CONFLICT IN CONTEXT
WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE ROOT CAUSE of a conflict, your attempt to resolve it becomes difficult at best, impossible at worst. In my four decades of working with organizational leaders and teams, I have observed that most personal, business, or political conflicts can be traced to five root causes (the first four are in increasing order of resolution difficulty): (1) disagreement over facts, (2) disagreement over methods, (3) disagreement over goals, (4) incompatible values, and (5) choice of interaction approach (a special case in itself, and the subject of the next chapter). Even complex conflict situations can be traced to a combination of these causes. When you’re embroiled in complex situations, the first step you should take is to break the conflict into its subconflicts, analyze each part, and strategize a resolution for each. Sometimes it’s logical to pick the easiest issue so that a positive, collaborative tone can be more easily set. Sometimes it’s logical to pick a central issue that could eventually lead to the other conflicts being easier to resolve.
In moving from the first to the fourth cause (from facts to incompatible values), you will find that resolution becomes harder. For example, resolving a disagreement about facts is easier than resolving one about goals or methods. A conflict over facts boils down to a disagreement about the information available to you and the other person in a situation and how that information can be interpreted. Usually, these are the simplest types of conflicts to resolve because, with enough work, you and the other person can often clarify the facts and let them speak for themselves—thereby ending the conflict.
Likewise, working on differences over goals is usually more difficult than working on differences over methods—if you and the person you are in conflict with can agree on what you’re trying to accomplish, it’s a little easier to begin working on the method for how to achieve that goal.
Conflicts over values are the most difficult conflicts to resolve. Such conflicts have limited paths toward resolution. You can choose to not deal with it at all and just ignore it. You can choose to change your values. You can try to persuade the other person to change his or her values. Finally, you can agree to disagree and move on. All these approaches are valid but vary in difficulty. If you want someone to change his or her values, you need to feel exceedingly confident in your position and be prepared to use your influence on the other person for a long, long time. Changing your own values is within your control, but if you can change your values quickly, you might think about whether your position is really based on your values at all.
By having a discussion that leads to a better understanding of whether the conflict is based on disagreement about the information, the approach, the desired outcome, or incompatible fundamental beliefs, both parties can more readily ascertain the underlying issue that is at the root of the conflict. That provides a focus for a potential creative problem-solving discussion.
So clearly understanding these four root causes (and the fifth cause discussed separately in the next chapter) gives you a quick way to determine the key issues at play in a conflict and is a helpful first step in resolving it. Parties in conflict aren’t likely to ask directly whether they are in disagreement over the facts of the situation, the methods to use to accomplish something, the goal they are trying to achieve, or different values that keep them in conflict. Nevertheless, such clarification is essential to resolving a conflict. If you can’t agree with the other person about what the basic issue is, you can’t productively address the conflict you’re having.
Values Versus Facts
The root cause of a conflict might not remain static but evolve, as in the case of the pro-smoking and anti-smoking supporters. Decades ago, the pro-smoking group said this was a conflict about facts-the anti-smoking group did not have enough facts to prove that smoking was unhealthy. In response, the anti-smoking group gathered more facts and claimed victory.
But the conflict was not resolved. Pro-smoker groups redefined the conflict as a difference in values. They conceded that smoking was unhealthy but argued that smokers should be able to make the personal choice to smoke regardless. Seizing on the value of personal choice put pro-smokers in the dominant position in the conflict.
In response, anti-smoking groups returned to facts, this time outflanking the value of personal choice by taking a stand against secondhand smoke, which was also proved unhealthy. Pro-smokers again argued that there were not enough facts to support the secondhand-smoke position, but research eventually said otherwise. The anti-smoking groups were again winning the conflict. What makes the smoking-nonsmoking debate interesting is that neither party stepped up or down the hierarchy of conflict issues but jumped back and forth between issues of facts and values-the easiest and the hardest issues to resolve.
If conflicts are not resolved early in their existence, they often grow by becoming more complex.
This is also true for more complex conflicts. As noted above, if conflicts are not resolved early in their existence, they often grow by becoming more complex. Multiple issues get attached to the basic issue. The only way to resolve a complex conflict is to break it down into its components. By working to categorize each subconflict as being a difference over facts, methods, goals, values, or approach, you can focus on the root causes one at a time.
CONFLICT IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERACTION APPROACHES
Differences in how people approach conflict can vary widely. In fact, many people approach it differently from how they usually approach other social interactions. Although some people act more or less the same as usual when they are in a conflict situation, others act “like a different person.” Whatever the case, think about how you usually feel and act when involved in a conflict situation. For the purposes of this book, I refer to your usual conflict management style as the interaction approach you are most likely to use in most conflict situations.
From time to time you might hear about a person’s interaction approach in terms of personality. When analyzing a conflict, you should avoid the temptation to categorize someone’s conflict approach as his or her personality. People define personality in many different ways and include or exclude a wide range of behavioral items, traits, characteristics, and so forth that fall within a particular definition. A muddy definition of personality creates confusion when it conflates characteristics with actions. Imagine how difficult it would be to change someone’s personality during a conflict. Concentrate on how the other person approaches the conflict and acts when engaged in it. Changing another person’s personality is futile and it will do nothing to resolve a conflict.
Given the impossibility of influencing another person to change his or her personality, it’s much more reasonable to try to persuade that person (or yourself) to change how conflict is approached. When you try to resolve conflict caused by differences in interaction approaches, it’s imperative that you clearly identify the specific behaviors that are creating the conflict. Once identified, the negative impact of those behaviors can be discussed and the parties can choose to alter those behaviors to make the road to resolution easier.
THE EFFECT OF INFLUENCE FACTORS
In a conflict situation, a number of variables affect the flow and eventually the outcome of the conflict. We’ve already discussed some of those variables: facts, methods, goals, values, and approaches. The effect of influence factors is different but no less potent. For example, an obvious influence factor is power. Which party has more power in a conflict is a critical factor to assess. The influence factors that affect most conflict situations are small in number. Understanding the balance—or imbalance—of these factors between the parties is fundamental to accurately analyzing the situation and determining how to resolve it.
The following list of influence factors is not presented in a particular order (with the exception of power being first, to emphasize its constant presence). Not all of these factors are in play in every conflict. However, you can be assured that many of them will be present. As you read through the list, think about the roles these factors played in the conflicts you experienced. For each factor there are an endless number of examples. This list uses just one for each to illustrate the effect of that factor. In a section below I will look at how you can use these variables to your advantage when facing a conflict.
POWER: The perception that each participant has of his or her power when compared with the power of others involved. Example: The person you are in conflict with is at a higher level of the organization.
IMPORTANCE: The value that each participant places on the perceived gain or loss that will result from the outcome of the conflict. Example: Each party believes that the conflict can be resolved to his or her benefit and that the discord is worth it.
DEGREE OF PERSONAL CONVICTION: The belief that one’s own viewpoint in the conflict situation is correct. Example: The other person is very sure of his or her position; you think that you’re probably right.
INFORMATION: The amount, accuracy, and relevance of data that a participant brings to a conflict situation. Example: You have done your due diligence and have the latest figures to back up your position.
TIME PRESSURE: The presence, absence, and flexibility of a deadline for resolving the conflict. Example: You want to settle this today; the other person seems not to care if it drags on indefinitely.
TIMING: The significance that this moment in time has in relation to the conflict. Example: If this is not resolved at this scheduled meeting, it’s going to be difficult to get face-to-face again.
STRENGTH OF RELATIONSHIP: The degree to which either participant likes, respects, and is genuinely concerned about the other. Example: Although you disagree on this matter, this person is a good friend.
NEED: The importance of maintaining a harmonious relationship with the other person. Example: If you get the other person upset, it’s likely you will lose his or her support at the upcoming budget meeting.
AUDIENCE: The effect that “interested others” have on the handling of the conflict. Example: Even though your partners are not present, they’re sure to hear about how you handled the situation.
SETTING: The impact of the physical environment in which the conflict is taking place. Example: You’re uncomfortable sitting in the other person’s hot, tiny cubicle.
PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE: The expectations that you have based on earlier contacts with the other person or on similar conflicts in the past. Example: This person is acting just as difficult as his or her predecessor did.
ADDITIONAL CONTEXT FACTORS IN CONFLICTS
When conflict occurs within organizational contexts, two additional influence factors must be taken into consideration. First, the formal structure of the organization (reporting relationships, performance systems, and policies and procedures) can directly influence a conflict situation. If your stance aligns with parts of the organization’s formal structure, you can use that fact to convince the other party of the credibility of your view (and vice versa). For example, if you’re making a request of a colleague and the request lines up with the organization’s standard operating procedure, that fact alone can resolve any conflict related to your request.
Formal structure can also work against your position in a conflict. If the structure is at odds with your viewpoint, you may not have the authority to alter the structure in a way that would resolve the conflict. You will need to decide whether to push on the structure or circumvent the structure—and consider the consequences of either action.
Second, the informal structure, or culture, of the organization (beliefs, values, assumptions, and norms) can also affect a conflict. A strong organizational culture (or suborganizational culture) has a tremendous impact on people’s perspectives and their views on which actions are acceptable or unacceptable. For example, although openly questioning a decision made by your group leader is acceptable and may even be encouraged behavior in your group, doing the same with your peer’s manager is not. And in such a case a disagreement over a technical issue can quickly become a conflict about the appropriateness of your challenging that manager.
Understanding your organization’s culture (and its subcultures) is imperative because culture has the potential to have any influence on the cause or the direction of the conflict. Also, keep in mind that although it’s pretty much impossible for one person to alter a culture, you can affect the climate in which the conflict is taking place (changing it from adversarial to collaborative, for example).