Chapter 13

Managing Conflict Constructively

When we think of conflict, often what comes to mind is war: factions diametrically opposed over a significant issue. But there are many types of conflicts. Not all of them are struggles for power or property or people. Lines are often drawn at work, too, and can sometimes be just as fiery: A colleague erupts in a meeting over a perceived injustice. Or a discussion grows heated and loud. But just because most workplaces are civil and quiet doesn’t mean they’re devoid of conflict.

Consider this story. Robin and Eli worked together on a joint project virtually, from different time zones. Robin spent her mornings drafting the piece of the project she’d be working on that day with Eli. When Eli came online several hours later, he wouldn’t read what Robin had done; instead, he wanted to work together in real time to create a bullet-point outline. This practice annoyed Robin. Why had she spent hours getting a head start if Eli was going to ignore her work and control the conversation later in the day anyway? She fell in line, ceding to his way of working, but she also started getting grumpy with him, growling at his suggestions or huffing her way through his re-creation of work she’d already done. This passive-aggressive dance went on for weeks, until finally Robin quit doing any work on the joint project. Eli didn’t even notice that Robin had stopped contributing until she broke and flagged it for him. Sometimes, conflict is quiet.

It’s also widespread. In fact, employees at all levels spend 2.8 hours a week dealing with unproductive conflict, according to a 2008 study by CPP Global. That adds up to more than $350 billion a year in wasted wages. Unproductive conflict might be as simple as experiencing a perceived slight or misunderstanding a process, as was the case with Robin. Or it could be as complicated as locking horns in a client presentation. We waste company time and money either entrenched in these fights or avoiding a confrontation while things get worse.

Work disputes not only prevent you from focusing on doing your job well but also likely bleed into your personal life, consuming your precious free time with worry, dumping misplaced frustration on your family, and placing unwelcome stress on you.

So why don’t we have the argument and then move forward? In general, we avoid addressing uncomfortable issues because few people like to deal with conflict head-on. “People have a basic need to be liked,” says leadership consultant Ron Ashkenas. “As soon as you get into a conflict, there’s this discomfort that the relationship is going to be broken.” And on top of that fundamental human need, there are layers of complicated reasons that make it difficult to confront someone. Maybe you aren’t sure where you fall in the informal hierarchy. Perhaps you’ve tried, and failed, to resolve clashes in the past. You could be secretly hoping that if you just wait it out, it will go away. Or maybe you imagine that your boss will notice and intervene.

But conflict is seldom resolved through avoidance or wishful thinking. Even the most conflict-averse of us can develop productive ways to confront—and resolve—thorny issues. The guidelines that follow will help you manage conflict more constructively.

Get More Comfortable with Conflict

First, you need to recognize that not all conflict is bad. In fact, it can be a healthy thing for an organization, leading to creativity, innovation, collaboration, and problem solving. Consider the classic tension between sales and product teams: Aggressive reps make customers promises that the product teams can’t possibly deliver. Or so it seems—until the drive to satisfy the customer and meet expectations leads to innovations in manufacturing, product design, and sometimes completely new offerings.

“Teams composed of high-performing individuals are naturally subject to contradictory tensions, such as cooperation and rivalry,” suggests Mark de Rond, an associate professor of strategy and organization at the Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, and the author of There Is an I in Team. But these tensions should not necessarily be managed away. They boost productivity and help teams perform better, because they stem from the group’s same diversity of skills, approaches, and opinions that help it build a complete big-picture view, says de Rond, who has researched high-performing teams extensively.

But even if you recognize the benefits of different viewpoints and know that sometimes conflict leads to better work, how do you actually grow more comfortable with it?

Separate emotion from outcome

Consciously separate how you feel about the conflict from how it’s affecting your work. It’s possible that even though a situation seems tense to you, it’s not actually interfering with excellent results, de Rond’s research suggests. Participating in an after-action review of a failed product launch may raise your blood pressure, for example, but this discussion may also yield useful process changes to avoid such disasters in the future.

To help disentangle your feelings from your output, ask yourself whether your struggles with a colleague have actually had a negative impact. Have they made the project schedule slip, resulted in inferior work, or jeopardized a client relationship? It’s not uncommon for work that feels difficult while it’s under way to actually be stellar in the end—and recognizing this can help you see how tension is an integral part of the creative process.

Don’t make it personal

You may also feel uncomfortable with conflict because you don’t like the idea of “attacking” someone. But you can confront someone without shredding her character. When you focus on the problem at hand, instead of the person involved, you can challenge a colleague without it sounding like—or being—an attack, advises Ashkenas. Asking probing questions and challenging assumptions, for example, and using language such as, “Have you thought about this?” and “Correct me if I’m wrong, but . . .” can go a long way toward shifting the conversation from “attack” to a calmer exploration of an issue. (For more on conducting difficult conversations, see chapter 14.)

When you focus on the outcome of your work and on whatever problems—not personality differences—there are, you’ll grow more comfortable in confronting people, because it will feel less like they’re out to get you or purposefully trying to make you crazy. Still, conflict is inevitable. Here’s how to cope.

Identify and Resolve Your Conflict

Now that you’ve done some work on how you think about conflict, it’s time to unearth the root cause of the tension at hand, find the courage to deal with it, and successfully work through the issue with your colleague. No matter what the source of conflict is, the key to resolving it is not to struggle in silence, says Ashkenas, but to bring your concern out in the open. “Try to make the implicit, explicit,” he says. Name it. Say it out loud. Identify it for yourself first: “Nicolas and I have fundamentally different priorities on this project.” A problem that is never articulated is unlikely to be solved—whether it’s something you’re harboring or your colleague is.

When you’ve collected your thoughts and cooled down from any anger or annoyance you were feeling, go see your colleague, privately, to discuss what’s bothering you. Ask him when a good time would be to meet. In essence you’re asking for his permission to have a discussion, advises organizational development and HR expert Susan Heathfield. You can do it by e-mail or popping by his office. If your colleague isn’t ready to have a discussion, he’s likely to beg off: “Not today, I’m swamped.” And then at least you know you need to give it a bit of time. But try again the next day. Don’t go in with guns blazing; have your key points about your view of the differences, but be prepared to listen.

When you find a time that works for you, acknowledging the actual conflict will be an important start to solving it. Although situations vary, there are several universal pieces of advice for having a productive disagreement.

• Articulate. Understand and be able to clearly express what the clash is about.
• Empathize. Consider your colleague’s point of view.
• Have courage. An honest conversation that recognizes your different perspectives will propel you forward.

Most disagreement stems from one of three sources, says Jeff Weiss, a partner at Vantage Partners consulting group and an expert in conflict management: different agendas, different perceptions, or different personal styles. Although many of the approaches offered here are broadly applicable, each of these three main sources has its own nuances that require attention. Here are suggestions for recognizing and navigating them.

Different agendas

When it comes to conflicts born of different agendas, we often see well-intentioned people working toward different and legitimate aims who allow a situation to turn into a black and white dispute: I want X. You want Y. We can’t agree. One of us has to lose for the other to win. This is the most common source of disputes in a company, and it isn’t personal, Weiss says. You simply have different roles and goals.

How can you find common ground despite these different goals? You need to sit down to talk with the other person to figure out what you’re each driving toward.

Tips on the conversation.

• Explain what you’re trying to achieve. Express your desire to understand and be understood. Clarify that you’re not after a battle of retorts. Say something such as, “I’m up against a hard deadline, so trading e-mails back and forth is going to mean we lose the business, and it’ll probably make us both unhappy in the process. Can we meet to discuss ways we might satisfy our client—and both of our needs?”
• Ask your colleague what’s at the root of his concern. Really listen, and ask questions. Be open to his point of view. Genuinely try to grasp it. Using language such as, “May I ask why . . .” and “I’d like to hear what concerns you’re trying to address with . . .” will demonstrate that you’re listening with an open mind.
• Work with your colleague to come up with a better plan. Now that you know what you’re both working toward, is there a way to address both of your concerns and needs? Two well-intentioned people can usually work through their disagreement in any negotiation to get to a place they both feel good about. “Let’s aim to get a revised proposal to the customer by the close of business tomorrow. Can we spend an hour together today working through language that might work for both of us?”

Let’s see how a conflict of different agendas might unfold.

The wrong way.

Suppose you’re a salesperson trying to close a large deal with a customer to meet your monthly goals. You’ve decided to offer a substantial discount and forgo the customary 25% deposit in advance of any work. This is a longtime customer, and you don’t want to risk losing it to an aggressive new competitor. You try to slip the paperwork under the legal department’s nose on a busy Friday so that it won’t hold you up. But your colleagues are used to such frenzied month-end tactics. They know well the high price of poorly outlined terms that make it painful or impossible for finance to collect. They intercept the documents, calling out the deviations from standard contracts, and return a redlined nightmare that prevents you from closing the deal, serving your customer, and meeting your target.

A better way.

Explain what you’re trying to achieve: “This is a longtime, reliable customer, and we’ve never had a problem with payment. I’m really worried that we’re at risk of losing this substantial customer to a new competitor who is offering far more favorable terms. I’m trying to take some of the bureaucracy out of our agreement here to close a deal quickly and edge out our competitors.” Empathize with your colleagues. What were they trying to achieve? “May I ask why you’re leery of putting the contract through as it is? What concerns are you trying to address with your edits?” Get beyond accusations and ultimatums such as, “You can’t do that” to discover what’s motivating the behavior you don’t like. The key to a productive outcome here is coming to an understanding of what’s driving each other’s agendas, says Weiss. When you learn more about why someone has a different view than you do—and you have a chance to explain your own—you’re far more likely to find a creative solution that works for both of you.

Your goal isn’t to “win” but to find a better way forward based on your increased comprehension of each other’s interests. It may be that the legal department doesn’t want a culture of one-off contract terms to become the norm. You may discover a new law that exposes your company to unseen liability if a particular clause is excluded from a contract. With an open conversation and brainstorming, you’ll likely find a path that is better for the company.

Different perceptions

In conflicts that arise due to different perceptions, the basic facts are not in dispute, but what you think about those facts varies based on your personal filters. Two people can be in the same meeting and walk away with different ideas about what the next steps are. You just see the world differently. Resolving differences in perception, de Rond says, requires an explanation from both parties. Understanding your colleague’s point of view—and how she came to it—and sharing how you came to yours will help you create a shared view.

Tips on the conversation.

• Understand how you developed your own view. Before you confront your colleague, Weiss advises, ask yourself, “What data, actions, or examples was I looking at that led to my conclusion?” Also ask “How am I interpreting this data? What meaning am I assigning to it?” It’s possible your personal experiences or preferences have colored the information you received. Knowing what has shaped your perception will help you have a more productive conversation.
• Ask your colleague how she reached her perception of the situation. When you meet, have your colleague walk you through the data (it doesn’t have to be quantitative), and the meaning that she gave to it, that led to her conclusion, suggests Weiss. You have two different pictures of what’s going on that are both viable, and also likely quite understandable given your interpretations and experiences. Use open, nonconfrontational language. “Can you help me understand how you see . . . ?” Listen to her side, without interrupting or debating.
• Acknowledge that you have different perceptions. Whether or not you agree with your colleague, acknowledge the difference in your views and explain that you realize why she reached her position. Doing so sets the right tone for a useful discussion. People are far more likely to come out of defensive mode when they feel they’ve been heard. Say, explicitly, “I might not agree with you, but I see why you came to that conclusion.”
• Share the thinking behind your own perspective. This is your chance to rationally walk through why you’ve come to your point of view and to have a meaningful conversation. Because you were a good listener when your colleague was speaking, you’ve raised the odds for her to return the favor. If she tries to interrupt or dispute, a simple “Please hear me out” should help get the conversation back on track, advises Ashkenas. Keep the tone collegial and collaborative. Use language that acknowledges that you may not have all the answers. “You could be right, but I just wanted to talk through why I think it’s important to . . .”
• Allow your colleague to challenge you. When you’ve both had a chance to air your views, it’s time to discuss them. It’s possible your perception feels wrong to the other person, so be open to hearing that. Give your colleague a chance to air whatever she has to say. Don’t interrupt and defend yourself mid-sentence. Don’t start building up your response in your mind before your colleague has finished. Force yourself to really listen to what she’s saying. And when she’s done, repeat to her what you think you heard, using neutral terms. “Do I have this right? You have consulted with a number of colleagues who feel that this particular project is different from previous ones and needs more input than normal. And my suggestions are not taking that into account?” If your colleague hears it come back to her accurately, then she opens up the possibility of listening closely to you. You’ve both shifted into neutral. If your colleague clams up—her hostile body language the only indicator—solicit her challenge. “I’m guessing you disagree. Can you tell me what you’re thinking?”
• Come to a third point of view. It may be that neither of you is able to agree with the other person’s perspective, but at least you’ll know why you disagree. And your conversations may then lead to a third, alternative view.

Here’s how a conflict of perceptions might play out in real life.

The wrong way.

Say you and your colleague Rohit are asked to join the team that will redesign your company’s website. The CEO’s mandate is to create a high-quality web presence using the best internal resources possible. But what does “best internal resources possible” mean? You think it entails targeting resources—getting internal buy-in on key aspects related to function. As such, you’re willing to risk delaying the launch so that finance, sales, and marketing are happy with the shopping cart functionality. But Rohit seems to be interpreting “best internal resources possible” to mean that everyone needs to weigh in on the look and feel of the new site. Rather than giving formal presentations to keep folks up-to-date on how the redesign is coming together, he’s conducting one-on-one sessions with random people—for instance, asking finance colleagues what they think about color palettes or fonts. His seemingly whimsical feedback collection strategy threatens to delay the schedule, and for what purpose? Needless niceties of tapping a group that has no expertise in this area? The CEO put you both on the team because you’re known for bringing difficult projects in on time. But you’re steaming over Rohit’s approach, whereas he thinks the approach you’re advocating excludes employee input.

You confront Rohit: “Enough with the cube-by-cube tour of wireframes! You’re more concerned with looking like a superhero project manager of the people than you are about the impact all this feedback will have on the people who actually need to implement and act on it.” He’s genuinely shocked and hurt. The way he sees it, he’s been following the CEO’s orders to use company resources, gathering input and keeping a complex project on track. How did you get to such different places?

A better way.

Assume that your colleague has good reason for his different opinion; it’s unlikely he’s working just to spite you. Ask him to explain how he sees the issue, and then you should have the same opportunity. Digging into what you each think something means (what does “best use of internal resources” look like to you?) will help you both better manage your expectations and future behavior. “Can you help me identify which presentations you thought were important, and which ones you decided to pass on?” Listen to his reply. It could be, for example, that Rohit’s informal conversations with people in the finance department suggested that they’d rather not sit through an hour-long PowerPoint presentation and preferred to offer their recommendations in a more ad hoc format. You don’t have to agree with his view, but you should acknowledge it: “I can see why you wound up chatting with the finance folks one-on-one, given their schedule constraints.” Then share what’s behind your perspective: “Let me explain why I think it’s important to consult people from different departments only on their area of expertise.”

It may be that neither of you is able to agree with the other person’s perspective, but at least you’ll know why you disagree. And your conversations may then lead to an alternative view. Together, you can craft a productive solution: The two of you could cohost town-hall-style meetings to targeted groups, but make attendance voluntary. You could then send summary briefings to the core team members for their feedback before they finalize decisions—all well within the bounds of your schedule.

Different personal styles

Type A personality versus creative maverick. Deadline-driven person versus a “schedules are only guidelines” type. Conflicts born of different personal styles can be the most difficult to navigate, because at their core, it might be that you and your colleague are completely different. But as with the other two sources of disagreement, your primary goal is to see where your colleague is coming from and what is motivating his request or behavior, says Weiss. Understanding, appreciating, and trying to take advantage of your different views will help you move forward.

Tips on the conversation.

• Give your colleague the benefit of the doubt. “Make the starting point in your mind the assumption that the other person isn’t intentionally trying to screw you,” Ashkenas advises. Most people are trying to do their jobs the best way they know how. Your colleague’s behavior has nothing to do with you. He’s probably like this with everyone. It’s just how he operates.
• Acknowledge that there are differences—and identify them. Recognize that the core issue might simply be a different way of thinking. Articulate what you perceive to be the central differences. It can’t simply be that she “bugs” you. (And if someone grates on you, you probably don’t have grounds for an air-clearing conversation with her. Take a walk around the block instead. See chapter 15, “Working with People You Just Can’t Stand.”) Name the specific behavior or actions that you disagree with: “You and I seem to have a different view on when meetings start. I expect the meeting to start at 9 if we’ve called it for 9. But you seem to think the meeting doesn’t really start until everyone is there.”
• Find a way forward. When you have both perspectives on the table, together you can find a solution without rehashing past offenses or pointing fingers. To do that effectively, frame the conversation toward the future: If you spend your time picking over “he said, she said” analysis, you’ll never get anywhere. Mary Shapiro, management consultant and author of the HBR Guide to Leading Teams, suggests asking the question, “What do we need to do differently going forward?” For instance, what reporting relationships need to change? What time lines? What team processes? How can you or others change the context to prevent unhelpful behavior going forward? How would you like to work with your colleague in the future?

A real-life conflict of personal styles might look like this.

The wrong way.

Say you’re a punctual person. You make a point of being on time or early to every meeting you attend or facilitate. You come prepared, you’ve put away unnecessary electronics, and you don’t get caught up in small talk that eats away at planned meeting time. Your colleague Alan, on the other hand, routinely turns up to meetings 10 minutes late. He breezes in, all apologies, and then looks expectantly at you as facilitator to bring him up to speed. Everyone who arrived on time endures a rehashing of material they covered only minutes ago. The people in the meeting roll their eyes at you for not being sensitive to their time, and you’re mentally throttling Alan. Everyone’s frustrated, and now you’re behind on your agenda, too.

The next time Alan turns up late for your meeting, you dramatically stop the discussion and make a spectacle of his tardiness: “Alan, how nice of you to join us!” Or perhaps you begin overloading his inbox with excessive meeting reminders, hovering near his desk when it’s time to head to the conference room. You’re so focused on your annoyance with him, you don’t pay attention to the five other people who consistently turn up for your meetings on time and prepared.

A better way.

When your conflict is the result of a clash of personal styles, take a moment to remind yourself that people who are different from each other can still get along. Think about what’s really bothering you. When you’ve collected your thoughts and emotions, meet with your colleague to learn more about where he’s coming from and to find a way to work together. You might say, “Alan, I’m frustrated when you’re late for meetings, because I feel that we either can’t start without you or if we do start, we’ll need to pause and bring you up to speed. Is there something I can do to schedule them in a way that works better for you?” He may reveal a very good reason for consistently being late to meetings. Perhaps he assumes that you know he’s in meetings so much of the day that it’s physically impossible to finish one meeting at noon and be in his seat for the next one by 12:01. Or he may have seen from the agenda that the first five minutes would be an overview of the project—really for the benefit of the more junior employees—and that his contributions would be needed when you were further along the agenda. Once you’ve both shared your perspectives, you can work toward a solution. For example, you might conclude that Alan will take a narrower role in the meeting. You remain leader, and he joins the group at an agreed-upon time to serve as an expert on a key issue. Or you could let him know when it’s particularly important that he attend a meeting so that he can rearrange his schedule or commitments to be on time.

There are many shades of gray in those three broad types of discord, so it’s no wonder it can seem easier to just avoid having a confrontation. But analyzing what’s driving the tension can help you ameliorate it. If you’re prepared to walk through the steps of understanding what the disagreement is about, giving your colleague the benefit of the doubt, and hashing out a better way forward without creating “winners” and “losers,” you’ll genuinely be developing your skills as a collaborator and colleague whom people respect.

Know When to Bring In the Boss

As a last resort, it’s OK to escalate a problem with a colleague to your boss, says Weiss, but only after you’ve given some real thought to why you two haven’t been able to resolve the problem on your own. Most managers aren’t interested in fighting your battles for you. But if every thing you’ve tried together has failed, enlist the other person in the escalation to avoid looking as if you’re “tattling.” In a calm moment, go to your colleague and see if you can at least jointly define the problem and diagnoses for it to better help your manager help you.

Acknowledge that you’re both trying to do the right thing; you just happen to disagree on what that is, and admit that you’re at a standstill. “John, I don’t think you and I are getting anywhere trying to resolve this issue. Would you be willing to go with me to ask Lydia for her help in working through a solution?” Transparency builds trust.

Agree that you’ll reach out to the boss together, and work out the specifics: Will the two of you stop by to ask her to meet with you? Will you send an e-mail invitation that you both draft and are copied on? Approaching the boss in this way sends a clear message that you’re cooperating in your quest for a solution.

It’s in your mutual interest to avoid being seen as difficult to work with or unwilling to compromise. When you meet with the boss, explain that you seem to have different objectives (or work styles, or perceptions) and that you’re at an impasse. This is not an opportunity to complain about the other person—either directly or through passive-aggressive language (such as “John seems to think that it’s worth risking losing a key customer in order to keep the historic blueprint of all our contracts intact”).

Instead, state the issue clearly, focusing on the problem, not the personalities: “We’re stuck, and we need your help thinking this through.” Frame the conflict by describing its impact on the organization. “This customer is worth $10 million in business to us annually. We want to be careful not to establish a bad precedent for overlooking important legal protections, but if we can’t agree on the right language for this contract quickly, we risk the customer looking elsewhere.” Briefly explain what you’ve tried thus far. Your neutral airing of the issue, your united front in appearing at the meeting, and your demonstration of how you’ve tried to solve the problem will make your boss more willing to work with you both. She may know of other internal resources—such as in-house mediation services or organizational guidelines for conflict. Or she may just make a judgment call that you both have to live with.

Finding productive ways to work through conflict with your colleagues offers tremendous benefits: a unified front for working with customers or suppliers, faster and better internal decision making, reduced costs through sharing resources and expertise, and the development of more innovative products and solutions, Weiss points out.

As you grow more comfortable with conflict and your resolution skills improve over time, your boss and colleagues will come to respect the way you work collaboratively through obstacles. Some of the greatest leaders in history have excelled by navigating conflict effectively. Abraham Lincoln, for example, famously brought his rivals into his inner circle. According to de Rond, “I think workplaces today place far too much emphasis on harmony in teams, assuming that the better you and I get along, the better we will perform. Most teams that I have studied have not been easy places to be for a lot of the time. But they were effective.” Choosing to be effective involves working through conflict. It’s a skill that can help drive your own performance and career to a much better place.