CHAPTER 9

When Good People Fall Out

You are Not in the Conflict but You Want to Help

How often do you hear the following comments?

I don’t understand why they have fallen out—they are both good people and I don’t want to lose either. But I can’t stand the atmosphere at work anymore!

I like both John and Joe but if each has told me if I’m friends with the other one I can’t be his friend. I wish I could help them resolve things.

My neighbors keep trying to drag me into the argument they are having. They both have a point and I don’t want to take sides.

This chapter first outlines our instinctive responses to others in conflict. Then, it offers some guidelines on how to decide whether you should intervene. It covers how to work out what would be a helpful approach (with examples) and gives some guidelines. Finally, it will help you know when to call in an expert to manage the conflict.

Instinctive Responses to Others’ Conflict

When people fall out, it can poison a work atmosphere, set a bad example for other staff, and cause stress not just to the two people, but also to their manager and to their team. It seems that we all feel “good people” should know how to get along—especially if they are friends or colleagues. It is not just horrible or incompetent people that get stuck in conflict. Conflict is an inevitable part of life and work. The pain of past hurts or unmet needs brings out the worst of all of us. It is hard to watch from the sidelines, so many of us turn away. But what if you are caught in the middle, you have a responsibility to intervene, or you are concerned about the people involved?

If we do not manage our emotions and use our logic and skills, our primitive instincts kick in. We are left with variations of the freeze/flight/fight behavior described in Figure 9.1.

So, why not just use one of these instinctive behaviors? Looking at each in turn will help us see when they might be useful, and the dangers of using them in the wrong situation.

Freeze: Ignoring the Situation

When we ignore a situation where people seem to be in conflict, things do sometimes improve. If the parties involved have a history of arguing and making up, leaving them to it might work. If they continue to work together and the disagreement does not seem to affect their work or their relationship, it may be that the conflict is not as it seems. For example, two workmates become heated when arguing about football, but this does not affect their work or their friendship. Although it may seem safer to ignore a situation if you feel physically unsafe, it is usually wiser to flee. However, if I were in a train bound for Scotland and the two drunks at the other end of the carriage were in a heated argument about whose turn it was to buy the beer, I would try and ignore it if I could not change seats.

Figure 9.1 When Evolution Controls Our Conflict Management Style

However, more often than not, things get worse if conflict is ignored. There are several reasons why ignorance is not usually a great strategy.

First, it sends a message that the conflict is okay or trivial. Those involved may become angry with you or with the organization you represent. Others may imitate them, standards may slip, and work or social interaction becomes affected.

Second, if it seems you are ignorant of the conflict or frightened of it, this may reflect badly on your competence as a manager or your role as a caring friend.

Third, when you think you are ignoring conflict, in reality, you will usually have changed your behavior toward those involved in the conflict. Few of us are such good actors that we can continue to act as normal despite tension and a bad atmosphere.

Finally, as we learned in Chapter 1, conflicts tend to escalate, and this tendency is increased if those involved feel ignored or unheard.

Flight: Avoiding the Conflict

This is like ignoring the situation. We admit that there is conflict, but do not want to get involved. Avoiding conflict may work if those involved are employed on another site or their conflict does not impact on you. There may also be safety issues, which mean avoiding the conflict is the best strategy. Often, fear of conflict and avoidance causes more problems than the actual conflict.

The more we run from conflict, the more it masters us;

The more we try to avoid it, the more it controls us;

The less we fear conflict, the less it confuses us;

The less we deny our differences, the less they divide us.

David Augsburger

Sometimes, flight is the best option. Ask yourself, “Is it safe and sensible to intervene in this conflict? Will my intervention make a difference?” If the answer to either of these questions is a resounding No, then flee or avoid the conflict.

However, if you always flee, you will not develop skills to manage conflict. And there will inevitably come a time when running away is not possible. If you have a responsibility for those in conflict or when the conflict has serious consequences, you need to address the situation.

Fight: Fixing, Judging, or Puniswhing

Forcefully intervening is more likely to escalate or suppress conflict than it is to resolve it. Parents often use this strategy when children are quarrelling, and employers may threaten disciplinary action when employees fall out. This solution will only work if you have the power and authority to enforce. Sometimes, there is a clear judgment call—for example, where one person has broken the law. Other times, both parties behave inappropriately.

Using force to resolve conflict is usually a short-term measure. The parties may seem to have resolved their conflicts as long as the threat of enforcement is there. However, if the dispute has not been resolved, when the threat of enforcement is lifted, the problem recurs. This is seen when peacekeeping forces are sent in. If the underlying issues are not addressed, as soon as the peacekeeping force leaves, the conflict flares again. The other danger of using force is that the parties turn their anger on the person intervening.

This method works if there is a clear judgment call, immediate forceful action is necessary, and you have the power to follow though.

Freeze/flight/fight is a temporary response in the body for a reason. It is effective for reacting to short-term, physically dangerous situations. If continually switched on, in the long term, it will damage the body and no longer effectively protect it. So too with the strategies above. They are short-term strategies which need to be used with care, and supplemented with more logical and long-term strategies.

A Matter of Judgment

This chapter is titled “When Good People Fall Out” to remind you of the helpful view that all of us act in a way that fulfils our needs, not intentionally to hurt others. Although it may be tempting to rush to judgment, we do not know what is behind people’s behavior. We tend to be critical of people in conflict, or to assign them roles to fit the drama triangle (see Chapter 1). When we judge, our emotions start to get involved, and logic takes a back seat.

As a nurse in the Emergency Department, I treated a teenager who had been glassed on her hand. Naturally, I saw her as the victim of an attack and condemned the perpetrator. Speaking to a colleague later, I commented, “How horrible to do something like that to a youngster.” “Wait a minute,” said my colleague, “I’ve just been treating that man. That teenager attacked him with an axe and he was trying to defend himself. Now he’s in intensive care.” At that point, we did not know why the girl was attacking the man. He might have tried to rape her. It might have been that that he was protecting someone whom she was attacking. Or, she was protecting someone he had attacked. They may have misinterpreted the other’s actions, made the wrong assumption, or acted under the influence of strong emotions, drink, or drugs. They may both have been good people driven to drastic action to meet their needs. Either could be a hero, victim, or perpetrator.

If people act in a way that seems hurtful, we judge them as wanting to cause harm, or at best, stupid. Yet, we know nothing of their intentions, their feelings, and their needs.

We tend to judge others by their behaviour and ourselves by our intentions.

Albert Schlider

As bystanders, it is easy to judge others when we can see solutions they do not. Remember that anger or fear can trigger switching off logic and cause people to revert to more primitive behaviors. Think about what need is behind people’s behavior before assigning negative motives to them. Judgment is instinctive, and it is natural to have your own opinions about what is right and wrong. But before we act on our initial views, it is worth checking whether there is any other interpretation of a situation and whether we have all the information. If we are not careful when we try and help, we end up being sucked into the conflict ourselves. So, the first question is: “Should I intervene?”

Chapter 4 highlighted some questions to ask yourself about whether to speak up or stay silent when you are directly involved in conflict. You may want to refer to this if you find you are or at risk of becoming involved in the conflict. In this chapter, I focus on whether you should intervene when others are in conflict. It is helpful to be aware of your instinctive response to others in conflict. If you instinctively want to act, you may overestimate the risks of doing nothing. If you instinctively flee or freeze, you are more likely to underestimate the risk of doing nothing and exaggerate the consequences of intervening.

If no one holds the “good people” accountable for their behavior, they will continue to fall out. On the contrary, they are threatened, they will seek to justify their behavior by finding fault with each other. That is why getting people to keep a record of instances can be counterproductive.

Before we look at how we should handle conflict between others, we need to know whether we should wade in or walk on.

Wade in or Walk On?

We all like helping people but few of us like to be helped. The first question is to ask whether the disagreement is conflict, potential conflict, or an inconsequential disagreement. Daniel Dana, in his book on work place conflict, holds that there are 4 key components to conflict: interdependence, blame, anger, and consequences to both parties or the business (Dana 2001). I believe that blame and anger are not always obvious in all conflict situations. In Crucial Conversations, the researchers highlighted 3 key components: opinions differ, emotions run strong, and the stakes are high. In these cases, conflict is highly likely, so intervening before blame and anger take hold is more effective than waiting for Dana’s four components.

So, look at the situation. Are there serious consequences to the relationship, the business, or the individuals? Are emotions hijacking people’s logic? Are they on different sides? If the answer to all three is Yes, there are still several key factors which should be considered before intervening. If not, our intervention may cause us to trip up, especially in a conflict where we have no obvious direct involvement. Ignoring these factors will potentially worsen the situation. To make it easier to remember these potential hazards, think of TRIP UP as illustrated in Figure 9.2.

Figure 9.2 Factors to Consider Before Intervening

It may seem like you do not have time to go through all the factors. In reality, it will take little time to quickly think through the factors and will save a great deal of time, effort, and pain. The more you practice, the more instinctive and easy the process will become. Here is an example which I will use to illustrate the various points. (You can also practice by going through these factors with the scenarios at the end of Chapter 8.)

Time (and Place)

Before acting, think about the timing and the location. Consider whether now is the best time to intervene or whether to wait until tempers are cooler. Intervening may escalate the problem or it may be necessary to prevent things spiraling out of control. If you intervene in a public conflict, the parties may lose face and turn their anger on you. Generally, it is best to have private conversations with both parties, at a time when individuals are not in the middle of an argument and before positions become hardened. People will be more logical and amenable to accepting help if they are not in the grip of strong emotion or at risk of appearing weak or incompetent. It will depend on the individual and the circumstances.

The right response will depend on the other factors involved. If you were in Claudia’s position, you would probably have more knowledge and understanding about the risks, the personalities, and the problem. It might be easier to decide, but sometimes, more information increases the complexity of the decision.

Risks

Realistically assess the risks of doing nothing as well as the dangers of intervening. We each have instinctive ways of reacting (see Chapters 1 and 2 and the start of this book). These will affect how we assess risks.

If Claudia is prone to avoiding conflict, she will focus on the problems that might arise if she intervenes. We may fear the consequences of engaging if we are not in control of our own emotions or lack the skills to manage conflict well and overestimate the risk of speaking up. If Claudia is a fixer, she will highlight the potential disaster that might occur if nothing is done. Some of us enjoy being the hero, rescuing the victim, and punishing the perpetrator. So, we are more likely to ignore the risks of intervening and overestimate our skills.

You may feel that formally filling in a risk assessment before intervention is taking things a bit far. However, if you have mixed feelings and there is time, it can be a helpful exercise. When you have done it once or twice, it will be easier to be accurate in your instinctive judgments.

Figure 9.3 illustrates how to think things through using the example above.

Has the risk assessment changed your view on what might be best? The example above is oversimplified I encourage you to imagine different scenarios and alternative solutions. Risks would change, depending on the intervention used, intent, and personalities, and the issues involved. There is a blank Risk Assessment Form in Chapter 12 should you wish to try this out.

Intent

Examining our own motives before intervening is essential. As we saw in Figure 9.3, some of the risks and benefits are personal. Assessing the situation objectively helps us understand our own motives. Are we intervening to help others or to make ourselves look good? It feels good to be the hero, but sometimes, our help actually takes away another’s power or credibility. Ask yourself, “What’s the reason I think I should get involved?”

It would be natural for Claudia, in the example earlier, to consider the staff’s opinions of her and how staying to discuss the situation might cause problems at home. If Claudia pretended that she was acting purely out of consideration for Jenny and Joanne, it may affect her integrity or result in “leakage.” Leakage is when unexpressed emotions “leak” out or are expressed by facial changes or behavior. This causes distrust, confusion, or anger. So, being clear about intent is important.

If Claudia does not intervene
Positive Consequence	Chance of this	Negative Consequence	Chance of this
Jenny and Joanne stop arguing and agree	10%	Conflict between Jenny and Joanne increases	75%
Staff are busy in their work and do not notice	15%	Staff think that Claudia does not care	30%
Jenny and Joanne feel CEO trusts them to do their job	50%	Claudia looks like she cannot manage senior staff	80%
Jenny and Joanne do not let any confidential info slip	30%	Staff overhear confidential information	60%
Staff feel empowered to be honest and resolve conflicts in their own way	60%	Staff feel it is okay to argue in public and lose their tempers.	60%
Claudia can get home on time	90%	Staff lose respect for senior management	90%
If Claudia intervenes
Positive Consequence	Chance of this	Negative Consequence	Chance of this
Jenny and Joanne stop arguing and agree	60%	Jenny and Joanne become more defensive and angry	30%
Staff left in peace to work	70%	Staff unsettled and curious	60%
Greater respect for Claudia	75%	Claudia seen as micromanager	30%
Jenny and Joanne appreciate help with managing conflict	Depends on intervention	Jenny and Joanne lose face/respect from staff	Depends on intervention
Staff feel they can trust Claudia to help manage disagreements	Depends on intervention	Claudia is late home and her family are angry, so problems arise at home	80%

Figure 9.3 Risk Assessment

Stating intent or purpose at the start of a conversation with those in conflict will set the scene. For example, if Claudia stated that she wants to help Joanne and Jenny clarify the issues and find a solution that works for them both, her intervention might be welcome. If she simply tries to stop them arguing, they may both feel resentful.

Personality

Individuals react in widely different ways to the same behavior. That is why we need to think about how the individual in each case will react. A joke to one person could be extremely offensive to another. A gentle hint may be enough for one person to modify his behavior; for another, much more forceful measures may be needed.

If you know the individuals involved, consider your intervention from their point of view. In the first solution of the Perfect People example above, if Jenny was insecure or jealous, she might feel that Joanne and Claudia would conspire against her. If Claudia knew this or the fact that Joanne is likely to tell Jenny a distorted view of what Claudia had said to her, Claudia might choose a different option.

Understanding

Always check your understanding of the situation. What looks like an argument might be a rehearsal for a play or joking between friends. When there is not time to get a full understanding of the situation, avoid making assumptions, talk tentatively, and check frequently that your interpretation of the situation is accurate. Listen to both sides, and try and show your impartiality and respect for both sides. Paraphrasing or reflecting to both parties how the situation looks to you as a third party is often the most helpful thing that you can do. Not only does it check your understanding of the situation, but it also makes the participants feel heard and gives them a new perspective.

Problem

This is linked to understanding what is the real issue. Although in the Perfect People example, it seems to be the budget that Jenny and Joanne are arguing about, it may not be the real problem. Or indeed, it may not be a problem at all; they may be pretending to argue to see people’s reactions. It is more likely, as we learned in Chapter 1, there are several underlying causes for conflict.

When emotions run high, it is because people are frightened of losing something or access to something they need is blocked. As well as survival needs (food, air, water, and safety), David Rock (Rock 2009) discovered that there are social threats which evoke the same strong reaction. These are Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness, given the acronym SCARF. Figure 9.4 gives an overview of these needs and the perceived threats that often trigger conflict.

In the Perfect People example, what threats might affect Jenny and Joanne? Claudia may feel that she is helping save face by inviting one of the participants into her office to discuss the things, but the other may feel that this is unfair.

There are often several threats. In another example, Fred is annoyed that he has not been asked to socialize with colleagues after work. Not only does this threaten his sense of status (“I’m not good enough”), it also affects his sense of connectivity. He may feel it is unfair and it may also make him feel insecure.

As well as the cause of the threat, we need to establish what the issue is. Is it a specific event, the pattern, or the relationship which is causing the threat?

If a colleague interrupts me at a board meeting, I may be angry because I had an important point to make and could not make it on that occasion. On the other hand, it might be that every time I want to make a point, my colleague interrupts me. Or it might be that I think my colleague does not respect me and this interruption is just one example of his lack of respect. If my manager thinks it is the event, he may feel that it could be resolved by giving me a chance to give my views at the next opportunity. If he thinks that the colleague is making a habit of interrupting, he may speak with the colleague and ask him not to interrupt. However, if it is the relationship that is the problem, neither of these solutions would resolve the situation. It is difficult to know what the problem is sometimes, so it is always advisable to ask the parties to say what they feel is the most important issue. Occasionally, people do not know what the real issue is themselves, so need a bit of probing. A great question is, “So what would put it right?” This helps focus attention on what is really the problem.

Figure 9.4 SCARF Needs and Threats

Avoid Trip Ups

The tool below will help you assess whether intervention would be a good idea, and give you some ideas about the form of that intervention.

Intervening

You have decided to intervene after assessing the pros and cons. What next? Figure 9.5 illustrates some guiding principles and helps us remember to treat both parties equally.

Figure 9.5 SCALE: Guidelines When Intervening in Others’ Conflict

Show Respect and Mutual Purpose

If possible, ask permission to have the conversation. In cases where you have a responsibility to resolve the conflict, you may feel this is unnecessary. Even so, giving people an element of choice and respecting their wishes will ease the process. Do not patronize or criticize. Find a common goal that all parties can agree on. It might be to end the hassle, make sure a project gets done on time, or avoid more pain.

You may wish to try and resolve conflicts between your friends. Definitely ask permission if you value your friendship. If they agree to discuss the issue, and you want to stay friends with both, you will need to make it very clear that you will not take sides. Sometimes, making peace between friends will mean they become more distant with you. So, you might want to suggest someone else. We often find it easier to speak honestly with strangers because we know we never need to see them again and are less concerned about their opinion of us.

Clarify Issues

First, clarify the issue and the consequences. Going through the Trip Up process (see above) will have highlighted the issues for you. What is the main purpose of intervening? Is it to improve their working relationship? If so, what does that look like? If they are throwing things at each other, you need to ensure safety. Define the issue as factually and specifically as you can. Avoid blame and judgment. Say what you see and the effect it seems to be having on them, you, the organization, or other people.

If possible, do this with both at the same time. If emotions are high, it is often more practical to see each person individually first. If this is the case, be sure that you phrase the message the same way for all parties. Assure them that you will listen to both sides, not as a judge, but as a guide to keep them on track and help clarify their views.

If you are close to both parties or to one of them, this will be difficult. This is where a skilled mediator or conflict coach can help. It is easier to speak freely to neutral professionals than to friends, family, or colleagues because people worry less about their opinions. As a mediator and coach, I have found the chance to talk in a safe environment helps people take responsibility and changes their perspective. Sometimes, this is all that is needed to help people work out their own solution.

Ask

Asking all parties to clarify their views and talk about their situation is the first step. Next, ask questions to find out what really matters to them. Often, parties have similar needs and values. Ask them what is at stake.

Perhaps the most fundamental way in which the third side can help is to remind the parties of what’s really at stake.

William Ury

Focus on what they think would fix things completely and perfectly. Ask them what they could do and what they would do to resolve the issues. Help them to test the reality of any solutions they suggest.

Listen

When tempers are heated, it may be best to see each party separately first. Be sure everyone is clear what is confidential and what can be shared. Be fair and be with each party in turn and for an equivalent amount of time. This will give them a chance to vocalize and put words to their feelings in a safe environment, which will help to calm them down.

Listening is key. When someone feels heard, they start listening to themselves. Reflecting and paraphrasing what they say will help them understand their own actions and judgments.

Listen for things that they might want to share or questions they may want to ask the other person. Check if it is okay to share that with the other person. If you think this might cause a problem, ask, “And how do you think X will react to that?” Alternatively, you may wish to paraphrase or reframe the statement or question and check if it is okay to say that instead.

Empathy

To create an atmosphere of understanding and tolerance, you need to have your own emotions under control. Remember that you are not there to fix things or find a solution, but to support the parties involved to figure out what might work for them. Your role is to ensure that both feel heard and to maintain a safe space for dialogue. Enabling both parties to see a common problem that they can work together to solve, rather than seeing each other as the problem is a big step forward. Do not let your desire to be a hero or find a solution force the pace.

Patience and perseverance are essential. Problems that have been brewing for years will take time to resolve. Yet, it is important not to let people wallow in self-pity or get stuck in blame. Sometimes, a break, some food, or a walk works wonders. It may be that you need to pause, or stop the process. When someone’s behavior seems inappropriate, try and think what need is behind it, and how that need could be met.

The children (people) who need love the most will always ask for it in the most unloving ways.

Russel Barkley

When to Bring in an Expert

Sometimes, it is worth using your expertise and knowledge of the disagreeing people to help them resolve their difficulties. In other situations, this can backfire. It can, on occasion, make things worse, or damage your relationship with one or both parties. The three instances below are based on real cases.

There are four factors which indicate that an independent third party may be a better option than a friend or colleague.

1. High Stakes If the organization is suffering, if people have started taking sides, or if trust is lost, an impartial expert is more likely to help find resolution and rebuild relationships. If an attempt at resolution fails, what are the consequences? Using an expert might save you time, money, and heartache.

2. Connection If one party is closer to you than another, even if you are scrupulously fair, the other party will feel at a disadvantage. If the parties care about your opinion of them, they are less likely to be honest, and more likely to say what you want to hear. Most of us are reluctant to “air our dirty laundry” with someone we keep seeing as it reminds us of bad times. People involved may worry that someone within their circle will inadvertently let something slip. An outsider is not only safer, but less likely to be biased by history or gossip.

3. Extreme Emotion If there seems to be resistance without logic, a history of problems, or likelihood of outbursts, it is best to call in an expert in conflict management, rather than a friend or colleague.

4. Issues. Is it straightforward? Is it the tip of the iceberg? Are you likely to be drawn into the conflict if you dig deeper? It may be that other individuals are causing problems or that you are inadvertently exacerbating the conflict. A third party will be able to see things more objectively and shine light on structural and social factors contributing to the conflict. Fresh eyes see things that have faded into the background or taken for granted.

A comment I often hear after a mediation or intervention is, “Thank you so much. You’ve been great. I hope we don’t have to see you again . . . I mean that in a nice way . . .” Once people have concluded a conflict, they really do not want to meet the mediator again as it brings back memories of the difficult times. Apart from expertise, one of the big advantages of using a third party is the sense of closure it brings to those involved. When the dispute resolution is finished, they can draw a line under the past and move on to the future.

Check Understanding Chapter 9

• What is your instinctive reaction when others are arguing?

• What should you consider before you intervene?

• What is the main way a third party can help?

• What is important to remember when intervening?

• What four things suggest that you should call in an expert?

• Think of a situation when colleagues were in dispute. What have you learned that you could have used in that case? What did you learn from what happened?