CHAPTER 4
Assess the Situation
When you’re faced with a specific situation, there are five things to do to assess the scenario at hand before taking action—understand your counterpart; identify the type of conflict you’re facing; consider the organizational context; determine your goal; and, finally, pick one of the four options you’ll take to deal with this particular situation.
The first time you analyze a conflict using these five steps it will take some time, but eventually the analysis will get easier. The goal is to be able to quickly do these steps in your head whenever a disagreement arises.
Understand Your Counterpart
First, consider whom you’re dealing with. Is he a conflict seeker or avoider? How does he typically communicate and how does he prefer to be communicated with? Is he more of a straight shooter who says things like they are or does he tend to beat around the bush? If you frequently work with the person you’re in conflict with, you may already be familiar with his style. If you rarely interact with the person, you’ll have to do some digging. “More and more we’re working with people whom we don’t have the luxury of getting that kind of intelligence on,” says Amy Jen Su. It may be that you’re fighting with an overseas colleague whom you see in person only at annual meetings, or your conflict is with a manager in a different department who sits in another building. “It’s better to know something about the person rather than fighting in a vacuum,” Jen Su says. She suggests that you get whatever information is available. Here’s how.
Look for patterns
Whether or not you know your counterpart well, play the role of observer. How does she handle a tense discussion in a meeting? What’s the look on her face when other people are disagreeing? Does she like people to cut to the chase and lay out just the facts or does she want the complete picture with every gory detail? What have you observed about her communication style? Look for patterns in how she communicates and clues in her behavior. “People who are volatile and confrontational, for example, tend to be that way in a lot of different situations,” says Brett. Ideally you’ll observe the person over time in multiple scenarios. That may not be possible, so take what you can get. Just keep in mind that the fewer instances you see, the less likely you’ll be able to deduce an accurate pattern.
Get input from others
In addition to examining your counterpart’s behavior, you might ask a colleague or two for input. Don’t go around grilling others about him, but ask people to confirm or deny your observations. Say something like, “I noticed Jim flew off the handle in that meeting. Is that typical?” or “I saw Katerina avoid engaging with Tomas when he questioned whether her figures were right. Did you see the same thing?” You can also ask more direct questions: “Can you tell me how this person typically navigates conflict?” Obviously, you have to trust the person you’re asking—you don’t want your colleague to find out you’re snooping on him.
Use this same approach to figure out cultural and office norms. If you’re dealing with a vendor based in a different country, for example, or a colleague who’s located halfway around the world, ask someone who knows that person or is familiar with the culture or office environment how conflict is typically handled. Erin Meyer suggests saying something along these lines: “Here’s how I would deal with this in my culture. How would you typically approach it?” She also recommends that you seek out “cultural bridges,” people who work in your culture and in your counterpart’s. These are often ex-pats who’ve relocated to another office or people based out of headquarters who have to work across multiple locations.
Ask directly
It’s not always advisable to come out and ask: “How do you like to address conflict?” That can be awkward—few people will be prepared to answer this question. Instead, share your own preferences as a way to start the conversation: “You might have noticed that I am more of a conflict seeker. I don’t shy away from arguments, and I tend to get worked up quickly.” You could also share tactful observations about what you’ve noticed about your counterpart. “Based on how you responded to Corinne’s questioning in this morning’s meeting, it seems as if you prefer to steer away from conflict. Is that right?”
You’re trying to learn what someone’s style is, not judge it. Instead of saying “We’ve got a problem here because it seems as if you don’t know how to discuss conflict,” you might ask, “What do you do in your culture when people disagree?” It’s better to ask questions than make statements, and use phrases that ask for confirmation, such as “Correct me if I’m wrong . . .” or “Do I have this right?” Meyer points out that there’s nothing wrong with showing curiosity. “People always like to be asked about themselves,” she says.
Once you learn more about the culture, use that knowledge to help you understand your situation better. Why did he speak to me like that? What did he mean? “If you’re dealing with someone from the Netherlands and he speaks to you in a really direct way,” says Meyer, “you can interpret that behavior differently than if someone from China was short with you.” Was the person really being rude? Was he intentionally being vague and trying to hide something? Or is there a cultural reason for him to speak or behave like that?
If you come up empty-handed
If your digging doesn’t turn up adequate information, all is not lost. Although it helps, having this information is not a prerequisite to a productive conversation. Instead, prepare by playing out a few scenarios. What if she’s a conflict seeker and gets mad at me? What if he yells? What if she’s an avoider and gets upset? Or tries to leave the room?
You may even want to role-play with another coworker. If you do, Jen Su suggests you play your counterpart and your coworker acts as you. That will help you take your counterpart’s perspective and ask yourself, How would I want that person to interact with me? This will also allow you to better understand how your counter part sees you.
How Your Styles Work Together
Now that you have a sense of your approach to conflict and have gleaned some insights into your counterpart’s preferences, how will your styles interact? If you’re both seekers, can you expect an all-out brawl? If you’re both avoiders, should you forget the idea of directly addressing the conflict? See table 4-1 to get a sense of what typically happens between each of the types and how you might manage it.
How conflict approaches work together
Source: Adapted from an interview with Amy Jen Su, coauthor with Muriel Maignan Wilkins of Own the Room: Discover Your Signature Voice to Master Your Leadership Presence (Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2013).
Identify the Type of Conflict
Next, think about what’s causing the conflict. Review the four types of conflict I identified in chapter 1, “Types of Conflict,” and suss out whether your disagreement is over issues related to relationship, task, process, or status (see table 1-1).
Go over what’s happened so far with your counterpart—what she’s said and done, who else has been involved, where the disagreement started, and what it’s related to. With all that information, ask yourself: Are we disagreeing about the goal of a project, or how to achieve it? Does my counterpart think she should be leading the initiative? Have we exchanged barbs? Or all of the above?
Rarely do conflicts fall into just one of these categories, so try to identify each type of conflict that’s occurring. Doing this helps you to:
- Organize your own thoughts. In the midst of a conflict, rational thinking often goes out the window. Considering what type of conflict you’re having will help you set aside your emotional reactions and structure your thinking. If you decide to directly address the situation, parsing the conflict into categories will set you up for a successful conversation (see chapter 5, “Get Ready for the Conversation”).
- Identify common ground. By labeling your differences of opinion, you’ll also see where you and your counterpart concur. If you disagree on how exactly to compensate a customer who received bad service (process), you may note that you agree on the need to make the customer happy (task). This shared goal becomes a foundation for reaching a resolution (see chapter 6, “Have a Productive Conversation”).
- Structure the conversation. Before you begin your discussion with your counterpart, create a list of the types of conflict you’re experiencing and the specific issues you disagree on. This will help guide your conversation and keep you focused on the issue at hand.
Be particularly careful when labeling a disagreement a “relationship conflict.” Many disagreements do end up here, but personalities are not always to blame, says Ben Dattner, author of The Blame Game: How the Hidden Rules of Credit and Blame Determine Our Success or Failure. “More often than not, the real underlying cause of workplace strife is the situation itself rather than the people involved.” What people think they’re fighting about isn’t actually what they are fighting about. For example, they might perceive the root cause of the struggle to be a personality clash when in fact it’s a process conflict.
Dattner explains: “Perhaps the conflict is due to someone on the team simply not doing her job, in which case talking about personality as being the cause of conflict is a dangerous distraction from the real issue . . . Focusing too much on either hypothetical or irrelevant causes of conflict may work in the short term, but it creates the risk over the long term that the underlying causes will never be addressed or fixed.”
Determine Your Goal
Before you decide which approach to take, determine what you hope to accomplish. Keeping in mind the personalities of the people involved, their communication styles, and the type of conflict you’re having, reflect on your ultimate goal: Do you want to complete the project quickly? To deliver the best results you can? Does your relationship with this person matter more than the outcome of the work? Figure out what you need to get done. If you’re under pressure to complete a presentation by a certain date and your counterpart in sales is complaining about how much data you need from him, you might consider doing nothing so that you can get the numbers you need and hit your deadline. Later you could explain to the sales guy how his griping impacted you and ask what would work better for him for future requests.
If you’re having more than one type of conflict, you might set more than one goal. For example, if you’re fighting with your conflict-seeking boss about which metrics to report to the senior leadership team (task conflict) and you and your boss have exchanged heated emails that challenge each other’s understanding of web analytics (relationship conflict), your goal may be to come up with a set of stats that you can both live with and to make sure that your boss understands that you respect her and her expertise.
Make sure your goal is reasonable, suggests IMD’s Jean-François Manzoni, who has conducted extensive research on conflict management. Ask yourself: Does what I want make sense? Is it realistic? If not, set your sights a little lower. Come up with a small, manageable goal, such as “agreeing on which of us will own the redesign project” or “creating a six-week plan for how our team will collaborate.” If you’re disagreeing over how to proceed on an important project, your goal might be to end the conversation by simply agreeing on the next step rather than cementing a full implementation plan.
It’s not uncommon, particularly with relationship conflict, to want to set a goal that’s about changing the other person. Perhaps you’d like to show your colleague that her passive-aggressive behavior doesn’t work or make sure your boss knows what a jerk he’s been for the past week. But these kinds of agendas are better dropped before they lead to full-on fights.
“It’s easy to become aggravated by other people’s actions and forget what you were trying to achieve in the first place,” says Jeffrey Pfeffer, of Stanford’s Graduate School of Business. But it’s not likely you’re going to change the other person, so focus on your goal. If the conflict were over and you found that you had won, what would that look like?
Pick Your Option
Now it’s time to decide what to do. Taking into account your goal, and the other person’s natural tendency and communication style, which of the four options discussed in chapter 2 is best for handling the specific situation you’re in (see table 4-2)?
There is no magic formula that tells you which approach to take. It’s not like two conflict seekers having a relationship conflict who want to restore a friendly rapport should always use the “address directly” approach. The reality is that the option you choose depends on all of the above factors as well as other circumstances, such as your office norms or the amount of time pressure you’re under. Play out each option in your head and assess the pros and cons for your specific situation. If you do nothing, will you be able to let go of the conflict? If you directly confront, will your counterpart be able to engage constructively? There is no one right answer; there’s just the one that’s right for you and the circumstances you’re in. (See also the sidebar “Know When to Walk Away.”)
KNOW WHEN TO WALK AWAY
It’s not an easy decision to walk away from a conflict—temporarily or permanently. But it’s important to recognize when the situation calls for it. “If you’re angry or upset—or your colleague is—it’s not a good time to engage. It won’t help if either of you is yelling or pounding the table,” says Jeanne Brett. She explains that there’s a lot of research that shows people are unable to be rational when their emotions are high (see more on managing your emotions in chapter 6).
Judith White, a leadership professor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, says there are several signs that you need to walk away—at least temporarily:
- Your counterpart is yelling or is otherwise out of control.
- You feel as if you’re going to lose control in any way that might be dangerous to you, your counter part, or your relationship.
- The fight is happening in a public setting where others can see or hear you.
- It becomes obvious that the discussion can’t be resolved through the current conversation. You or your counterpart repeating the same argument over and over is the telltale sign here.
- Your colleague has never demonstrated a willingness to concede.
- The damage is already done. For example, maybe the project you’re fighting over ended last week and the decision can’t be reversed.
Once you’ve made the tough decision to walk away, how do you actually do it? Here are some tips:
- If the situation feels overly heated or dangerous, simply walk away. Leave the room, go to the bathroom, or take a walk outside the building.
- If you can, explain that you need some time to think through the conflict before coming back to it. “Don’t ever tell someone he or she needs to calm down, because the person will lose face or only become more upset,” advises White. (For more sample language examples, see chapter 2, “Your Options for Handling Conflict.”)
- Take the time you need to cool down (or let your counterpart cool down). When you feel ready to make a smart and thoughtful choice about how to address the conflict, you can return to it.
Here’s an example. Jonathan was meeting with his project manager, Rebecca, about why they were falling behind in their deadlines. As a conflict seeker, he was asking pointed questions to get at the root of what was behind the delays. Rebecca was getting more and more agitated as Jonathan went line by line through the plan. Soon Rebecca snapped. She stood up and pointed her finger at Jonathan, accusing him of badgering her. “This is your fault, not mine,” she said. Jonathan quickly apologized for pushing so hard, but Rebecca wouldn’t hear it. She yelled, “I don’t need your apologies. I need you to stop %^@# harassing me.” Jonathan realized he was stuck. Rebecca had lost control, and he didn’t feel like anything he said would help. He stood up and said, “I’m sorry that this conversation has taken this turn. I’m going to go back to my desk to think through how we might resolve this. It’d be great if we could regroup tomorrow.” Rebecca sent him an apology later that night, and when they had both calmed down the next day, they were able to have a more rational conversation about how to get the project back on track.
Sometimes delaying a tense conversation by a day helps, as it did with Rebecca and Jonathan. But sometimes, a day is not enough. You may be faced with a situation in which you decide to permanently walk away—by either doing nothing or exiting the relationship entirely. Whether or not you do this, says White, depends on two questions: How important is this relationship? How potentially valuable is this deal? As Deepak Malhotra and Max H. Bazerman point out in Negotiation Genius: How to Overcome Obstacles and Achieve Brilliant Results at the Bargaining Table and Beyond, you shouldn’t negotiate when the costs of negotiation exceed the potential gains.
Exiting the relationship is particularly advisable when the situation is causing you extreme discomfort—your health is suffering, for example. If you can’t concentrate on anything else or are having panic attacks, there’s no sense enduring more torture. Also, if your counterpart is singling you out and trying to prevent you from doing your job, it’s time to take extreme measures. Speak to someone else, such as your boss or an HR representative, to see what support is available to you.
Be mindful of your natural tendency
Because the conflict may have triggered a fight-or-flight response in your brain, your immediate response—“We need to address this right away” or “I’m going to find a new job”—may not be the best one. Conflict avoiders often gravitate toward the first two options (doing nothing or addressing the conflict indirectly), while seekers prefer the latter two (addressing directly or exiting). Keep this in mind when you’re choosing your option. Ask yourself whether you’re doing what’s best for the situation—and will most likely help you achieve your goal—or if you’re opting for an approach that’s most comfortable for you.
Cool down before deciding
Brett says that it’s wise to take a breather before choosing an approach. “Weighing whether to bring up and try to resolve a conflict should be a rational decision. The first question to ask yourself: Am I too emotional right now?” she says. If so, take a step back from the conflict. Return to your desk and take a few deep breaths. Go for a walk outside. Or sleep on it. You want to be sure whatever route you choose is based on a lucid decision, not a rash one.
In a highly emotional conflict—in which one or both parties are extremely angry or upset—it can be tempting to exercise the exit option. But even situations in which feelings are running high can benefit from you opting to address it, or even doing nothing. Judith White says: “It’s natural for people to feel strong emotion in a conflict situation. Once the conflict is identified and addressed, and parties are allowed to vent, emotion usually dissipates . . . Recognize the emotion, but don’t let it stop you from negotiating.”
Adapt Your Approach
Managing conflict is a fluid process. You may start with one approach and then find you need to switch to another if your selected approach is no longer working or the conflict grows or changes. For example, you may decide to directly address the situation by talking with your colleague about why you’re disagreeing over the targets each of your teams should be hitting, but then find that you’re getting nowhere: Your coworker is unresponsive or, worse, frustrated that you don’t agree with her and just gets angrier. Then you may decide to do nothing and move on. You could also start with the do-nothing option and realize that the problem is getting worse, so you need to address it directly, by talking with your colleague, or indirectly, by going to your boss. As you weigh the options for your specific situation, you don’t have to make a choice and stick to it no matter what. You can always change tactics as your conflict plays out.
Consider this example. Amara and Vivek work closely in a small design group. Amara has to complete her initial designs before Vivek can take over the presentations and do the formatting that is his responsibility. In a team meeting, Vivek made an offhand comment about Amara “taking her time” with the latest batch of presentations. Amara thought about the statement, and even talked about it with another colleague, and she concluded that it could be interpreted in several ways, but the implication was that Amara’s speed was impacting Vivek’s work. Amara tends to avoid conflict, so she didn’t like the idea of bringing it up with Vivek. Plus they had worked well together for so long. She didn’t see the point.
She thought she could let it go. And for a few weeks, she did. But soon she realized that it was still bothering her. Every time she handed something off to Vivek, she mentally replayed his saying “She’s taking her time,” so she decided to address the situation directly. She scheduled an appointment with Vivek to ask what he had meant and to find a way to move forward.
The fluidity of the process can work the other way, too. Take Marie’s story. She called one of her long-time vendors to directly address and explain that her company’s payment terms had changed. In the middle of the conversation, Claude, the finance manager at the vendor, hung up on her. She emailed him and said that she’d like to set up a time to talk. But when they got on the phone again, Claude wouldn’t say anything other than “This doesn’t work for us.” Marie was offended and frustrated. Recognizing that the direct approach wasn’t working, she decided to go to Claude’s boss and appeal to him. She didn’t want to get Claude in trouble, but they clearly weren’t able to resolve the conflict on their own. Soon after she spoke with Claude’s manager and explained the situation, Claude called her and offered to negotiate the terms.
The next two chapters talk about preparing for and conducting a conversation if you’ve decided to address the conflict directly. Even if you’ve chosen one of the other options, your approach may change, so it’s best to be prepared.