How To Deal With Conflict at Work?

It seems particularly apropos given our current political and social climate to pay lip service to conflict. We have to deal with it often, despite our best attempts to avoid it. Fortunately some conflict is minor and innocuous, yet other conflicts are incendiary and damaging. 

No matter the scale, the consequence, or the context, understanding how to deal with conflict at any stage is a life skill. I know that some people are even crippled by the thought of conflict. I think that any conflict-related fears arise because we are never taught how to grapple with such moments. It’s a shame, and perhaps many a more grave situation could be avoided were we imparted with conflict resolution and avoidance strategies at an early age.

Thankfully there is no time like the present to pick up a few new tricks. In this article I will share with you my understanding of conflict and some conflict resolution strategies that have worked for me. 

The Two Roots of Conflict

Generally conflict arises from incompatibilities in goals or perspectives between two or more parties. Conflict can also arise when two or more parties pull from the same pool of resources. For the purposes of this article, this very basic understanding of conflict is enough to get us through. However, if you are curious for a deeper analysis of the roots of conflict, I recommend Howard M. Guttman’s book on the subject, When Goliaths Clash.

In any human context where people must interact to accomplish goals, conflict is unavoidable. That’s perfectly acceptable. Conflict avoidance at all costs is not the antidote, however. The best way to defuse conflict is with an attitude toward peaceable exchange and the mutual satisfaction of all parties involved. Some would call this diplomacy.

In simple terms there are two main provenances for conflict, be it in personal relationships or business relationships.

Individual Differences.

Each person brings a mixed and varied bag of wants, needs, values, beliefs, opinions, assumptions, and interpretations to the table in any given situation. Chances are there will be disparities between two people on at least one of those fronts. This can be a source of conflict, and contingent upon the nature of that disparity, it can be a source of great conflict.

Be that as it may, we don’t have to combat someone who is at odds with us on one or more of those points. The key to successful communication in those instances is depersonalization. Remind yourself that although what the person says may relate to you or undercut your beliefs, it isn’t about you until they make it about you. This can keep you from getting defensive, which then forces the other person to put their guard up. Stay calm, stay depersonalized, and stay clear headed.

Stylistic Clashes.

Style can mean a number of things. In my mind, style refers to mode of communication, as in how people speak. That spans the gamut of tone, language, reasoning, attitude, bodily cues, and so on. There are many conflicts that crop up or are exacerbated by stylistic differences. 

Although this might appear trivial, packaging is very important to us human beings. The way we communicate largely affects how we are perceived, how are ideas are received, and how likely we are to accomplish our goals. Consider that rhetoric was an art back in ancient Greece and Rome. They too recognized the power of packaging in communication. 

That is my best attempt to capture the two main sources of conflict as I see them. Surely there are many more, but those suffice for now. By way of framework, let’s explore the substantive features of conflict, or conflict type. 

2 Types of Conflict

Most conflicts can be grouped into one of 2 types. The benefit of being able to identify what kind of conflict we may find ourselves in is that it gives us some healthy distance and helps us decide how to reconcile it.

Manifest Conflict.

This is the type of conflict most people envision when they hear the word “conflict.” It’s in your face disagreement between two or more people. This can happen between co-workers, family members, lovers, you name it. This kind of conflict tends to escalate quickly, and people tend to shutdown, staying in their corners without giving in. The word that epitomizes where both people err in Manifest Conflict is competition.

Latent Conflict.

Latent Conflict is much more difficult to diagnose. This type of conflict is characterized by an inability to communicate openly about the source of conflict or the emotions that it prods. Perhaps the subject matter is too sensitive, or the power dynamics preclude dialogue, so people tend to find others ways of venting their frustrations. The problem is that those accrue at the subconscious level. Small jabs, sarcastic jokes, sabotage, lack of cooperation are all steam being let out from a Latent Conflict that just wants to see the light of day.

Now that we have covered some common sources of conflict and the way in which they play out, we are ready to move on to conflict resolution. Of course, every conflict is unique because the people in it are unique. That is why each conflict plays out slightly differently, but the attitudes and tactics to deescalate and mediate a conflict to the point where resolution can occur tend to be ubiquitous.

Conflict Resolution

Ideally conflict resolution aims to pacify the source of disagreement between to people and help each come to a negotiation that satisfies their core concerns.

I am going to cover some general conflict resolution rules, and then get more specific about the three predominant approaches to negotiate conflicts of a financial, personal, political, or emotional nature.

General Rules

First, describe the conflict. Harken back to 1st grade when you learn “Who, What, Where, When,” but skip the “Why.” At this point it is absolutely crucial to only state the facts, free of interpretation. Each person embroiled in the conflict must do this until everyone has agreed on a version of the situation; or agreed to disagree.

Second, review what the consequences of the conflict are. Think about what is being lost, what is being halted, what is being compromised. This can help put the conflict into a greater context and reduce tensions through pragmatism.

And third, hash out the potentials benefits of resolving the conflict. What can be gained by the people directly and indirectly related? When you do this you have crafted a comprehensive picture of both the positive and negative impacts of the conflict. A complete picture of the situation can provide some much needed separation from personal feelings.

There are three common approaches to reaching a consensus after the big picture has been set in place. Namely, they are the Assertive, Cooperative, and Collaborative.

The Assertive Approach.

You have a problem and it must be resolved. That is your prerogative from the get-go. Another name for this is a solution-oriented mindset.

A face-to-face meeting with the object(s) of conflict is preferable.

Once you’ve agreed to meet in person, determine the exact language you want to use at the start of the meeting. This will set the tone for what is to come. The goal is to keep perspective and not get sucked into personal attacks or assumptions. What is the problem? What is at stake? How can we ameliorate the tension?

Then, when you have made your points, turn the conversation over to the person in a non-threatening and unassuming way. Invite the person to speak and give them the floor openly. Let them know you are receptive. This must be sincere: otherwise the person’s guard will be up. 

Granted, this is a very straightforward approach and not everyone is keen on it. Despite your best efforts, the stylistic differences and the individual differences may impede the intended effects of the Assertive Approach. If you suspect that is the case, then try a more ‘beat around the bush’ tact: the Cooperative Approach.

The Cooperative Approach.

You have a problem that must be resolved, but not at this moment. You can temporally accept the disagreement without major consequences.

You have a conversation with the person and explain to them your position on the matter. Again, follow the General Rules stated above, but close with an acceptance of the matter as is. You can perhaps postpone talks for another time. The key here is to express goodwill. You don’t want to come off as impertinent and dismissive of the situation. One way to do this is to highlight how much time has been, is being, and could be spent on negotiations when the issue is really not that urgent. This will evoke empathy and realism.

If the approach is not satisfactory to the people involved, and they are too heightened to tolerate the Assertive Approach, then you are left with one, final recourse: the Collaborative Approach. 

The Collaborative Approach.

You have a problem that needs to be addressed immediately but not aggressively. Some finessing is necessary. You need the Collaborative Approach. This approach is best described as quid pro quo. You concede on some points of conflict to gain on others.

After you have elaborated on the points of conflict and what each side wants to accomplish, one side agrees to grant concessions so long as the other side cedes on other points. It creates a collaborative balance where accord can be reached without losing face. For some people, the competitive side of conflict cannot be avoided, and this approach can work well in those situations.

All that being said, there are sometimes situations that the conflicting people simply cannot resolve together. It happens. It’s okay. Emotions run hot and sometimes cloud our better judgment. It may take a third-person with no interest in the conflict to help mediate a resolution.

In a corporate environment that may be a manager or a fellow co-worker; in a school environment that may be a counselor; in a home environment it may be a friend or a family member. Whoever the person, make sure you both agree to their presence and can respect their input.

When you decide to get a mediator, there are a few important tips to bear in mind.

An Outsider Looking In

I don’t want to belabor the point so I will quickly run down the line of helpful tips for mediators in a conflict. I believe they are self-explanatory.

• Discuss boundaries and expectations. Before broaching the conflict, establish rules of conduct, expectations, and a sense of how the conversation will proceed. This helps eliminate ambiguity that can stoke the flames when left unchecked. It also helps keep everyone accountable.

• Use active listening. Paraphrase, ask for clarification, make sure that each person’s points are being heard and understood. Try to stay outside the content to the conversation to provide an objective perspective.

• Separate positions from issues. People tend to get messy in disagreements. Opinions are presented as facts, assumptions are taken as truths, and recounted events are interspersed with interpretation. Tease those apart.

• Understand and validate. Listen, paraphrase, and accept. Do not undermine or invalidate anyone’s thoughts or feelings.

• Empathize. Empathy is key. It ensures each person feels understood. Be careful not to take sides though.

• Be When you express sensitivity to the feelings of others, they will remain open to your input.

• Get each person to talk about alternative interpretations, alternative end-results, and other possibilities.

• “I” statements. In short, speak for yourself.

• Be kind. Find something positive to say about each person. It reduces nerves and disarms.

• Attack the idea, not the person.

Reclaim the Relationship and Move Forward

In the midst of a conflict we can say things that we don’t really mean or wouldn’t say upon careful reflection. Sometimes it’s because we want to win; sometimes it’s because we want to injure; and sometimes, we just get carried away.

Keeping our emotions in check is very important when trying to resolve a conflict. Often all people involved won’t be able to do it effectively. Fortunately it only takes one person to short fuse the conflictive energy. This is especially the case when the conflict is emotionally charged.

Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan and Al Switzler share valuable advice on how to talk about sensitive issues in Crucial Conversations. Their kernel of wisdom is that the more emotionally charged the discussion, the less likely we are to keep ourselves in line. That doesn’t mean, however, we cannot share our opinions calmly in those moment. There are ways to share while maintaining an air of safety in the space. Safety is essential to conflict resolution because it prompts people to put their guard down, which allow them to listen and open their minds. 

There are three ingredients that when taken in conjunction, reduce emotional tension and foster safety in a conflict-riddle situation.

Confidence. Have the confidence to say what you need to say and know that you can say it without hurting the other person. 

Humility. Realize you don’t have a monopoly on the truth. Others have valuable input and together you can come to a better understanding of the given situation. 

Skill. Share delicate information willingly. Be vulnerable and don’t regret it. People will be grateful for your honesty.

And then there are 5 tactics that can help you continue a conversation without impinging on safety or exacerbating emotions. 

Share your facts. Share what you know and put aside assumptions and conjectures. 

Tell your story. Explain your realizations and how you got to what you think you know. Be process oriented.

Ask for others’ paths. Encourage others’ to explain their realizations and how they got to what they think they know. Urge them to also be process oriented. 

Talk tentatively. Don’t use absolute terms. Leave room for error in what you say. Make it clear that it is your perception, and don’t disguise it as fact.

Encourage testing. Make it safe for other’s to try their theories without fear of being recriminated or brushed off. Don’t launch into a monologue. Don’t get indignant. Hold your beliefs but don’t bang people over the head with them. 

I Am a Businessman After All

Some of you may be wondering how the heck this could work in a professional environment without devolving into a kumbaya circle. Well, you know what I say? 

Professionals should be more willing to talk openly while paying deference to their emotions because choosing to ignore the role they play in conflicts doesn’t mean they aren’t playing a role.

Emotions, assumption, experience, and beliefs all influence the way we go about our daily lives, and if you are in society that means you are affecting others. Learning how to mitigate the impact of those aspects of human psychology on conflict resolution is necessary, be it a business context or not.

More broadly, it is pressing that we learn how to communicate effectively and respectfully with others. Recently disagreements of a political nature are flying all over the place, and no matter what side of the fence you are on, conflict will reach you, so you should be prepared to deal with it the best way you can muster.

Thank you for reading. I have written hundreds of articles here on LinkedIn on business, digital, sales, marketing, self improvement & technology. If the articles help you and you'd like to consider nominating me for the LinkedIN Top Voices List then kindly fill out this short form. With gratitude.