Step 1: Assessing the Facts
SO, YOU’VE IDENTIFIED a conflict situation that you believe merits an intervention. The first step is to assess the facts. In any difficult interaction, the two people involved see the facts of the situation from unique angles. To begin to resolve a particular conflict, you need to explore these facts through frank discussion.
You’re probably familiar with the maxim that says there are two sides to every story. The same is true for disagreements in the workplace: Each person involved views the situation according to a specific set of facts that are important for him or her.
To lay the groundwork for resolving a problem, each person should learn the facts—and perception of fact—that are influencing the other person’s position. That takes communication. The guidelines introduced in this section can help.
Sharing perceptions of what’s going on
Terry reports to Brad. Suppose that she keeps submitting project reports late even though Brad has repeatedly complained and insisted that Terry complete the reports on time. But the more Brad complains and insists, the more annoyed Terry gets.
To get at the facts, Brad and Terry should try explaining their sides of the story, including the situation’s impact on them. For example, Brad could say, “When you send in reports late, I end up doing a lot of extra work to compensate. I have to spend two hours filling out paperwork myself. I also have to explain to the other team members that the information they need will be coming late. That throws the whole project behind schedule.”
Terry, then, might say, “I’ve been really stressed out lately, because I’ve had a bunch of new prototypes to evaluate, and they’ve all had problems. I couldn’t seem to get to the project reports. When you continually complain about the late reports, I get the impression that you don’t care about how well the prototypes are handled.”
The next step is for Brad to stop and think about what may have caused him to see the situation as he does. He could consider information he’s gathered in the past, previous experiences, and assumptions about what’s important. Then he could share this information with Terry and ask her to do the same. Brad could share his previous experiences.
For example, he could say, “The last time I led a project of this complexity, we had real problems during implementation after we stopped circulating weekly updates to everyone.” He could then share information with Terry by adding, “This worries me, because I recently read an article saying that poor team communication is often the cause behind failed projects.” Finally, Brad might share his assumptions about what is important. “In my view, we don’t stand a chance of breaking into the new market we’ve identified unless we can successfully carry out our projects.”
Terry, in reciprocating, could also share information, previous experiences, and her assumptions about what is important. For example, she might say, “The latest speech by our CEO made me realize that we’ve got to accelerate the product prototyping process. I’ve learned from last year’s projects that when you have to make a choice between filling out paperwork and getting the actual work done, it’s better to focus on the work. The paperwork can always be done later.”
By sharing the information, experiences, and assumptions behind your view of the difficult situation, you and the other person begin understanding each other—a step that’s essential to resolving problems.
Discovering intentions
If you sense a threat or conflict arising, take a moment to regain your composure. Then clarify with the other person what your intentions have been during the difficult exchanges you’ve had together. Consider this exchange between Brad and Terry:
Brad: I’ve been trying to make sure that everyone on the project team gets the information they need to handle the tasks they’re accountable for, on time. That’s the only way we can keep the overall project on schedule.
Terry: I figured that by focusing on accelerating the prototyping process, we could prevent bottlenecking in the early stages of the product-development cycle. If the process gets held up in the beginning of the cycle, the rest of the cycle is going to be in trouble too—and the whole thing will end up delayed.
When you compare intentions, you may (as in this case between Brad and Terry) discover that you both have similar aims and priorities. At the very least, you may realize that each of you has perfectly admirable intentions, even if they differ. In either case, you each will probably conclude that the other person isn’t deliberately trying to make life difficult!
Acknowledging contributions to the problem
Most conflicts aren’t caused by one person. Both parties have played some part in creating the situation. To create a sense of ownership for resolving the issue, honestly acknowledge what you’ve done to contribute to the problem. Ask the other person to do the same. Let’s see how Brad and Terry handled this:
Brad: I think that by constantly complaining about late reports, I gave you the impression that I didn’t care about the prototyping process.
Terry: I can see that by letting the project updates slip, I caused you to question whether the project overall would stay on schedule.