How can you manage cross-functional conflicts without compromising your values?

There's two things you can do to impact cross functional effectiveness. 1) remind everyone the overarching goals and objectives, 2) have HR add a goal of working effectiveness across disciplines that is tied to bonuses. It worked at Procter and Gamble.

We often fall prey to what social psychologist call "Naive Realism " where in matters of extreme confidence, we find it hard to realise that others wont see things the same way as we see it. And to our surprise, most often it is not the case. This I believe , is at the heart of any conflict. In conflict resolution there are always three perspectives. One is yours , one is my mine and the third is somewhere in between and that most often is the solution. Remembering " Your perspective is just one amongst many perspectives " helps you reorient from holding on to your beliefs of reality, to relatability to a different perspective . It helps you create awareness of your cognitive biases which may have influenced your viewpoint.

In situations like this, it’s often more important to listen vice coming in to solve. I’ve found that when I listen to employees and understand their concerns, we both quickly realize there’s a communication failure with leadership, not the employees. However, from time to time, it may be the employee. In this case, it’s critical that leaders discuss with HR, and the managers are consistent with their accountability. I’ve found the secret to be a discussion on why they joined the company and what can we do to get them back to the point when they were excited to be here. Each person is different and may be dealing with personal issues that can be solved by an empathetic boss.

When conflicts occur cross-functionally, setting the stage on identifying root cause is important. One of the ways I’ve done this is to ask participants to add all the challenges to the middle of the conference table or if virtually on a whiteboard. Just imagining the challenge in the middle of a table of whiteboard helps colleagues from taking anything said personally. It becomes a cross-functional problem solving exercise, instead of a tennis match. Setting the stage on respecting others, listening before speaking and not judging others also helps when addressing these types of conflicts.

Knowing when to contest a conflict is just as important as knowing how to do it well. Understanding of root cause gives deeper perspective and possibilities on navigating without compromising one’s values by finding common ground. Respect in all dealings is a key element in ensuring that one does not lose the agenda charter and relationships.

To truly listen actively and empathetically, you must learn to listen with your eyes and to squint with your ears. Listening with your eyes means you’re observing body language, energy levels relative to what’s being said, and facial expressions when others are speaking and/or listening. Squinting with your ears means your listening for hidden meanings within the words and between the words, your considering not only what is being said but also how it’s being said, and your taking mental notes of what isn’t being said. Leaders who learn how to listen with their eyes and how to squint with their ears will move beyond traditional communication and make a meaningful connection. The greater the connection, the greater the relationship.

Listen and hear the other side of things without an intention of rebuttal or with a goal of getting your own point across. Strive to listen with objectivity and neutrality. We tend to listen while simultaneously crafting our own response - what if we were to listen with the goal of solving or prioritizing the other group's problem?

Listening to understand, not react, is essential in managing cross-functional conflicts. Ask each team what problem they are working to solve. Validate feelings and thank contributors for sharing.

Listening and responding with empathy is one of the most powerful skills a leader can have. Actively listen by discontinuing multitasking and paying attention. This may seem intuitive, but many leaders constantly have their attention pulled. Remember the old saying two ears and one mouth, use in that order. Empathy is understanding another humans issue. It doesn't mean agreeing but Listening to understand.

I personally suggest using the Socratic method of questioning, which along with active listening promotes critical thinking and deeper understanding. The Socratic method encourages individuals to explore and clarify their own thoughts through a series of well-crafted questions, fostering a deeper engagement with the subject matter. Active listening, on the other hand, involves fully focusing on and comprehending what another person is saying, promoting better communication and mutual understanding. Together, these approaches enhance learning, problem-solving, and effective communication by encouraging thoughtful reflection and dialogue.

I found that at the heart of most conflict lies our unmet needs. I would seek to understand what the other person or unit needs. I also suggest exploring the semantics of language and exploring further articulation of the challenge. In one conflict, I found that both sides were expecting respect, one from the younger one, and the other from the older one. They both felt disrespected. How we define a problem or the question that frames the problem shapes the solutions so stay in understanding each other's language and unmet needs in a respectful way.

In my experience, as we are all human beings, sometimes we can't help but get carried away with our emotions especially if we are passionate about our opinions. However, we can always take a step back and acknowledge that our experience on the ground shapes our perspective and that challenges who are "ultimately right". Facilitators need to find a middle ground where passionate stakeholders' opinions will not be dismissed, recognized, and treated with value. How those perspectives help in achieving the goal desired.

Something that we’ve seen be effective time and time again with the people we work with is to help everyone understand what is motivating each other. What is driving their opinions and why they are making certain decisions. It’s an effective way to seek first to understand before being understood, and research shows we are all driven by different motivators. Understanding someone’s ‘why’ pulls back the curtain on so many things, making it so much easier to learn what that common ground is. And what’s remarkable is that with this presence of diversity, one might just be surprised at what is common with those involved, as well.

Understand everyone's context and why they hold their views. Active listening and research helps. It may be a clash of approaches (how we do something) rather than the reason (why we do something or more commonly why we don't do something). Then bring everything and everyone back to the common (moral) purpose of why we are in this organisation. Agreeing to disagree on the what, how and who is healthy, and shows humility and grace. If the why is divergent to your values or core principles of the organisation then challenge is needed to realign. Ultimately if escalation fails and it is on the record that you disagreed on the why, you can vote with your feet.

When there are disagreements between different groups, I try to solve them while sticking to what I believe is right. It's like trying to find common things that everyone agrees on, like when friends all like the same game. I listen to what each group says without taking sides. It's like hearing out each friend without saying who's right or wrong. Sometimes, I find things that both groups want. It's like when everyone likes pizza, even if they prefer different toppings. I use these agreements to find solutions that work for everyone. I don't want anyone to feel like they lost. I want us all to feel good about the answers we find together. It's about making things work well for everyone, like finding a game everyone enjoys playing.

One thing I've found helpful is to always rely on facts as the basis of your communication, or at least know the data to support your position. Cross-functional conflicts often arise from myopic viewpoints, or tunnel vision from a singular perspective. To help widen that view, use concrete data to show how decisions made will impact your group. Starting with facts over feelings helps level-set discussions, as well as aid with communicating a clear path to the overall objectives. It's also key to be receptive to the facts and data that support the position of others, and determining how both/all sides can benefit one another. Focusing on facts keeps everyone "above the fray" and involved until a solution is formed.

"You are too XYZ" or making judgments about someone's identity can often lead to defensiveness and a breakdown in communication. By focusing on yourself and expressing how specific behaviors or situations make you feel, you create a more open and constructive dialogue. When you say, "I feel X when you do this," or "For me, it's important to XYZ," you're offering a personal perspective that invites understanding rather than criticism. This approach fosters a collaborative environment where both parties can share their experiences and work together to find solutions that respect each other's feelings and values. It encourages a connection based on empathy and mutual understanding.

In times of conflict I practice an approach called "Radical Candor". It is a technique developed by Kim Scott and based on the idea that the best feedback comes from a place of caring while also challenging people directly by being straightforward, honest and respectful. Radical Candor is distinct from challenging without caring and manipulative insincerity. It’s about finding the right balance. The technique supports me in not compromising my values, meanwhile tailoring my approach to the individual by taking into account their preferences and sensitivities. It takes practice. To prepare for a difficult conversation in advance I write down my points and test drive them with a trusted colleague or friend.

There’s nothing more important than clarity in communication. Make goals, context, needs, expectations etc transparent, specific & intentional. Don’t assume anything is obvious. Invite such communication to be reciprocated. Finally, it’s not going to be as easy as it sounds. Practice making things clear. Practice articulating intent in a way that can be understood and allow areas of uncertainty to surface in a normal way, rather than through a crisis.

In my experience, it’s always a good idea to understand and ask appropriate questions, before formulating what you want to communicate. Play it in your mind & place yourself in the other person’s “shoes” and use/avoid what has been stated/suggested above.

Involving others for help in resolving a conflict may also require being vulnerable and admitting what you don't know or can't understand. This not only demonstrates an authentic interest in a constructive outcome, but models learning and adaptation which can be helpful for getting to compromise or shared solutions.

You can't solve cross-functional conflicts without involving others. When you try to solve a conflict alone, you rely solely on your own knowledge and experience. Hearing others perspectives, view point could actually point out something you may have overlooked or not given thought, they might have faced similar situations or have different approaches to the problem. Thinking that involving others makes one seem incompetent is a common misconception, in fact, it demonstrates strength, not weakness, the willingness to learn. It shows you're comfortable admitting you don't have all the answers and are open to learning from others. This fosters trust and encourages collaboration, paving the way for more effective and sustainable solutions.

One of the biggest mistakes that I made when I first began as a supervisor was thinking that I had to handle all of the problems that came my way, that is, I had to have an answer or figure it out myself because I was the supervisor and that was my job. What I learned from some botched attempts at resolving problems between fellow employees was that asking for help or insight from your fellow supervisors or even superiors can shed light onto ongoing dynamics or personality issues. Asking for help builds respect for you as a leader and isn't a sign of weakness. Those who have come before you probably had similar experiences and are willing to help you avoid their mistakes. So go on and ask for help, you won't regret it.

Alignment of senior leadership is the fastest way to end a conflict. Stay solution focused and lean into the time you've invested in building relationships up and across your teams.

Involving other people can help you gain clarity on the situation, as long as they remain neutral and I would only turn to one or two other people whose views you trust. The important key here is to ensure you remain open to listening to what they have to say. I would also ensure the conversation remains private so the situation doesn't escalate and remains contained.

This article covers important points about what to DO in conflict situations. It's equally important to ask who do I want to BE. Defining who I want to be (such as a generous advocate, a humble learner, or a curious listener) can help you embody those characteristics.

Also, please remember that no two situations are the same. Remain open, pliable, teachable. One of the best lines in “West Side Story” is, “When you was my age, when my old man was my age! Ain’t none of you ever been my age!” Cultural undertones aside, never forget that times may change, even within the same negotiation. What worked between two groups five years ago may no longer fit. Exercise the same care as you would in listening, as if there had never been a previous relationship. Never, ever be afraid to ask for clarification.

Get ahead of conflict by making time to listen to your cross functional partners and understand what is driving them, how they define success. Look for ways to leverage your own strategies to help you both achieve your goals. In most cases, this will help you when conflicts arrive.

Final step in managing cross-functional conflicts? It's the learning curve. Reflect on the hits and misses of your resolution strategy. What needs tweaking next time? Own your mistakes, apologize if needed, and value the lessons. This isn't just conflict resolution; it's practicing growth mindset and enhancing your personal value and leadership. Embrace it.

We called this an After Action Review in the Army. -what was the goal, outcome, mission? -did we achieve it? -what did we do? -what were we supposed to do? -what differences between expected plan and actual plan exist? -why (key to improvement) did the variations occur? -how can we improve on the plan, process, project in the future? -who will own these changes and how will we know we have achieved them? -when will we do it again?

As Billy Ray Taylor said best, “In the absence of ownership comes blame.” Dr. Henry Cloud also remarked, “Blame is comfort food for the soul.” There’s only one reason we blame others…because there’s only one other choice: Take responsibility. This is the choice high impact people make. High impact leaders have the ability to facilitate a group discussion in an effort to influence individuals to identify and own their piece of the conflict. Then, they are positioned to resolve it. The best way to deal with conflict is to avoid it. One of the primary byproducts of having a consistent and continuous character-based development program is most conflict is avoided. What may have happened in the past won’t likely happen in the future.

It’s not a ‘one and done’. Depending on what was shared, you may need to go back and build on that conversation. Often if you leave a conversation that may have been emotional the other person may be embarrassed by what was shared/how open and exposed they may have been. Going back and saying something simple like ‘it was great to get to know you better’ keeps the communication channel open

Inclusion and sharp focus on the collective vision and goal helps. Including all functions and communicating common vision and goal usually brings focus on the common ground and objectives. Another way is to conduct regular meetings in an offsite format where ground rules and expectations can be set and consensus built. Differences can be brought out and it can be shown how they distract from the common goal. Usually, style issues get settled here as it is difficult to justify toxic styles in a forum where all stakeholders are present.

The foremost aspect to be considered while dealing with a cross-functional conflict is to ascertain whether the conflict emanates from differences over/among (i) processes OR (ii) people. More often then not conflicts are people focussed and not process focussed. Understanding this is half the battle won. Leaders will do well if they are able to separate out the people conflicts from process conflicts. People led/centred conflicts take time to resolve and hence a better understanding of the culture of the organisation and socio-economic-demographic background of the team actually helps predict behaviour of member and address the same effectively.

Keeping dialogue going. If you can keep talking it is very human to find yourself naturally working through challenge to find solutions. Too often we don’t say what we really want to in meetings, don’t communicate well in emails and once communication is strained its harder to get back to working well together so maintain a continuous conversation and don’t give up.