CHAPTER 2

Your Options for Handling Conflict

Some people might tell you that the only way to manage work disagreements is to dive right in and straighten things out. This isn’t true. While dealing with the conflict directly can be the most effective route, it isn’t the only one.

In this chapter I explain your four options: Do nothing, address it indirectly, address it directly, and exit the relationship (see table 4-2 in chapter 4, “Assess the Situation,” for an overview of these options).

Do Nothing

When you choose to do nothing, you don’t say anything to your colleague, you let the comment go, or you simply walk away and carry on as if the conflict didn’t happen. Instead of acting on any feelings or impulses you have about a disagreement, you swallow them and move on. This isn’t a cop-out—it’s a seemingly easy and low-effort option for managing conflict. “Most people tend toward loyalty,” says Brian Uzzi, a leadership professor. “That’s because it’s easier to lower your expectations than deal with the real issues at hand.” To be clear, this isn’t taking your bat and ball and going home or storming off. This is simply keeping an issue to yourself rather than raising it.

We do this all the time, often without realizing it. “We put up with an awful lot on a day-to-day basis. We lump conflict all the time without consciously making a decision to do so,” says Jeanne Brett. For many conflicts, it’s a perfectly good approach. It can be a smart move, especially if the risks of addressing the issue feel greater than the potential rewards. “There are certain discussions you’re just better off not having at all, and knowing when to let it go is just as critical as knowing when to engage,” she says. (For more on making that call, see chapter 4, “Assess the Situation.”)

It may not be worth having the conversation if you don’t think it’s going to go anywhere. “If your colleague is stuck in her ways and has never demonstrated a willingness to concede, what do you gain by pushing her yet again? If the damage is already done—say the project was defunded last week and you’re just finding out about it—it’s probably better to forget about it and move on,” says Brett.

The risk in selecting this option is that your resolve may not stick. The issue may not go away, so your feelings about it may come out sideways as you blow up at your colleague about an unrelated matter. Or your colleague’s behavior may continue or worsen because he is unaware of the problem.

Note that this option and the “address it indirectly” option are different than avoiding conflict altogether. Conflict avoidance is a natural tendency to steer away from conflict whenever possible (see chapter 3, “Recognize Your Natural Tendency”). These are active, conscious decisions you make to handle a situation. If you tend to avoid conflict, check yourself if you find that you gravitate toward these two options.

Use when . . .

• You don’t have the energy or time to invest in preparing for and having a conversation
• You suspect the other person is unwilling to have a constructive conversation
• You have little or no power, particularly in conflicts with people above you
• You won’t beat yourself up or stew about it

Keep in mind that this option . . .

• Requires little work on your part, but it can be frustrating to dismiss your feelings
• Keeps the relationship stable, assuming you can both truly move on
• Won’t work if you’re unable to put it behind you and you risk having an outburst later or acting passive-aggressively toward your counterpart
• May cause your work to suffer if you continue to feel bad
• Can reinforce bad behavior—if your counterpart got away with it once, she might try again

What it looks like in practice

Clara, a project manager, was helping Lisa, a product manager, develop a launch schedule for testing a new product line, and she thought that Lisa was being overly optimistic. She tried to point out that Lisa’s dates weren’t realistic, but Lisa wouldn’t listen. “I was new, and while her time frame seemed aggressive to me, I couldn’t be sure,” Clara says. “Plus she isn’t the warmest person, and she made it clear she wasn’t really open to my feedback.” When the plan went to the wider team, things blew up. The production manager couldn’t believe that Clara thought her team would drop everything to meet her dates. But Lisa had already shared the schedule with the head of marketing, who had announced the launch date in the market. When the team discussed the schedule, Lisa never once explained that Clara had a difference of opinion and, in fact, implied that the dates were Clara’s work.

“I was livid,” explains Clara, “but I didn’t want to get into a fight in front of our bosses.” She later explained the situation to her manager but decided not to talk with Lisa about it. “She didn’t strike me as the kind of person who would be interested in hashing it out, and this wasn’t the last time we’d have to work together,” she says. “I didn’t see what good would come of it, other than creating more tension.” Instead, she put it behind her and continued to work with Lisa. Though they never directly discussed the issue, Clara says that Lisa was more open to her input on schedules in the future.

Address It Indirectly: Skirt the Issue

If you decide to try to change the situation by addressing it, there are two ways to do that. The first is to confront someone indirectly.

Indirect confrontation is when you choose to circle around an issue rather than naming it and addressing it together. Maybe you appeal to someone else who can talk to your counterpart (say, your boss or a coworker who knows the person better), or you talk about the situation without ever naming the issue. To those in certain cultures that tend to address conflict directly, this may sound backhanded and completely ineffective. But in some places, particularly those where saving face is important, this is the approach of choice. “In many Asian cultures, group harmony is incredibly important. It’s not appropriate to say, ‘We have a disagreement,’” says Erin Meyer, author of The Culture Map: Breaking Through the Invisible Boundaries of Global Business. “If you have a conflict with someone on a Japanese team, for example, you would not sit down and talk it through.”

Brett explains that one tactic is to use a story or a metaphor. For example, if you’re upset about a colleague who is constantly interrupting you, you might tell a story about an employee you previously managed who struggled to listen. The moral of the story—that listening is a valuable but tough-to-learn skill—may prompt your counterpart to reflect on her own behavior. “You see this all the time in China and other Asian countries. They are respecting the other party to understand the problem and do something about it rather than telling them what to do,” says Brett.

Another way to indirectly address a conflict is to get a third party involved. “In some African cultures, when you have a conflict, you work through a friend. That person works it out for you so that you never have a direct confrontation,” says Meyer. You might go to your boss and explain that your interrupting colleague is preventing you from conducting a successful meeting. In some cultures it may be clear that you expect that she will talk to your coworker. In others, you may need to ask. Similarly, if you and another team member don’t agree on how to spend money in your shared budget, you might ask your boss to make the decision so that neither of you is seen as losing. Instead, you’re just carrying out your manager’s orders. Again, in Western cultures, this might be frowned upon because you may be seen as giving away your power or failing to step up to the plate, but in other places, this is an effective way to handle the disagreement.

This option has several risks. If your indirect approach is too indirect, your counterpart may completely miss the message you’re trying to send and may not change, or he may just think that “someone else” really messed up. Another risk is that your counterpart hears that you were reaching out to other people about his behavior and may resent that you went around him rather than speaking with him about it first. Lastly, if your counterpart is from a more direct culture, he may not respect what he perceives to be a passive approach.

Remember that this option and the “do nothing” option are different than avoiding conflict altogether. Steering away from conflict is not the same as making a conscious choice to address it indirectly. Watch out if you tend to avoid conflict and find yourself exercising this option regularly.

Use when . . .

• It’s important in your culture to save face and not embarrass people
• You work in a place (office or country) where direct confrontation is inappropriate
• You think the other person will be more willing to take feedback from someone else—either someone more powerful than you, such as a boss, or someone he trusts, such as a close confidant

Keep in mind that this option . . .

• May not work in Western cultures, where the expectation is generally to speak directly with someone when you have a problem
• Can backfire if your counterpart finds out about your behind-the-scenes work and is unhappy about it
• May fail if your counterpart doesn’t understand your story or metaphor

What it looks like in practice

Carlos worked as an estimator for a large contractor company, and his new boss, Peter, was a classic micromanager. “He was very operations focused and wanted to know what I was doing all the time,” says Carlos. “I was constantly getting emails from him asking about details on my projects that he didn’t need to know.” Carlos was afraid that if he told Peter he was micro managing him, Peter would get worse, not trusting that Carlos would do the work the way Peter wanted. “I was good at my job. I just needed him to back off some,” explains Carlos.

He decided to approach the conversation by talking to Peter about one of his own direct reports, Vince. “I told him that since Vince was new, he probably needed some closer managing, but that I really saw our job as helping these younger people to learn the job on their own and empower them as much as possible,” he says. Peter was a bit hesitant and tried to argue that some people needed to be micromanaged. The two then got into a discussion about who needed closer supervision and who didn’t. Without addressing the issue directly, Carlos was able to make the case that he didn’t need Peter always looking over his shoulder. And it worked. Peter still managed Carlos more closely than Carlos preferred, but the conversation seemed to encourage Peter to give Carlos a longer leash.

Address It Directly: Confront the Issue

You can also try to change the situation by explicitly addressing it. A direct confrontation is when you talk to the other person—either in the moment the conflict arises or at a later time. Generally this involves explaining your side of the conflict, listening to the other person’s perspective, and then, ideally, agreeing on a resolution.

For those in more assertive cultures such as the United States, this can be an effective option, and it’s the one I focus on for most of this book. Meyer also points to other countries, such as France, Russia, and Spain, where it’s acceptable to have “open, vigorous, strong” disagreements. Some organizational cultures are also more prone to addressing conflict directly, says Brett. The financial industry, for example, has a reputation for people openly disagreeing, sometimes in seemingly harsh ways.

This can be a risky option if it’s not handled well because it might heighten the conflict rather than defuse it. That’s why the majority of this book is dedicated to showing you how to prepare for the conversation, engage productively, and reach a resolution.

Use when . . .

• You worry that there will be lingering resentment if you don’t clear the air
• You’ve tried to do nothing or indirectly address it and the problem persists
• You previously had a positive relationship with the person and you want to get it back on track

Keep in mind that this option . . .

• Can be good for a relationship—going through difficult experiences together can make your connection stronger and your relationship more resilient
• Allows you to voice your opinion or feelings, if that’s important to you
• Helps you develop a better understanding of yourself and your counterpart
• Can improve your work if you can incorporate others’ views and opinions
• Could earn you a reputation as aggressive or combative if you do it too often (or not well)

What it looks like in practice

A close work friend of Aparna’s pulled her aside to tell her that another coworker of theirs, Zia, had been spreading rumors that Aparna was looking for a new job. Aparna knew that Zia was competitive with her—their jobs were closely related—and that in Zia’s ideal world, she would take over several of Aparna’s projects. But Aparna was not on the job market. “It was absurd. I hadn’t had one networking conversation, and I’d barely updated my résumé in years,” she says. She and Zia had small disagreements in the past over what direction to take particular projects, but they’d always been able to move past them. “I always thought we were healthy competitors. We made each other work harder.”

Worried that Zia’s rumors would put her position at risk, especially if her boss heard them, she decided to talk with Zia directly. She asked Zia out for coffee and explained what she heard and asked for her perspective on it. At first Zia denied that she had said anything to anyone, but she eventually conceded that she’d heard something about Aparna talking with a competitor and she may have mentioned it to a few people. Aparna explained that that was not the case and asked Zia to stop. She agreed, and while they continued to compete on occasion, Aparna didn’t hear news of Zia talking behind her back again.

Exit: Get Out of the Situation Entirely

Your final option is to extricate yourself from the situation by either getting reassigned to another project, finding a new boss, or leaving the company. This is usually a last resort. “You can’t always leave a relationship, especially at work,” Uzzi says. When you’re disagreeing with a boss or someone on your team, you may just be stuck with that person, unless you’re willing to find another job. But if the conflict is with someone in another department or a person outside your company, such as a vendor, you may be able to reduce your contact.

Exiting doesn’t mean that you end the relationship by making a dramatic scene. Instead, look for a way to stop interacting with that person. If it’s a client with whom you have an ongoing conflict, you may explain the situation to your supervisor and propose that one of your equally qualified colleagues replaces you on the account. If it’s someone you work with in the finance department, you can begin to build a relationship with someone else on that team so that you have an alternative contact. If your boss is the problem, you might apply to jobs in other departments; you can start by building a broader network in the organization or connecting with people on teams you may want to join.

This sounds easier said than done, and often it is. Exiting is a risky option because it’s not something you can typically do overnight or even in a week’s time. More likely it’s something you’ll build toward slowly, while you dust off your résumé, expand your network, and have conversations with people who may be able to support you in making the move.

Brett says that it’s usually worth trying the other three options before ending things completely. But there are situations in which the conflict is so bad and seemingly intractable that severing the relationship is the best option.

Use when . . .

• You’re dealing with someone from another department or outside your company where your jobs aren’t interdependent
• You can easily find another job somewhere else
• You’ve tried other options and nothing has worked

Keep in mind that this option . . .

• May give you a sense of relief because it gives you a clean break
• Can protect you from further time wasted, stress, and discomfort
• Is likely to take a lot of work from you (including potentially difficult conversations) to change departments, get reassigned, or leave your job
• May hurt other relationships as you sever ties with this person
• Can have negative repercussions if you leave a project and then you’re later blamed for its failure because you abandoned the team or client
• May make you seem as though you’re difficult to work with

What it looks like in practice

When the 50-person department that Monique worked in was restructured, she wasn’t happy with her new direct supervisor, Samir. “He didn’t know how to manage. He was patronizing. He didn’t seem interested in my contributions. And it wasn’t clear what he wanted me to be doing,” she explains. To make matters worse, she didn’t believe in the direction Samir was taking the department, a unit that she had spent years helping to build. She repeatedly tried to get clearer directions from him, but the conversations quickly disintegrated, leaving Monique frustrated and Samir confused. “It felt near impossible to have a constructive conversation with him,” she says.

After six months of pulling her hair out, Monique went to the head of HR, with whom she had a positive relationship. She didn’t want to complain openly for fear that it would get back to her boss. “That would’ve felt like tattle telling. Instead, I explained to her that as Samir’s responsibilities were expanding, he probably had more than enough to do,” she says. She suggested that maybe she could report to a different manager. “She thought it was an interesting idea,” she says. A couple of weeks went by, and during one of her one-on-one meetings with Samir, he proposed the new reporting structure and asked how she felt about it. Her response, “Whatever’s best for the team, I’m willing to do.” Monique was very happy with her new manager and felt she had done the best she could do under the circumstances. “If things hadn’t changed, I would’ve left the company,” she says.

When Your Counterpart Takes the Lead

Sometimes you’re not the one who gets to decide which option to pursue. Your counterpart may ask to be taken off your project. Or a colleague may start yelling at you in the hallway after a meeting. “If it’s the other party who’s having the problem, you may not be able to completely avoid having the conversation,” says Brett. If you’re put on the spot, try to delay the conversation for when you’re in a better frame of mind so that you can make a smart choice about the option that will work best. (See chapter 4 for more on walking away from a conflict.)

Here are a few examples of language you could use to put off a fight with someone who’s upset:

• “I understand you want to discuss this, but now isn’t the best time. Can we schedule something at a later date so that we can talk it through?”
• “I can see you’re really upset about this. Can we talk about this when we’re both calmer?”
• “I’m not ready to have this conversation right now. I’m going to step outside to clear my head, and then perhaps we can meet tomorrow to talk about this.”

If your counterpart makes the first move, then you must choose how to react. Your options are the same, but it would be hard for you to do nothing, for example, if he’s requested that you sit down and talk about an issue. And you certainly won’t need to exercise your right to exit if he’s already done so.

Whether you’re choosing an approach or whether your counterpart initiates a difficult conversation, there’s work for you to do. You’ll have to deal with your anger or hurt if you elect to do nothing, finagle a new position or job if you decide to exit the relationship, make a careful plan if you decide to address it indirectly, or prepare for a difficult conversation if you decide to address it directly. That work will be easier if you understand the two general approaches to conflict and which one you tend to favor.