCE. Pat’s management team has expressed concern about the changes that Terry is proposing. Terry is unaware that Pat is getting pressure from her bosses related to this issue. Balance: Pat = High, Terry = Low.
SETTING. Not a factor.
PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE. In past interactions, Pat has been cordial to Terry, although their relationship is rather superficial. Pat is mindful that in the past Terry suggested that Pat’s position should have been filled by one of his direct reports. Balance: Pat = Low, Terry = High.
What about organizational influence factors that might affect this situation?
STRUCTURE. Terry and Pat are peers and report to managers who are also equals in the organizational hierarchy.
CULTURE. Because domestic distribution handles more work than international distribution, Terry and his manager tend to have more influence throughout the organization.
STEP 3
What interaction approach or approaches do you see evident in this situation? How is Pat behaving in this conflict?
Pat is using a competing style, acting fairly assertive, and showing little cooperation.
STEP 4
What is the other’s interaction approach? How does Terry behave in this conflict?
Terry has also been employing a competing style, acting assertive and showing little cooperation.
STEP 5
What are Terry’s objectives? Other than resolving the clear cause of this conflict, has he expressed any other outcomes he wants to achieve by engaging with this conflict?
Terry comments about the possible need to reorganize the distribution reporting structure throughout the organization, and he has implied that Merrill (a longtime direct report of Terry’s) should, take over the leadership of international distribution.
What are Pat’s objectives? Beyond resolving the specific cause of this conflict, are there any other outcomes Pat would like to achieve as a result of this disagreement?
Pat would like her manager to gain more power and become equal in power to Terry’s manager.
STEP 7
What interaction approach should Pat take? Should she change her style or become more effective at the one she’s now using? If she changes, does she need to become more or less assertive? Does she need to become more or less cooperative?
Pat should be collaborative (still assertive but more cooperative).
STEP 8
What interaction approach should Terry take? Based on the decision in Step 7, what style does Pat need to see in Terry? Does she need him to be more or less assertive? Does she need Terry to be more or less cooperative?
Because Pat is going to try a collaborative approach, she wants Terry to also adopt a collaborative approach (stay assertive but be more cooperative).
STEP 9
Which issues and influence factors need to be changed or taken out of or added to this conflict?
Change the basic issue from goals to methods. The issue should be about the most effective and efficient way to structure and operate a global distribution network.
Look back at Step 2. Do the influence factors need to be altered, or do any need to be eliminated or added to the situation?
Maintain Pat and Terry at High in terms of importance and need. Bring Terry down toward Medium in terms of degree of personal conviction, and increase his stance in terms of information to High. Take Terry to Low in terms of time pressure. Eliminate the timing factor and concerns about previous experience. Raise Pat and Terry to Medium in terms of their relationship and in terms of their respective audience. Add setting as an influence factor.
Can the organization’s structure or culture be leveraged as a tool for resolving the conflict?
Pat could leverage structure by using the hierarchical parity that her international group shares with Terry’s domestic group. In terms of culture, Pat could try to shift senior management to a less domestic-centered view of distribution.
STEP 10
What are the next steps? How can Pat accomplish the intentions of Step 9?
To shift the basic issue from one of goals to one of methods, Pat could point out that the issue should not be whether the international group should change its process to operate more like the domestic group but rather the issue should be establishing the best methods for the company to execute on its overall distribution plan, both international and domestic.
Regarding the influence factors at play in this conflict, Pat could assure Terry that she understands how critical it is for them to improve distribution for domestic and international clients, thereby acknowledging that both of them attach high importance to resolving the conflict. If she shares some of the unique challenges her group faces with international distribution, she might dampen Terry’s insistence that his position is the right one. Pat could broaden Terry’s view of the situation by showing him the data that demonstrate the projected increase in international growth that will shortly raise the international distribution levels to close to those of domestic levels, thereby increasing his information about the situation.
Because Pat doesn’t feel the same time pressure as Terry, she might try to persuade him, his manager, and her manager to agree that this is a critical issue that demands a long-range, strategic approach to resolve. The upcoming distribution managers’ meeting does not provide the time to fully explore options. And so the organization can be flexible with its timing for any changes to either group.
Pat would benefit from creating a better relationship with Terry—perhaps by inviting him to lunch so they can talk and better understand each other’s point of view and so she can reaffirm that she understands the need for both departments to work in a complementary way. In terms of the need for Pat and Terry to satisfy the expectations of their audiences, Pat can inform her manager and her team that a cross-boundary group will work to ensure that all parties’ interests are represented in a long-range global-distribution plan and that the group will gather input from the people and groups with a stake in how well distribution is carried out—internationally and domestically. Pat can ask Terry to do something similar with his constituents.
Asking Terry to one of the first meetings intended to address this conflict and holding it in the international distribution group’s offices provides Pat with something tangible she can show to Terry to increase his understanding of the group’s work. And, finally, Pat can set aside previous experiences and ask Terry to engage in a fresh discussion to seek items on which they agree before focusing on their disagreements.
Leveraging structure and culture isn’t easy, but one step Pat can take is to ask the manager she and Terry have in common (their bosses’ boss) to facilitate the beginning of the first full-group meeting. That will flatten the structural barriers between their respective groups. And if Pat can copy senior management on some of the key pieces of data she sent to Terry to substantiate the projected international growth, she may shift the senior-management culture to adopt a less domestic-centered view of distribution.
The conflict example presented above doesn’t account for the idea that leveraging influence factors depends on the interaction approach you choose for approaching a conflict. There would be a great difference in the actions you might take if you chose to adopt a competitive stance rather than a collaborative one. Recognizing and using the best interaction approach in a given conflict situation takes awareness, time, and practice. Use your conflict experiences to learn. Here are a few things to keep in mind as you apply the conflict-resolution analysis and strategy tools described in this book.
Always review conflict situations you find yourself in to determine if there is a better path you could take toward resolution. One of the tremendous benefits of reflecting on the successes and failures of managing a difficult situation is that you can transform experience into lessons that you can apply elsewhere. Use the techniques described in this book to review a conflict and learn from your actions that turned out productive, and remember that you can learn just as much from an honest review of the things you did that were not productive. Reviewing your “mental video” of a conflict situation can give you specific alternatives the next time you face similar circumstances.
Although this book focuses on conflict in an organizational context, you can put the tools it describes to work in personal situations outside of the workplace. Understanding and using your knowledge of interaction approaches, basic issues, and influence factors is the foundation for successful conflict resolution in any sphere. Remember to focus on behavior and to set aside your guesses at another person’s motives. You can base a sound strategy only on the actions of the people in conflict with you. Behavior is the only data you can trust.
Successful conflict resolution, whatever outcome it results in, requires sound analysis, thoughtful strategy, and skilled execution. Execution comes from being flexible with your interaction approaches. Analysis will help you determine the optimum interaction approach. Practiced assertive and cooperative skills will positively affect the outcome of your interaction. Considering the number of times we find ourselves in these dysfunctional situations, not all of them will turn out well. Don’t be discouraged. As with any tool, it takes time to use the techniques described in this book proficiently. Speaking personally, my ability to resolve conflicts was a serious professional development need. From many years of experience, I can assure you that the more you apply the lessons from this book, the easier resolving conflict will become. Productive conflict resolution may not come naturally to you, but it can become second nature.
