CHAPTER 6

Positive Organizational Conflict and Communication

Kathleen A. Tomlin

Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the presence of creative alternatives for responding to conflict – alternatives to passive or aggressive responses, alternatives to violence.¹

Introduction

When people hear the word conflict, it often conjures up images of angry people fighting with one another. Although conflict tends to get a bad rap, it is actually one of the most valuable aspects of any organization or relationship. When we think about positive organizations, conflict may seem particularly out of place, but this chapter aims to convince you that with the right communication style, conflict can become one of the cornerstones of satisfaction and progress among your employees. The goals of this chapter are as follows:

    •  To dispel the myth that all conflict is negative

    •  To familiarize you with the benefits of conflict

    •  To educate you about the ways to make conflict more positive in your organization

    •  To provide you with training activities to focus your employees on positive conflict.

All too often, people receive advice to “avoid conflict.” We tell our children not to fight and we tell adults that compromise is the key to healthy relationships. There is certainly no single catch-phrase that will capture the complex truths of human relations, but these ways of thinking about conflict may actually be doing more harm than good. In contrast, I tell students in my classes and seminars that, “I love conflict,” and that compromise is, to me, a dirty word. The process of compromise is generally easy and mindless. And, the results of compromise are often short-lived. Instead, I encourage a thoughtful treatment of conflict, which focuses on the goal of positive outcomes over the long term.

At this point, it is valuable to define conflict, since it is a term that means different things to different people. Throughout this chapter, conflict refers to an incompatibility between two or more parties. This incompatibility can refer to interests, goals, ideas, or preferences. Conflicts can unfold as either constructive or destructive, depending on a number of different factors.

To put positive conflict in perspective, imagine a team of five management consultants, hired to diagnose the cause of falling profits at a fictional regional telecommunications company, CallWest. In this situation, evidence about team dynamics tells us that we want a heterogeneous team—people with different backgrounds, experiences, and skills—to increase chances for success. Having five similar people on the team would not be particularly valuable. But although diversity can bring a wealth of knowledge and experience, it also means that the organization will need to manage conflict. Diversity and interdependent work are likely to result in disagreements and it is important to remember that conflicts about ideas, perspectives, and interpretations are intentional. Hence, although unhealthy conflict will waste resources, deliberate, positive conflict is necessary for organizations to thrive.

Back to our scenario at CallWest. Richard is a senior partner on the team. Bryan and Mary are recent hires out of their MBA program. From the beginning, there has been tension between Bryan and Mary, as each competes to prove to Richard who deserves to be promoted. They perceive the promotion as a finite resource that must be awarded to one and not the other. This is what is known as a zero-sum mindset. Because they are operating with such a mindset, they fail to cooperate on the project. When Bryan makes a suggestion, Mary is quick to shoot it down, but fails to make any suggestions of her own. Eventually, the conflict wastes time and prevents the team from focusing properly on the task at hand. This conflict is unhealthy and focuses on interpersonal competition, rather than a legitimate incompatibility of ideas related to their task.

Consider instead Rebeca and Julien, who each spent the past week analyzing the sales, operating costs, and marketing plan for CallWest. Each sees multiple problems with the business, but Rebeca believes the major problem lies in operating costs, while Julien believes it lies in marketing strategy. This results in a thoughtful, candid, and extremely productive discussion of what each individual has discovered in their research. Everyone shares information, debates the merit of each point, and eventually reaches a consensus agreement about which course of action will be best. In a case such as this, Rebeca and Julien are greatly benefiting CallWest through a positive conflict conversation that remains focused on their task.

Distinguishing between Positive and Negative Conflict

There are certainly problems with conflict when it is unhealthy, including losses of time, energy, and resources within your organization. Some researchers have made a useful distinction between real and phony conflict.² Real conflict deals with substantive differences and incompatibility. Conflicts arising from differing opinions, new ideas, or recognition of problems can be extremely important for an organization. It is through these types of conflict that organizations experience creativity, innovation, growth, and thriving. Phony conflict occurs because of negative behaviors and communication, often resulting from defensiveness or hostility. Conflicts that arise because of misunderstandings, personality clashes, insufficient resources, or power struggles can undermine an otherwise effective team. So, while there is potential value to be found from real conflict, phony conflict is costly and should be avoided.

Conflict is natural in organizational settings. In fact, there are many conflict styles, each with their own pros and cons. In the next section, we will explore common conflict styles.

Conflict Styles

For good ideas and true innovation, you need human interaction, conflict, argument, debate.³

Research on social conflicts has identified five distinct styles of responding to disagreement and conflict. These styles are the result of a dual-concern model, which suggests that individuals balance a concern for the self with a concern for others (i.e., find a balance between assertiveness and cooperativeness). This dual-concern model is pictured in Figure 6.1.⁴ In other words, people have mixed motives in conflicts, which may push them to be both cooperative and assertive at the same time.⁵ The conflict styles are avoiding, accommodating, competing, compromising, and collaborating.

Figure 6.1 Conflict styles as a function of concern for the self and the other

Generally, individuals have a propensity to respond to conflict with the style that they find most comfortable. This can be due to particular facets of their personality or past experiences that taught them what works “best.” It is important to note that there is no one universally best style for dealing with conflict. There are good reasons to adopt each of the styles in different situations, but caution is warranted if a style is used for the wrong reason. The effectiveness of different conflict styles varies across contexts, so it is important to do a thoughtful analysis of each situation to determine which style will lead to the most positive conflict.

Avoiding

Avoiding is characterized as having low interest for both self and other—one is neither assertive nor cooperative. When an individual withdraws from a conflict, walks away, or “lets it go,” they are being avoidant. In more extreme cases, a person may refuse to engage with a conflict, even if the other person would prefer to address the issues of concern.

It is valuable to interpret this description of avoidant conflict behavior as prescriptive—that only in the case when one does not care about his or her own outcome or the other person’s outcome, that it makes sense to be avoidant in conflict. There certainly are cases where sidestepping a problem is the best course of action (particularly when the stakes are low and the disagreement is small). However, people also avoid conflict when that is not the case because they are uncomfortable with the idea of engaging in a difficult conversation or they are afraid of the possible negative outcomes of a more assertive approach.

Accommodating

Accommodating is characterized as having high concern for the other person and low concern for one’s own interests—one is highly cooperative and not assertive. When an individual acquiesces or self-sacrifices for another person they are accommodating. This may be done in an effort to keep the peace, but if there are serious underlying issues, it only prolongs and may even exacerbate the negative feelings surrounding the conflict. If a person perceives a serious problem, but chooses an accommodating approach to conflict, the conflict is more likely to repeat itself. This is because the other person has claimed all the value (i.e., gotten what they want), so they are likely to repeat the same pattern again in the hope of additional gain.

Because of the messages that people receive about conflict being destructive and inappropriate, many people feel that it is best to avoid and/or accommodate conflict. Often, individuals continue to avoid conflict even when doing so puts the likelihood of success at risk. A common term in management is “groupthink.”⁶ This is the idea that individuals may not express dissent, simply to prevent social tension or conflict within their group or team. It is a “don’t rock the boat” attitude that leads to many problems further down the line.

Let’s revisit the CallWest management team that we introduced earlier. Imagine that the team is discussing the information each has gathered. One of the team members, Rebeca, realizes she has data, which contradict much of what the other team members are presenting. If her data are correct, many of the conclusions that are being drawn are false and the team is heading in the wrong direction. But, Rebeca is afraid of upsetting the other team members by suggesting that their information may not be accurate. Instead, she keeps her findings to herself and the discussion moves along.

The risk here is that Rebeca’s data were, in fact, accurate and vital to the team’s success, but to avoid a few minutes of uncomfortable conversation she did not share it with the group and now all efforts on this project may be in jeopardy.

It is often difficult to distinguish between avoiding and accommodating, as they tend to have similar negative causes and consequences. Individuals often adopt an avoidant or accommodating style because they simply are not assertive enough or confident enough in their position. The fear of being wrong may limit sharing of ideas and opinions, stifling creativity, and reducing the value of teams. But, if these social anxieties can be addressed by making imperfection the norm (rather than a culture where one must always be right), this may free up individuals to risk sharing their perspectives. And, utilizing process interventions that limit criticism (e.g., brainstorming) may create a safe environment for employees to pursue positive conflict.

Competing

Competing is most likely when an individual has high concern for personal interests and low concern for the interests of others. When people aggressively stand their ground or try to win at all costs, they are competing. Individuals often assume that their conflict is about a finite resource that must be divided between the two parties. In the case of negotiation, this type of behavior would be referred to as “distributive” or “zero-sum” bargaining. Unfortunately, this competitive style is typically what people imagine when they think of conflict rather than understanding that it is one of several options.

Adopting a competitive style in conflict is risky and often shortsighted. If there is an interest in maintaining or improving relationships with the other people involved, a competitive style is likely not the best choice. Though it may feel good to get everything you want in the short run, in the long run others may perceive you as overly aggressive and self-interested. In the world of interdependent workplaces, a competitive employee may be described as “not being a team player.”

Another risk of competitive behavior is dissatisfaction among those who do not get their way or who sacrifice a lot of value. Those who feel that they have somehow “lost” in a conflict may develop bitter feelings toward the perceived victor. It may be particularly easy to take the competitive approach to conflict if you are higher in power (e.g., more senior within the organization), but in doing so you have failed to address the problem from both points of view—instead, you merely overwhelmed a weaker party who did not have the ability to assert themselves. In these cases, conflict is likely to resurface again and a negative cycle will repeat indefinitely.

Compromising

Compromising occurs when you have moderate interest for both the self and the other person—one is moderately assertive and moderately cooperative at the same time. When an individual chooses to split the difference or meet in the middle, they are compromising. Because it is often easy to see a way to give each person a little bit of what they want, compromising is relatively fast, but it is a low-effort, noncreative process that leaves a lot of untapped value.

Compromise is common, in part because its dangers are not obvious or intuitive. There is a logical fallacy of the “argument for middle ground” (also known as “false compromise”). Many people naturally assume that if there are two extreme opinions, then the truth must lie somewhere in between. This is not a fair assumption, as information is often either wholly correct or incorrect. The middle ground between the truth and a lie is not the best position for which to advocate.

Another way to think about this is that people have an option to either maximize or satisfice.⁷ Maximizing is when you seek out the optimal choice or solution to a problem. Satisficing is settling for a solution that is “good enough.” In life, there are certainly cases where it is acceptable to satisfice—especially when the stakes are low and you need to make a quick decision. But, for much of what takes place in organizations, the stakes are high.

The middle ground fallacy, or choosing to satisfice, is a place where people often end up when they do not have the time, energy, or interest to work collaboratively to find the best outcome. But, compromising is often costly. The often-told case of the two sisters and the orange helps to illustrate why compromising is not a good default choice for managing conflict:

Hopefully it is clear that this compromise was not a good outcome for these sisters. Even though it initially seems that they both walked away with something, they did not really get any value at all, because they did not have enough of the orange to meet their individual goals. If they had talked about their interests instead (i.e., WHY they wanted the orange), they could have collaborated and realized that one sister could have all of the juice and the other all of the rind.

Collaborating

Collaborating occurs when you care both about your own interests and the interests of the other side. It is both assertive and cooperative. Collaborative behavior in a conflict often involves bilateral efforts to explore the disagreement and develop creative, jointly beneficial solutions. Collaborating parties are often able to discover or create new value within their conflict.

When using a collaborative approach, the hope is that the conflict will be fully addressed or resolved. Both parties contribute to the solution and therefore are more likely to be satisfied with the outcome. In this case, it is unlikely for the same conflict to arise again, particularly compared with the other conflict styles. This is because the individuals involved focus on the needs and interests of both parties and seek to create mutually satisfying solutions. Rather than exchanging demands, they spend their effort trying to understand each other.

Summary

Certain situational constraints may lead individuals to adopt one conflict style over the others, even if it will not lead to the best outcome for the group. For example, a junior manager may avoid a conflict with his boss out of concern over the power difference. Whether it is true or not, he may fear that challenging the boss’ ideas will create a risk of repercussions. In particular, compromise, which is somewhat in limbo in the dual-concern model, is often chosen simply because it is fast and easy.

Avoiding and accommodating are risky when they are used for the wrong reasons, that is, when there is a concern for the self, but people are unwilling to be assertive about their wants or needs. Compromise and competition are risky when they are used carelessly, that is, when these approaches will not lead to lasting positive outcomes. Collaboration is generally the most thorough and mutually beneficial of the conflict styles, but that does not mean it is the best choice for every conflict. Rather, individuals should perform a careful diagnosis of each conflict to determine which style will yield the most positive results.

Positive Conflict in Organizations

Words are singularly the most powerful force available to humanity. We can choose to use this force constructively with words of encouragement, or destructively using words of despair.⁸

Drawing on research from psychology and management, it becomes clear that the way we think about conflict, the way we communicate in conflict, and the way the organization facilitates conflict all determine whether our conflicts will be productive, or whether they will spiral out of control and create problems. In particular, there are four areas that are relevant to promoting positive conflict and communication. First, the framing, or “mindset,” that individuals adopt about conflict may help to move people away from the avoidant or accommodating responses to conflict. Second, the language that we use when involved in a conflict may affect whether it is well received, or whether it is perceived as overly aggressive. Third, the ability to balance dissent with positive communication may lead to improvement in emotional responses to conflict, yielding more positive outcomes. And lastly, the mere opportunity to voice one’s opinions may lead to greater employee satisfaction and connectedness to the organization.

Framing

There is a rich literature demonstrating the power of framing on how individuals think about themselves, think about others, and think about the social landscape. We know that subtle changes in how we think about things like our own intelligence can have a large effect.⁹ When people view intelligence as something that can be developed and strengthened over time (i.e., a “growth mindset”), they are more positive and persistent in the face of challenging situations than when they view intelligence as a fixed trait or ability (i.e., a “fixed mindset”).

What is especially interesting is that organizations can adopt a growth mindset that will then trickle down the levels of the organization to individual workers.¹⁰ In these environments, the climate is more positive, forgiving, and open. Failure is not seen as a clear signal that one is unable—rather, it is a signal to try again with a slightly different approach. This can lead to more creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship within an organization.

Other research shows us that our mindset about stress can have a big impact on how we respond to challenges.¹¹ In particular, these researchers studied cortisol levels of individuals who adopted either a “stress is debilitating” or a “stress is enhancing” mindset (cortisol is an indicator of the body’s physiological response to stress). When stress is thought about as a bad thing (i.e., something that drains and debilitates us), then we have substantially higher cortisol levels in response to a stressor. But, when one adopts a “stress is enhancing” mindset (i.e., stress is a signal that we are aroused and are dedicating energy and attention to something important), people not only have reduced cortisol reactivity, but also perform better.

In the case of conflict, individuals often become locked in a “conflict is bad” mindset. When conflict is framed in a negative way, individuals are more likely to avoid conflict or feel threatened when forced to engage with conflict. This can lead to suboptimal outcomes and exacerbate negative interpersonal conflicts. The alternative is to see conflict as a wonderful opportunity for growth and increased understanding. But this does not mean that positive conflict is easy or that it will come naturally to people. It is a skill that must be learned and practiced.

There’s good reason to think that a simple change in the way we construe conflict can have a big effect on individuals’ thinking and behavior. A clever study¹² explored how a name—either “Wall Street Game” or “Community Game—affected how individuals approached a two-person game. The game was actually the Prisoner’s Dilemma,¹³ in which each individual makes a simple choice of whether they want to cooperate or “defect.” The Prisoner’s Dilemma is illustrated in Figure 6.2. Joint cooperation results in the highest joint outcome, while simultaneous defection results in the lowest payout. When the game was presented to the study participants as the Wall Street Game, they exhibited more competitive and self-focused behavior. Whereas when they were primed to think about other people’s interests in the Community Game, cooperation was more likely.

When conflict is automatically associated with the idea of competition and fighting, it puts people in a mindset that they should be aggressive and self-interested. This creates negative conflict cycles and undermines each person’s chance of getting what they want. Progress is minimal, and in the organizational context, this will prevent the healthy conflicts that are requisite for success. If a framework where conflict is in the organization’s best interest can successfully be advanced, we would hopefully see the same cooperation and maximized joint outcomes that occur in the Prisoner’s Dilemma.

Figure 6.2 Example of possible payouts in the Prisoner’s Dilemma Game, highlighting the high joint outcomes when both parties choose to behave cooperatively. Joint outcomes are represented in the parentheses.

Language Choice and Conflict Spirals

So how can you have a healthy, productive, positive conflict? When engaged in conflict or negotiation, the best approach is to think of it as a collaborative, rather than an adversarial, encounter. Much of the key to success in conflict lies with an individual’s communication strategy. When engaged in a difficult conversation, there are three different “languages” that one can utilize: power, rights, and interests.¹⁴

Power statements are generally hollow, meaning that there is not much there in terms of constructive content. We have all heard conversations that end abruptly with something like, “Because I said so. I’m the boss.” In many cases, power statements take the form of threats: “Fix this report by Friday or you’re fired” or “If I don’t get a promotion, I’ll quit.” These statements do sometimes effectively end the conflict in the short term. But, because there is a lack of rationale and consideration for the other person they may lead to lingering hostility and the same problem will likely arise again in the future. Essentially, you may get the other person to do what you want, but they will do so begrudgingly. Power statements are relatively easy to generate and use, and disputants may resort to this language if they become too exhausted by the conflict.

Rights statements are focused on perceived fairness and justice. Though this initially seems like a principled way to address a conflict, the problem arises when different people have different ideas about what is fair or right. This is not a particularly sophisticated rationale. Even a 2-year-old child can blast back against a suboptimal situation with a shout of, “It’s not fair.” However, this does little to engender a two-way conversation or move the conflict forward. Rights statements may sound something like: “It was unreasonable for you to expect me to complete the project on such a small budget” or “The team was under my leadership—she shouldn’t have interfered.”

Interests statements are the ideal style for conflict conversations, as they focus on what an individual wants AND why they want it. They are explanations of the situation and why you are thinking or feeling the way you are. Interests statements are diagnostic and allow for collaboration. Interest statements such as, “What is most important to me is that we address the employee morale problem” or “My current childcare situation is creating challenges and may necessitate a more flexible work schedule.” The interests of individuals in conflict often align more than it initially seems. Focusing the conversation by carefully using interests language will give you the best opportunity for a positive, jointly beneficial outcome. In many cases, by using interests statements and talking through what a person wants, individuals can realize that there are many options for satisfying their needs.

Interests statements should not be confused with positional statements or demands. A comment such as “We must throw an employee appreciation party next month” or “You need to allow me to work from home on Fridays” does not typically lead to a positive conflict conversation. These positional statements represent only one of many possible solutions to the problems that were more effectively expressed in the previous paragraph as interests. The response to these types of demands is often a simple “yes” or “no,” without any real exploration of why the individual wanted these things to happen.

One way to visualize these three languages is as a target, with interests statements in the bull’s-eye and rights and power surrounding it. See Figure 6.3 for an illustration of this concept. Though interests language is the most productive for conflict conversations, it is typically the most difficult to consistently use—in other words, it is a difficult target to hit. In many cases, accidental use of rights or power statements can lead to increased use of the less positive languages. Once you leave your intended target of interests language, it can be difficult to work back to a collaborative conversation, the situation may quickly escalate, and individuals can become competitive and accusatory.

Figure 6.3 Power, rights, and interests language

Source: Adapted from Ury, W.L., J.M. Brett, and S.B. Goldberg, Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing a System to Cut the Costs of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Program on Negotiation, Harvard Law School, 1993.¹⁵ Reprinted by permission.

Disputes over issues such as control, status, principles, and values are more likely to result in rights and power language, making them more difficult to resolve.¹⁶ These are the same types of conflicts that are often perceived as distributive or zero-sum by the individuals involved.

If one person in a conflict chooses (or unintentionally uses) a more aggressive and competitive approach, then others will “rise to the challenge” and follow suit.¹⁷ This competitive behavior not only makes the exchange more hostile, but also results in negative assumptions about one’s counterpart. From our example CallWest consulting team, imagine that Richard, the senior partner, aggressively shuts down Mary’s suggestions with power and rights language. This not only frustrates Mary, but also affects Mary’s judgment of Richard. She begins to see him as someone who lacks objectivity—someone who cannot be reasoned with. Because of this, Mary becomes aggressive herself, not simply because she is responding in kind to Richard’s style, but because it seems like the only course of action that might yield results when faced with a biased and intransigent person. Why both talking things out with a person who is unreasonable?

Figure 6.4 The bias–perception conflict spiral

This pattern of negative imputations and competitive responding has been referred to as a bias–perception conflict spiral.¹⁸ See Figure 6.4 for an illustration of a bias–perception conflict spiral. The likelihood of these spirals is increased when the conflict is large (or, when it merely seems large).¹⁹ Because of this, it is particularly important to address conflict in a positive way, early on. Avoiding or waiting to deal with conflict may allow that conflict to become larger and more intractable over time. In turn, this reduces individuals’ optimism about successful, positive resolution. In these instances, conflict tends to escalate and become negative.

But the good news is that social norms of reciprocity work both ways. If individuals maintain a cooperative and collaborative approach to conflict, then that is generally the response that they will receive back from their colleagues. This is why it is particularly important to frame conflict as positive, collaborative problem solving and to use constructive interests statements.

Positive Communication and Positive Affect

In addition to being diligent about keeping conflict conversations grounded in interests language, there are also benefits from including more positive statements in your conflict conversations.²⁰ The benefit from positive statements comes from their supportive, encouraging, or appreciative nature (rather than a cynical, sarcastic, or judgmental nature). Positive statements do not mean that you need to agree with another person—rather, you can disagree while still expressing that you are thankful for their ideas or contribution.

Research has demonstrated that having more positive statements can lead to greater satisfaction and thriving in an organization. A ratio of at least three positive statements for each negative statement seems to be ideal for maintaining a positive environment. The exposure to positivity and the reinforcement of what is good can be a simple, but effective way to help your employees to flourish.

In contrast to the way that conflicts can negatively spiral out of control, recent evidence suggests that there can also be self-reinforcing upward spirals of positivity.²¹ Positive emotions result in better coping and management of stress. This, in turn, allows for the experience and acceptance of more positivity. It has even been suggested that, through simple mindfulness interventions, these upward spirals may alleviate more persistent problems, such as depression, which can hinder one’s performance at work.²² This is not merely a suggestion that individuals within an organization should be happy merely for the sake of being happy. Positive affect also seems to encourage creativity and flexible thinking. All of these are likely to improve one’s broader performance, but are especially relevant in the case of conflict management. Positive conflict shares many similarities with group creativity. Productive, collaborative conflict resolution utilizes many of the same skills and techniques as creative problem solving.²³ There is a need for open sharing of ideas, a sense of a joint outcome, and a clear focus on goals. If these abilities are enhanced through the experience of positive affect, then there is good reason to incorporate positivity into the organizations culture and communications.

Procedural Justice and “Voice”

Open dialogues, including those that deal with disagreement and conflict, can have a very positive impact on the climate in an organization. The reason for this is that, when people take a passive approach to disagreement, it can lead to resentment and hostility. If problems are not addressed, they often fester and escalate. The resulting employee dissatisfaction can lead to lower productivity and problems with retention.

Human beings have a basic desire to feel that they are being treated fairly. This is, in large part, why rights language is so frequently used in conflicts—people are simply expressing the reality that they feel wronged or cheated. And sometimes the “wrong” that they are feeling is merely that they have not been heard. The need for “voice” is a very powerful motivating factor. If individuals feel that their environment is not a safe place to express dissent or address disagreement openly, it will leave them feeling helpless, silenced, and ignored. And, more broadly, these negative feelings can also lead employees to disengage from their work altogether.

Focusing on interests (rather than rights or power) is an important first step to providing employees with the sense that they have a voice. It is only when sharing interests that the parties involved in a conflict will uncover new issues that may not have initially seemed important for the conflict. In particular, the reality is that most conflicts have some form of “identity” component, which can dramatically affect the way that individuals perceive and respond to the situation.²⁴ Concerns such as protecting your reputation or the need to feel successful can drive people to become overly defensive or aggressive in conflict situations. These identity concerns are often deliberately avoided when the conversation moves into rights or power. But when individuals are given a voice and when these identity concerns are met, the possibility of positive conflict becomes a reality.

Along with these identity concerns are the emotions or feelings that an individual has in the conflict. All too often, I have heard the advice to “keep emotions out of it.” In fact, emotions can be an important piece of information when attempting to resolve a conflict and should be addressed in as positive a manner as possible.²⁵ When people hold their emotions inside, it reduces their feelings of being completely heard. Even if the conflict is resolved, the simple fact that you did not have a chance to express yourself may lead to some lingering resentment and additional problems later on.

One of the central tenets of positive organizational psychology is that individuals should feel a sense of connectedness to one’s company—that their personal values should be reflected and reinforced in the work they do, resulting in a sense of positive meaning.²⁶ When people identify positively with their work, both climate and performance improve. Providing individuals with voice is one way to build and solidify that connection. On the other hand, leaving employees without a voice will have the opposite effect, wherein they find little value in the work they do.

Action Time

In this section, I will outline four approaches for building more positive conflict in your organization. The first three are interventions that you can recommend to or perform with your employees, while the third requires a larger action at the organizational level.

  1.  Conflict Style Reflection: In this activity, each person will do a targeted reflection and assessment of their conflict style. Begin by listing the last three important disagreements, conflicts, or difficult conversations in which you were involved. Map out the course of each conflict, beginning with the trigger event/issue, through its resolution (even if that resolution is that the problem was never resolved). Once the path of the conflict is illustrated, look at the contributions you made to the conflict. Classify them as avoidant, accommodating, competitive, compromising, or collaborative. Evaluate the three different conflicts: did you utilize a different style in the different situations, or do you have a prevailing tendency to manage conflict in a particular manner? Challenge yourself to do an honest assessment of whether or not the style you utilized was the best for both the short term and the long term.

  2.  Conflict Style Inventory: A related option is to have your employees complete one of several conflict style surveys, then provide them with their scores and educational information about the five styles. There are both free (e.g., the ROCI-II²⁷) and commissioned surveys available (e.g., the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument²⁸). In small groups, encourage employees to discuss their results: Are they surprised, or does this confirm they already thought about their conflict style? Have each person evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their conflict management styles.

  3.  Positive Communication Assessment: In this activity, people assess the positivity or negativity of their communications. Because we rarely have recordings of our face-to-face exchanges, it is practically easier to have employees review 5 to 10 of their recent important e-mail exchanges. Each person should label the number of comments that are supportive or encouraging, as well as the number of statements that are dismissive or judgmental. Remember that the ideal ratio is three positive statements for each negative statement. This exercise will likely be an eye-opener for many people, especially those who are adept at providing critical feedback but forgetful about reinforcing success.
    In tandem with the assessment of positive versus negative statements, employees can also diagnose the power, rights, and interests language in their communications. In this case, they should particularly focus on the type of response that each language received after being used. The organization itself can also review its communications to stakeholders and perform the same self-assessment.

  4.  Create a Culture of Positive Conflict: The first step toward creating an organization that thrives on positive conflict is to address the culture. As we know from the literature on framing, employees are significantly impacted by the messages their organization sends about mindset. One intervention to reduce negative conflict and increase positive conflict is to implement a campaign to educate employees about positive conflict.
    The organization should begin by dispelling the myth that conflict is always negative. Part of this education includes being upfront about the processes that lead to success. Rather than only presenting “united fronts,” the organization should discuss the times when there was disagreement and how the team resolved their differences. In the intervention for stress, educational campaigns including a workshop, a video, and flyers in common areas were effective to change the mindsets of employees to a “stress is enhancing” mindset. These same interventions and principles would apply in order to mold employees to adopt the “conflict is positive” mindset. The organization should develop and distribute these, in common areas and at company-wide meetings.
    In addition to a campaign to educate employees about positive conflict, training sessions can also utilize cases to allow for practice with collaboration and interests language. There are conflict simulations available (e.g., from Kellogg Business School’s Dispute Resolution Research Center²⁹), which provide a safe space to practice positive conflicts, because they are simulations, they allow for a place to experiment and develop one’s conflict skills without the risk of harm.
    After adjusting the frame surrounding conflict from bad to good, it is important that the organization itself consistently acts in accordance with that mindset. When disagreements are brought to light, the organization should praise the sharing of new ideas and perspectives. Employees should be given opportunities to voice their opinions, creating a space that is psychologically safe and just.

For Further Reading

Stone, D., B. Patton, and S. Heen. 2010. Difficult Conversations. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

This book effectively covers the social factors that help (or hinder) successful, positive conflict resolution. In my personal experience, this book has more than proven its value—numerous friends, colleagues, and students have returned after reading this book to tell me that it helped them through a difficult situation and changed their perspective on conflict management.

Fisher, R., W. Ury, and B. Patton. 2011. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In. New York: Penguin Books.

Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury³⁰ is a foundational text for principled negotiation. It is a valuable framework and is applicable to all forms of personal and professional conflict. The authors provide practical prescriptions for how to think about and respond to conflict, so that it can be successfully resolved for the benefit of all parties.

Endnotes

  1.  As cited in Arambewela, N., and R. Arambewela. 2010. “Post-war Opportunities for Peace in Sri Lanka: An Ongoing Challenge?” Global Change, Peace, & Security 22, pp. 365–375.

  2.  Harvey, J.B. 1974. “The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement.” Organizational Dynamics 3, pp. 63–80.

  3.  Heffernan, M. 2013. “The Striking Downside to a Remote Workplace.” Inc. Magazine. www.inc.com/margaret-heffernan/downside-to-remote-business.html (accessed November 9, 2015).

  4.  Blake, R.R., and J.S. Moulton. 1964. The Managerial Grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.

  5.  Deutsch, M. 1973. The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  6.  Janis, I.L. 1972. Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascos. Oxford, UK: Houghton Mifflin.

  7.  Schwartz, B., A. Ward, J. Monterosso, S. Lyubomirsky, K. White, and D.R. Lehman. 2002. “Maximizing versus Satisficing: Happiness Is a Matter of Choice.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83, pp. 1178–1197.

  8.  Berg, Y. 2010. “The Power of Words.” The Huffington Post. www.huffingtonpost.com/yehuda-berg/the-power-of-words_1_b_716183 .html (accessed November 9, 2015).

  9.  Dweck, C.S. 2006. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

10.  Murphy, M.C., and C.S. Dweck. 2010. “A Culture of Genius: How an Organization’s Lay Theory Shapes People’s Cognition, Affect, and Behavior.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36, pp. 283–296.

11.  Crum, A.J., P. Salovey, and S. Achor. 2013. “Rethinking Stress: The Role of Mindsets in Determining the Stress Response.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 104, pp. 716–733.

12.  Liberman, V., S.M. Samuels, and L. Ross. 2004. “The Name of the Game: Predictive Power of Reputations versus Situational Labels in Determining Prisoner’s Dilemma Game Moves.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30, pp. 1175–1185.

13.  Luce, R.D., and H. Raiffa. 1957. Games and Decisions: Introduction and Critical Survey. New York, NY: John Wiley.

14.  Brett, J.M. 2001. Negotiating Globally: How to Negotiate Deals, Resolve Disputes, and Make Decisions across Cultural Boundaries. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

15.  Ury, W.L., J.M. Brett, and S.B. Goldberg. 1993. Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing a System to Cut the Costs of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Program on Negotiation, Harvard Law School.

16.  Deutsch, M. 1998. “Constructive Conflict Resolution: Principles, Training, and Research.” In The Handbook of Interethnic Coexistence, ed. E. Weiner. New York, NY: Continuum Publishing.

17.  Pruitt, D.G., and S.H. Kim. 2004. Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

18.  Kennedy, K.A., and E. Pronin. 2008. “When Disagreement Gets Ugly: Perceptions of Bias and the Escalation of Conflict.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34, pp. 833–848.

19.  Deutsch, M. 1973. The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

20.  Frederickson, B.L., and M.F. Losada. 2005. “Positive Affect and the Complex Dynamics of Human Flourishing.” American Psychologist 60, pp. 678–686.

21.  Losada, M., and E.D. Heaphy. 2004. “The Role of Positivity and Connectivity in the Performance of Business Teams.” American Behavioral Scientist 47, pp. 740–765.

22.  Garland, E.L., B. Frederickson, A.M. Kring, D.P. Johnson, P.S. Meye, and D.L. Penn. 2010. “Upward Spirals of Positive Emotions Counter Downward Spirals of Negativity: Insights from the Broaden-and-Build Theory and Affective Neuroscience on the Treatment of Emotional Dysfunctions and Deficits in Psychopathology.” Clinical Psychology Review 30, pp. 849–864.

23.  Deutsch, M. 1973. The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

24.  Stone, D., B. Patton, and S. Heen. 2010. Difficult Conversations. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

25.  Fisher, W. and D. Shapiro. 2005. Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

26.  Cameron, K. 2012. Positive Leadership: Strategies for Extraordinary Performance. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

27.  Rahim, M.A. 1983. “A Measure of Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict.” Academy of Management Journal 26, pp. 368–376.

28.  “Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument.” CPP. www.cpp.com/products/tki/index.aspx (accessed September 18, 2015).

29.  “Dispute Resolutions Research Center.” Kellogg Business School. www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/research/drrc.aspx (accessed September 18, 2015).

30.  Fisher, R., W. Ury, and B. Patton. 2011. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In. New York, NY: Penguin Books.