CHAPTER 1

Types of Conflict

In the middle of a dispute, when your brain kicks into overdrive, you might be stuck wondering, Where did this conversation go wrong? or Why is my coworker so mad? It might feel as if your colleague is being unreasonable, that the situation is intractable, or that your relationship will never recover.

Uncovering what’s truly going on—what’s at the root of the disagreement—will help you set aside your emotional reaction and begin to solve the problem.

There are generally four types of conflict: relationship, task, process, and status (see table 1-1).

The common sources of conflict are neatly delineated here, but in reality, disagreements rarely fall into just one of these categories. More often, there are multiple things going on and a conflict may start as one type and expand into another. We’ll follow the story of a cross-functional team at TechCorp, a fictional tech company, to illustrate what these categories look like in the real world.

Relationship

This is what we most often assume is happening when we get into a conflict—a clash of personalities.

What it is

A personal disagreement. Sometimes called an interpersonal or emotional conflict, it’s when one or both of you feel disrespected or hurt. It includes:

• Snapping at each other in meetings
• Exchanging snarky emails
• Avoiding eye contact in the hallway
• Interrupting, or talking over, a colleague in a meeting
• Using a condescending tone to indicate your disagreement
• Arguing over who’s right and who’s wrong

Quite often a relationship conflict starts as something else. A disagreement over a project schedule escalates to bickering that disrupts a team meeting. Or a difference of opinion on the company’s strategy devolves into a heated debate about who’s right and who’s wrong. You may both have valid points, and good intentions, but some disagreements turn ugly. Annie McKee describes it this way: “In a perfect world, we follow the textbook advice, treat conflict logically, behave like adults, and get on with it. The problem is, we’re not working in a perfect world, and none of us is perfect. We each bring our own baggage to work every day. And some of our issues—insecurity, the desire for power and control, habitual victimhood—rear their heads again and again.”

Example

A team of functional leaders at TechCorp all agree that one of their best-performing products needs a new feature, but the SVP of product development and the SVP of engineering can’t agree on the ultimate goal. Their differing views gradually escalated from lively debate to a public blowout. Now they trade passive-aggressive barbs over group emails and interrupt each other in meetings. Some teammates have become so uncomfortable witnessing the interactions that they’ve started declining meetings in which they know both will be present. Not only do the SVPs disagree, they can’t believe that the other person doesn’t see it the same way. It’s no longer about what’s best for TechCorp and the customer. For both of them, it’s about being right.

The benefits of managing it well

There are typically few benefits to relationship conflict, says Jeanne Brett. When our egos and sense of pride get involved, it’s painful, and challenging to manage effectively.

But even uncomfortable interpersonal conflict can have positive outcomes. Jonathan Hughes, an expert on corporate negotiations and relationship management, points out that these types of disputes give us the opportunity to learn more about ourselves and our colleagues. We better understand each other’s values, working styles, and personalities and therefore build better relationships, “which creates a virtuous cycle,” he says. If you’ve established that you can successfully navigate conflict, you’re more likely to give honest feedback and challenge each other when necessary.

Task

The most common source of disagreement at work is task conflict.

What it is

A dispute over the goal of a task or project or what you’re trying to achieve. This includes disagreements about:

• The agenda for a staff meeting
• How the success of a new initiative should be defined or measured
• Whether the customers or the employees should come first
• How much risk a company should assume when partnering with other organizations
• Whether to prioritize revenue or customer satisfaction

“The most common form of task conflict in organizations is functional,” explains Brett. Marketing, legal, and finance may look at the same problem and see it completely differently. For example, marketing may lobby to put the customer first, while legal’s aim is to protect the company from risk, and finance is trying to cut costs. Each may argue that their perspective on how to solve the problem is more important. “In reality, all those viewpoints and each functional way of addressing the problem are relevant and should be integrated into the solution,” says Brett.

Example

The functional leaders at TechCorp all agree that they want the new feature, but they can’t agree on the objective. Marketing sees it as an opportunity to expand the company’s market share. Finance is focused on improving the business’s margins. And the engineers on the team care about developing something cool that integrates the latest technology. If they can’t agree on what success means for the new feature, they won’t be able to move the project forward—or even worse, they’ll each take it in a separate direction, wasting time and the company’s resources. The engineers spent all weekend developing a prototype of the new feature, but the finance managers are worried that it will be too expensive to produce and the marketing lead isn’t sure users will appreciate the added functionality.

The benefits of managing it well

When we have productive discussions about our different views of project goals or how we should define success, we gain valuable insights, says Hughes. “We live in a world of finite resources, and this type of conversation is helpful in terms of coming to smart decisions about which trade-offs to make.” Should the new feature have less functionality and be more affordable to make? Or is it important to delight customers so that they stay with the company longer? At TechCorp, the new feature is likely to be more robust and useful to the customer precisely because each of the functions is pushing its own agenda. The new feature won’t satisfy everyone, but airing each group’s goals is likely to serve up new ideas and generate productive conversations about what will make the feature successful—more so than if the team had just driven toward one person’s objective.

Process

Another common type of conflict is not about what you’re doing but how you’re doing it.

What it is

A disagreement over how to carry out a project or task, the means or process you use to reach your goal. This includes differences on:

• The best tactic for reaching a quarterly target
• How to implement a new HR policy
• How decisions should be made in a meeting
• How quickly a project should be completed
• Who should be consulted and included as the project is carried out

Process disagreements are easily confused with task conflicts. You think you’re arguing over the outcome when really you can’t agree on how to make a decision. For example, you might get locked into a battle with a coworker over the right strategy for a new project when what you need to settle is not the specific tactic but who gets to make the final call. Or you think the company should do customer research first and a coworker thinks it should get a good-enough product out in the market and see what happens.

Example

At TechCorp, finance thinks that the group should come up with a proposal for the new feature that everyone can agree on, but marketing is lobbying to take a vote and let the majority rule. Marketing is also at odds with the engineers because they think they should conduct customer focus groups throughout the course of development, starting as soon as possible, while the engineers think they should wait until they have an internally approved prototype. None of the three functions agrees on the timeline for completing the project—in time for an important trade show or within the fiscal year.

The benefits of managing it well

Disagreements over how to get something done can help bring about process improvements or unearth hidden benefits. A good way to come up with several viable options, Hughes suggests, is to ask, “What other ways can we imagine meeting our goals?” and then allow your team to offer answers. “People tend to frame things in an unnecessary binary fashion: should we do this or that, but there’s almost always a third or fourth way as well,” he says. It’s natural for finance to lobby for production schedules that align with fiscal year milestones. But discussing the timing with the entire group reveals a critical trade show date, reminds the group of key fiscal-year dates, and allows everyone to share their own team’s schedule and resource constraints. As with task conflict, process conflict can improve results by drawing on the expertise of the whole group.

Status

A less common—but still problematic—source of conflict is when people disagree over their standing within a group.

What it is

A disagreement over who’s in charge or who deserves credit for the work. For example, you think you should be leading an initiative, while your worker thinks he should. It can also include:

• Jockeying for leadership, especially in a team without a formal or designated leader
• Competing to run a high-profile project
• Arguing over or dominating shared resources
• Competing for status symbols, such as the corner office, the latest technology, or having an administrative assistant

Example

The SVP of engineering at TechCorp and the SVP of new product development are going head to head over which one of them should lead the group that’s designing the new feature. In an effort to gain an advantage in this horse race, when the senior leaders congratulate the team on the work so far, the SVP of engineering credits the long hours his group put in, while the SVP of new product development claims it was her team’s brainstorming sessions and market research that led to the concept for the snazzy new feature.

The benefits of managing it well

When a status conflict is resolved, there’s clarity for the team and anyone working with them. “A clear status hierarchy is efficient in that everyone knows his or her role and responsibility,” says Brett. This makes it easier to coordinate work and get things done smoothly. “In stable social hierarchies, lower-status individuals defer to those with higher status, and higher-status individuals look out for the welfare of lower-status ones. At least that is how it is supposed to work,” she says.

It bears repeating that it’s rare to have a conflict that fits neatly into just one of these categories. Often, as the TechCorp example shows, disagreements have elements of all four, and many that start as another type end up as relationship conflicts. Separating out each type cuts through the noise of the conflict to what’s really at hand. Instead of a morass of disagreements, you have an organized list of issues to resolve. “Finding the root causes helps you get into problem-solving mode,” says Hughes. “It doesn’t automatically solve everything. It’s not like the heavens open and the angels sing and the conflict is over. But it does make it easier to resolve.”

No matter what kind of conflict you’re having—or if your conflict is a mess of all four types—you aren’t stuck. You have options for moving forward.