You are probably either permanently scarred or dreading when I go back to the “pipe analogy” for processes, but I can’t help it! It works. Some clogs are more obvious than others – poor process design, unclear policy, in sufficient training or resources, etc (insert shameless plug for TIMWOOD). Perhaps stretching the pipe analogy to its farthest limits, allow me to suggest exchanges of opinions, which can turn into debates then escalate to arguments?becoming one of the most devious and common process “clogs”. You have likely seen this over and over again, but how do discussions get to truly entrenched conflict? Having seen my fair share of unconstructive conflict, let me share some observations.
Conflict – having many levels, almost every conflict starts when both parties decide there is not a sufficient amount of common ground to build a mutually agreed upon solution. Both parties want a solution, but an obvious shared solution isn’t evident without additional information or discovery work.
Unconstructive Conflict – a solution is no longer the primary focus. Someone must be seen as right or wrong – winning is the focus.
Unfortunately, unconstructive conflict traps a lot of teams and individuals. Fatigue, escalating emotion, perceived loss, and a heightened sense of personal risk can all accelerate what was constructive to a space where it is no longer a “healthy” or constructive exercise. Here are some common signals conflict has become unconstructive and suggestions on how to help the individuals or teams get back to something more constructive. Not guaranteed, but helpful:
- One, it’s very normal to use unnecessary detail to defend your point of view. Because most groups stuck in conflict are basically unwilling to change their point of view on something (i.e. an opinion), they begin building a fortress of subject matter expertise including all the slang, technical jargon, and oddly specific details. This is just to deflect from addressing the root cause which is almost always brutally simple. In this instance, I’ll typically make that observation, and after much protest and emotion, we’ll come back to the simple fact that one party just doesn’t like the answer or projected outcome. Then the real work of unpacking all the unexpressed fear, anxiety, or assumed risk can begin. Real progress can begin.
- Two, normally well adjusted, professional people go blind. They become so focused on making?a point, they are now blind to the fact their tone, body language, or word choice has lost the other person or group. This usually leads to either an equally blind return fire of opinion or complete checkout and disengagement. Because both parties have lost the ability to be in a real conversation, they retreat to their ideological corners and little gets done. It’s only when you basically prevent the conversation from following it’s natural course by constantly digging into what’s not being said, or decoding innuendo, that you get those who’ve gone blind to the moment, to “see” again. And for some, they never do.
- Three, you get tired. Really tired. Resolving entrenched conflict, based on the prior two points takes immense endurance, focus, and patience. Usually both parties have been stuck in the same debate for quite a while because they can’t figure out a way on their own. One of the hardest rescues a lifeguard makes is that of an exhausted swimmer at sea. Because they’ve worn themselves out by trying to swim too far or too hard, they’re dead weight. You have to supply all the energy to get them back to shore. Working with anyone locked in conflict feels the same. You have to be willing to supply all the energy, focus, and patience because they’ve just run out.
Creating change is a great way to surface conflict. We need to be prepared to help others move out of unconstructive conflict. We have enough clogs to clear without creating new ones ourselves.
