ENCOURAGE BENEFICIAL CONFLICT

In many situations, it is easy to understand why people might avoid engaging in conflict. Indeed, if we reflect on the “big picture,” we see that there is often the potential for very significant costs when conflict occurs.

But in my work, we tend to “think small. ” Our work is done with small groups of people who gather to enhance their skills of interaction. Yet, despite (what would certainly appear to be) much lower “stakes,” conflict avoidance is the norm.

Over the years, I have seen many situations in which small groups sat in stunned silence rather than so much as mention any of the conflicts that were plainly visible before them.

There is a clear tendency to avoid conflict in these situations.

This is an issue of no small concern to my colleagues and me because we know that the greatest single source of significant group development is the expe­rience of conflict well resolved, and so the issue of conflict avoidance became a focus of our interests for many years.

At some point, we started to explore these matters with our program partic­ipants. The results of these discussions, in truth, provided significant surprise.

We are all well aware that many aspects of psychology have found their way into day-to-day communication. For example, in any corporate cafeteria we might overhear a conversation in which someone was characterized as being “defensive.” And, were we to ask just what that meant, the answer we would receive is likely to be quite reasonable.

In my observation, and in stark contrast, knowledge of the psychology of conflict has not yet filtered down “to the street.”

Initially, this was confusing to us. But, over time, we began to see that in very important ways, our program participants’ exploration of conflict issues was the “reverse” of what we had come to expect based upon our experience with many other issues.

For most of the phenomena we explore in our programs, participant knowledge is typically far greater than their emotional connection to the issues at hand.

For the world of conflict and its productive resolution, the opposite is true. Participants came to us with virtually no knowledge of these issues, but with emotional connections so strong as to provide the motivation for their avoid­ance of the issues altogether. The mere mention of the word “conflict” imme­diately stimulated memories of childhood bruises both literal and figurative. Our participants were very much connected to the issues. Everyone, it seemed, knew how conflict felt but very few had any useful ways to understand it.

As a result, in my experience, the single most significant motivation for the avoidance of conflict (in the small-group settings in which we operate) is the lim­ited tolerance for the ambiguity generated by the experience of conflict itself.

Stated simply, the people with whom we work, though typically very sophis­ticated and skillful in the arena of their chosen professions, are utterly lacking in knowledge of conflict, and this, together with the intensity of their emotional connection, generates confusion that makes them hesitant to explore it at all.

They avoid conflict because they do not want to appear incompetent and also because they are fearful about engaging something that they understand is powerful, yet, at the same time, unknown, perhaps for them, even unknowable.

We deal with this in several ways.

Frequently, we will launch an informal conversation about conflict within our client groups. We might, for example, offer our program participants a handout saying something like, “Are there any conflicts associated with your department’s recent reorganization?” Within moments, the noise level in the room increases as the small groups we have structured start to explore the question, but their exploration typically avoids any real engagement with the conflicts that they know to exist.

Then, after a few minutes, we offer another sheet....

It says “Oh no! I forgot to define it! Please write your own working defini­tion of conflict below.”

As I distribute the second sheet I feign embarrassment, sometimes com­menting on the fact that I seem to have violated an extremely important prin­ciple of adult education in that I have failed to define the very important term “conflict.” (I should add here that when using this approach I have had partici­pants literally say, “Hey wait.... You prepared that sheet in advance....” as they found themselves caught in the joke.)

As our participants start to take in the meaning of the sheet, I explain that I knew that they each had a “working definition” of conflict because they were having an intelligent conversation about the topic for several minutes.

They write. They talk for a while in small groups. And then we start to explore their many definitions together.

Often, the definitions they generate are paragraphs long.

From these conversations, we can extract many important characteristics of conflict.

Do conflicts always occur between people? Well, no. I explain that I find that I often experience conflict when I am alone in my car and approach a local donut shop. They smile.

Is conflict between groups really the same as conflict between individuals? Well, no. There seem to be some conflicts built into the relationship between Finance and Engineering that somehow transcend the behavior of the individual members of those departments.

With each of these many brief discussions, important things start to happen. Of course, their knowledge increases a bit, but that is not my primary interest.

More importantly, they start to sense that their engagement with the very issue of conflict is starting to change. With each comment, their understanding deepens and they become a bit more capable and, with that, a bit more com­fortable.

Eventually, I tell them that I will offer what I typically call “textbook defini­tion” of the word “conflict.” When I do, I try to remember to mention it is not any better than theirs but is a bit “simpler.” I typically use Deutsch’s definition of conflict as “things in opposition.”

With that, I ask that they return to the original conversation about conflicts borne of their recent reorganization.

They do, but with greater depth, greater ease, greater creativity, and vastly increased energy.

My offering a definition of “conflict” is an act of help, but that quickly tran­sitions to support as my program participants try to apply their new knowledge to their own work situation.

Some forms of conflict avoidance are organization-wide.

Those with whom I work often tend to believe that much of their behavior is biologically determined. In fact, in recent years, such a view seems to have swept many organizations I have come to know well.

Recently, I had the chance to work with a rather large group of people from a manufacturing firm. I spent several days with these folks but had responsi­bility for the program activities for only part of that time. At one point, a senior training manager spent a few hours with the group providing guidance for their understanding of a personality inventory that they had filled out perhaps a month before. It was the third such personality test they had taken since being hired by the company.

After a while, expressions of confusion started to arise because many in the group had come to notice that their personality characteristics seemed to differ depending on the particular test that was the object of their focus.

In response, the trainer thought it useful to explain the differences among the three tests.

She started with the test that these people had taken when the company first hired them.

On the many occasions that I have asked representatives of my client orga­nizations why they find these personality tests to be so useful, I have often been offered (essentially) the same response. I am usually told that the tests of per­sonality are a very valuable first step in employees’ learning how to work pro­ductively with those who differ from themselves in fundamental ways.

Indeed, that would (initially) seem to be a most attractive prospect, particu­larly given my great interest in the productive resolution of interpersonal conflict.

Unfortunately, I have been waiting for many years for organizations that use this “first step” to get to the second step.

In fact, all too frequently, I hear employees of organizations that use these personality tests explain that meaningful interaction with particular others is all but impossible. They seem to have learned that because their behavior and the behavior of others is generated by (what they understand to be) immutable characteristics of personality, seeking common ground for the resolution of their conflicts is futile.

I have come to view this organizational tendency as a regrettable and sys­temic form of conflict avoidance, and, when I have the opportunity, I explore this issue with my clients.

Another form of conflict avoidance is seen in the tendency of some people to seek the role I sometimes call “conflict confidant.” These are folks who welcome conversations with any and all who come to them with descriptions of conflict about which their “clients” are concerned. Conflict confidants are usually skilled listeners and seem to take great pride in their ability to comfort those with whom they engage in exploration of these issues. Almost invariably, the person describ­ing a conflict feels far better after such discussions: his or her tension is replaced by relaxation and comfort.

The role of the conflict confidant (and perhaps here I can reintroduce the now archaic but more descriptive terms “busybody” or “gossip”) is built upon the shared belief that conflict itself is something to be avoided. With that assumption, if, by “talking it through” one can sidestep the conflict, everyone involved is understood to be better off.

The difficulty I have described is exacerbated when the person in the role of conflict confidant is an organizational manager, and sadly many managers see the avoidance of conflict (particularly among their subordinates) as one of their primary responsibilities. In this regard, I try to support managers in under­standing their responsibility as that of educating and encouraging their subor­dinates so that all of them can engage in, and extract benefit from, constructive conflict resolution more frequently.

In my view, people finding themselves in this role of conflict confidant (and we all will be in that situation frequently) must understand the indi­vidual, group, and organizational benefits that can be extracted from conflict and thus must encourage the productive resolution of conflict whenever pos­sible. When they start listening to the conflicts that others experience, they should respond with their own version of, “How can I assist you so that you can have a better conversation with the person with whom you have this issue?” With that posture, their helpful conflict avoidance can become sup­portive conflict encouragement.