We communicate with each other in analog signals. It would help if it was digital, where the possibility is between 0 or 1. Each one of us think, feel, and act differently, and this can bring about a number of permutations and combinations for coming up with conflicts. My boss asked me to get this done, but he did not ask but ordered me to do it. I am in an IT job and not in a prison where you do as you are told. See how conflicts can happen, how trivial issues can blow up and could avalanche their way into blowing things out of proportion. Perhaps the boss had a gun to his head, and wanted this task to be done on priority without exceptions. Or this is the way the boss communicates with everybody. Either way, the problem is communication. If and only if the boss had explained the need for the task to be done on time, and explained the situation, the conflict would have never arisen.

Here are some causes of conflicts that arise from communication breakdown:

We have discussed various mediums so far for communication to happen—mainly written and face-to-face. Guess which one is best suited for resolving conflicts: face to face. If the conflicting parties are collocated, then consider resolving conflicts half done.

Having people sit across from one another brings out in entirety of who we are, whether we are genuinely sorry for something we have done or we are emotionally attached to the solution that we proposed. Whatever the conflict could be, if you can get people in the same room, opt for it. In today's world, physical proximity is a luxury but if it is available, don't look at any other medium.

Flashback to Chapter 1, Communication Training, where I introduced the topic of various communication styles. We looked briefly at four distinct types of personalities who are either goal-oriented, people-oriented, solo workers, and data gatherers. Conflicts arise when people involved in communication do not understand the communication style of the other party, and set expectations from their perspective alone.

A little regard to what the other person is like would do a world of good in exchanging information without attached emotions—read possible conflicting situations.

Some people are straightforward. They tell you what they want and do not care for niceties. This might rub others the wrong way, and they start disliking the person, bitch about them behind their back and try to bring about their downfall. Do you know what the root causes of these ill effects are? It is not the communication style, it is ego. Our egos don't allow us to take things as they are. Our egoistic minds sets an imaginary bar in our minds, and anybody who doesn't come up to it are possible candidates for disliking and unfriendly behavior. If you want to stay happy, quash your egos. Personality-related conflicts can be cut down if egos are under check.

Conflict resolution must be about the objective that we are trying to achieve and not the persons involved.

Whenever there are conflicts arising out of decisions, ideas, and opinions, take a step back and understand what needs to be achieved rather than the people who are involved in making the decision. If you want to hire a new vendor, list down all the qualities that you would like from the vendor and start striking off those who don't make the cut. Instead, if you discuss vendors individually who are nominated by different managers, you are bound to escalate the situation by falling into the trap of me against you.

Conflicts are good. They are not always negative. When people oppose decisions and ideas, dirt comes out into the open, thereby allowing decision-makers to brainstorm and take the right decision.

Conflicts are present where transparency isn't. The sole source of majority of conflicts is a lack of transparency between the parties involved, and you could also read this as lack of communication.

If a manager is setting expectations from his subordinate, they are well within their right, but it is only fair that the subordinate knows and agrees with the expectations set. Ideally, a manager must set their expectations on paper first and then bring the subordinate into a meeting and explain what is to be done. The subordinate can digest the information and make a decision on whether to accept it or negotiate the activities assigned. It is not uncommon that expectations set by a manager are unrealistic. So, the subordinate would like to justify the reasons for not accepting the expectations.

The situation we have just discussed is a mere example to showcase how transparent communication can prevent possible conflicts. A manager and subordinate can communicate all that they want and arrive at a midway point that is acceptable to both. Let's say that a manager has set his expectations from his subordinates. The subordinates are left with no choice but to accept it with a pinch of salt. Even though the subordinate accepted it with a pinch of salt, a cold war would have brewed between them, which would eventually lead to conflicts, lack of productivity, absenteeism, and performance dip among a host of other undesirables.

Likewise, in organizations, where all decisions, changes, goal setting exercises, division of work, appraisals, and all other activities bring together multiple parties into the foray on the principle of open and transparent communication—with an aim to avoid possible conflicts. Yet, conflicts will arise, no matter how open and transparent the communication is. Even when you apply the principle, you will still have some conflicts coming out of it. Some parties might declare to agree to disagree. In those cases apply the tip on thinking objectively on what is needed to be achieved rather than the people involved.