Understanding Conflict - A Guide to the Security Practitioner

While cybersecurity practitioners tend to highlight values such as “Security being a business enabler” or “effectively managing the business risk” it still seems that conflict is always present between the security world and the business world. Conflict is usually perceived as an undesired situation; however, effective conflict management can have a positive return on the organization and can result in higher team performance, increased understanding and better group cohesion. This article will examine the relationship between different social interactions and conflict, then it will explain the different strategies for conflict management, and will end by defining when and how to choose the right one.

1. Introduction

Oxford dictionary defines Conflict as: “a serious incompatibility between two or more opinions, principles, or interests.” While cybersecurity practitioners tend to highlight values such as “Security being a business enabler” or “Effectively managing the business risk”; yet it seems that conflict is always present between the security side and the business side.

Although it is usually perceived as an undesired situation, effective conflict management can have a positive return on the organization and can result in higher team performance, increased understanding and better group cohesion. In their book “Resolving Conflicts at Work, Cloke and Goldsmith argue that “Every conflict we face in life is rich with positive and negative potential. It can be a source of inspiration, enlightenment, learning, transformation, and growth – or rage, fear, shame, entrapment and resistance” (Cloke, Goldsmith, 2001).?

This article will focus on examining the different social interactions and how they relate to conflict, then it will explain the different strategies for conflict management and will end by defining when and how to choose the right one.

2. Causes of Conflict

Understanding the reason behind what commonly causes the conflict is crucial to managing it effectively. Conflict arises from different desires, views, and goals. They can range from simple personal issues, stress and emotional conditions, to organizational and management ones. In this section, we focus on some findings from the field of social neuroscience on what can trigger conflict situations.?

2.1. How our Brain Works - Threat vs. Reward Response

A key to understanding the causes of conflict is to recognize how our brain works in different social situations and interactions inside the organization. Studies in the field of social cognitive neuroscience show that social pains and pleasures bear a surprising resemblance to physical pain and pleasure (Lieberman, Eisenberger, 2008). When security practitioners interact with other stakeholders they should be mindful of the effects of such interactions and utilize it to minimize the chances of conflicts.

Minimizing danger and maximizing reward is an overarching, organizing principal of the brain (Gordon, 2000). This principal is referred to as the approach-avoid response or the threat-reward response. When a person encounters a stimulus, the brain decides to either approach or avoid it depending on the amount of reward/danger associated with the stimulus.?

Clearly, the threat/avoid response is not an ideal state for collaboration and can be the reason behind many workspace conflicts. On the other hand, by encouraging an approach/reward response in the social interaction between security practitioners and other stakeholders, more opportunities for collaboration is revealed and a healthier working environment with less pain and struggle is achieved. Understanding this brain principal is key to avoiding situations that others perceive as threatening, and instead, maximize their sense of reward.

2.2. The SCARF Model

The SCARF model defines five social triggers that can generate both ‘approach’ and ‘avoid’ responses. The acronym SCARF stands for: Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness. “The goal of this model is to help minimize the easily activated threat response and maximize positively engaged states of mind during attempts to collaborate with and influence others” (Gordon, 2008).?

Security practitioners can embrace this model to focus on key social interactions to reduce conflicts and foster collaboration. The next section explores the individual social trigger and examines how to reduce its threats and increase its rewards.

2.2.1. Status

‘Status’ is all about relative importance and seniority. It is about our perception of ourselves among others. Studies showed that reduction of status resulting from being left out of an activity lit up the same regions of the brain as physical pain (Eisenberger, Lieberman, Williams, 2003). The perception of reduced status can generate a strong threat response, whereas a sense of increased status will create an ‘approach’ response.

As a security leader, it is crucial to understand how our interactions with others may affect their status. A common mistake that security practitioners usually make but should always avoid is to treat other teams with superiority. On the contrary, they should highlight the value of their partnership with the other stakeholders, and should always acknowledge the efforts of the other teams, preferably publicly. Doing so helps increase others sense of status and reward and reflects with more cooperation and harmony.

2.2.2. Certainty

With uncertainty, the brain uses more resources to process moment-to-moment experience distracting it from focusing on the original goals. “The brain is a pattern-recognition machine that is constantly trying to predict the near future” (Gordon, 2008).?

Security practitioners should always establish clear expectations of what is needed from other stakeholders. Using unclear requirements such as “Keep the system secure” or “Fix all security issues” can result in uncertainty and loss of focus towards achieving the required goals. On the contrary, scientists observed that meeting expectations generate an increase in dopamine levels of the brain, a reward response (Schultz, 1999)

2.2.3. Autonomy

Autonomy is the perception of exerting control over one’s environment. When people feel they do not have control over a situation, the brain generates a threat response and tries to avoid that situation.

As security practitioners, it helps to present multiple solutions to the problem and allowing the stakeholder the autonomy to choose the best option. This is more acceptable than forcing a single solution to the problem. By doing so, the other party feels to be in control and their brain generates an approach/reward response, again reducing conflict probability and increasing collaboration.

2.2.4. Relatedness

Relatedness is about feeling connected to others; deciding whether someone is a friend or a foe.?Relatedness is also closely associated with trust, the higher the trust, the stronger the collaboration among individuals. It is crucial for the security practitioners to build confidence with other stakeholders. They should avoid being flagged as the enemy trying to pinpoint others’ mistakes. Instead, stakeholders should always perceive security as a partner trying to support the business in reaching their objectives.

2.2.5. Fairness

The last social trigger in the SCARF model is fairness. Unfair exchanges generate a strong threat response (Tabibnia, Liberman, 2007). Within the context of cybersecurity, fairness results from applying the same policies to all individual. Exceptions should be kept to a minimal and driven by a clear business need. A vital element is also to establish clear ground rules and expectations, and communicate them to all stakeholders. Ensuring fair treatment among various stakeholders generates a sense of equality and reduces chances of having a threat/avoid response.

3. Conflict Management Techniques

In the 1970th Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann developed the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) in which they identified five main styles for dealing with conflict that differs according to the degree of assertiveness and cooperativeness (Thomas K., Kilman R., 1970). The five styles are: Competitive, Collaborative, Compromising, Accommodating and Avoiding.

3.1. Competitive

“Competition operates as a zero-sum game, in which one side wins and other loses. Highly assertive personalities often fall back on competition as a conflict management strategy” (Dontigney E., 2017). While not the best for managing conflicts in most situations, it can be very beneficial in crisis and emergency situations where the luxury of time for reaching consensus is not affordable.?

3.2. Collaborative

The objective of collaboration is to work on finding a solution that is acceptable to everyone, without jeopardizing any of the party’s needs. Collaboration works by integrating the ideas set out by different people to obtain a creative solution (Dontigney E., 2017). A major drawback with this is that it tends to be time-consuming, which might not be affordable in all conflicts, however, security practitioners should always attempt to use this strategy whenever possible

3.3. Compromising

The compromising strategy is all about finding the middle ground. The objective is to find a mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties. This strategy is intermediate between competing and accommodating.

3.4. Accommodating

This strategy is the opposite of the competing strategy in which one party accepts the other party’s point of view.?People tend to use it when it is more important to end the conflict than to win it, or when the issue is minor.

3.5. Avoiding

The final conflict resolution strategy is to avoid the conflict, hoping that the problem is either resolved by itself or by other people. It is generally a weak strategy and should rarely be used.

4. Choosing Your Strategy

Understanding the threat/reward principal is key to avoiding many unnecessary conflicts. By knowing the different social triggers, security practitioners can utilize them to ensure better collaboration and coherence among the different stakeholders.

Yet conflicts are inevitable, and it is vital to choose the right strategy to address them when they occur. Although people may tend to use a specific style of conflict resolution, effective conflict management might require using different styles in different situations.

For issues of high importance, and given the luxury of time, collaboration is the best strategy. Everybody wins, and nobody loses. It is also the way to come up with innovative solutions that might be better than the ones originally proposed.

For issues of medium importance, compromising is an appealing strategy, where you are still able to achieve some of your objectives, and yet maintain a healthy and productive work environment.

Issues of low importance are a candidate for accommodation. Losing this conflict to the other party may have a higher return than winning it. Keeping the peace and good relationships, being perceived as cooperative may be key in better handling future conflicts.

5. Conclusion

Conflict is natural. It is part of us being humans with different personalities, values, beliefs, and priorities. Understanding how the human brain works and the social triggers stimulating a threat/reward response may be key to avoid unnecessary conflicts. Conflicts are not necessarily bad. They can be the source of innovative solutions, increased performance, and better understanding among conflicting parties. Effective conflict management is the key to unleashing such benefits, and diversifying the conflict management strategies is the key to an effective conflict management.?

References

Cloke K., Goldsmith J., (2001, March). Resolving Conflicts at Work., p14?

Dontigney Y. (n.d.). 5 Conflict Management Strategies. Retrieved from: https://smallbusiness.chron.com/5-conflict-management-strategies-16131.html

Gordon E. (2000). Integrative Neuroscience: Bringing Together Biological, Psychological and Clinical Models of the Human Brain

Gordon E. (2008). SCARF: A Brain-base Model for Collaborating with and Influencing Others. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/thurs_georgia_9_10_915_covello.pdf

Schultz W. (1999, December 1). The Reward Signal of Midbrain Dopamine Neurons. Retrieved from: https://physiologyonline.physiology.org/content/14/6/249

Liberman M., Eisenberg N. (2008). The Pains and Pleasures of Social Life: A Social Cognitive Neuroscience Approach. Retrieved from: https://www.scn.ucla.edu/pdf/Pains&Pleasures(2008).pdf

Liberman M., Eisenberg N., Williams K. (2003). Does Rejection Hurt? An fMRI Study of Social Exclusion. Retrieved from: https://www.scn.ucla.edu/pdf/Cyberball290.pdf

Tabibnia, G., & Lieberman M. D. (2007). Fairness and Cooperation Are Rewarding: evidence from Social Cognitive Neuroscience. Retrieved from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1196/annals.1412.001/full

Thomas K., Kilman R., (1974). An Overview of the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Retrieved from: https://smallbusiness.chron.com/5-conflict-management-strategies-16131.html