|
Whatever type of organization you
are in, conflicts of various sorts go with the territory, even with the
most enlightened executives and motivated employees due to any number of
reasons. People or work groups
have different interests, goals, and priorities; different divisions or
employees are striving to achieve goals with limited resources; communication
problems arise due to incorrect assumptions, mistaken perceptions, or
cultural differences. Other times
you encounter power struggles and personality clashes. And some people are just very
difficult to work with. If
you’ve seen the recent TV hit: The
Survivors, you have seen a microcosm of the
kind of interpersonal conflict that engulfs every office work group, even
when people like each other – and even more when they don’t. You may even feel like kicking
someone off of your company island, too!
Unfortunately, conflict situations
are often tricky to resolve – and the most apparent solution isn’t always
the answer – whether a conflict in your own department or when you are
stepping in as a third party conflict resolver. Take what happened when Jeremy, an outside contractor was
dealing with Irene, a recently hired inside legal counselor for the
company. Irene had hired Jeremy
to design a Web site for a company spin-off, while she was also
negotiating some property arrangements for the company. Unfortunately, she didn’t have time to
properly supervise Jeremy, so she told him to keep going on without
extensive feedback. When it
finally came time to show the results to her boss and company CEO, David,
he was critical of the work.
Feeling her own job was on the line, Irene became very emotional
and upset, telling Jeremy she wouldn’t pay unless he made some extensive
revisions at no charge. Then,
when he resisted, she played the tough lawyer, warning him how she could
sue and sending him several e-mails about the substandard quality of his
work – a complete turn-around from what she had said about his work
before.
To Jeremy, the basis for settling
the problem was simply responding to Irene in a rational way, using
e-mails in response to hers since she didn’t want a confrontation on the
phone, to explain how he had done what she said. He even offered a partial refund on
her last request if he had misunderstood it. But that rational approach to Irene was not the way to a
resolution, since she was responding with such emotion that each time
Jeremy suggested a reasonable alternative, she upped her demands. The lengthy battle of e-mails and
Irene’s refusal to discuss the matter calmly on the phone could have ended
up in a protracted courtroom battle for the whole company, which was
ultimately responsible for her actions.
Instead, the resolution that
finally worked was for an associate of Jeremy’s to contact Irene’s boss,
David, even though Irene had claimed she was in charge, to work through a
reasonable resolution. Since
David was not emotionally invested in the project, as was Irene, since
this was her first legal job and she felt she had to prove herself
flawless, he was able to respond to rationally resolving the
conflict. As a result, he was able
to see how Irene was trying to recast and manipulate the situation to
coerce Jeremy to pay. He also
saw that the basic problem was Irene’s lack of clear guidance and
follow-through with Jeremy, along with her fear of failure. Thus, he settled the problem by
providing her with more instruction, reducing her work load while she
focused on the property negotiations and learned the job. Plus, David accepted the
responsibility for Jeremy’s full bill, since the lack of success in
designing the Web site was Irene's fault, not Jeremy’s.
Thus, the conflict was successfully
resolved by redefining the nature of the problem, getting the emotions
standing as a barrier to resolution out of the way, and coming up with a
fair and reasonable solution.
Stepping in as a neutral 3rd party, Jeremy’s associate
saw how to redefine the conflict and the steps to its resolution through
an end-run around Irene to work out a resolution with a person with the
authority to take some action to resolve it. Then, a quick discussion of possibilities was all that was
needed to achieve a satisfactory resolution for all.
Likewise, as an HR manager, you are
often in a situation where you have to explore the reasons for a conflict
among people in your organization – or between insiders and those outside
the organization, such as suppliers and customers, and then help in
diffusing emotions and finding solutions.
Whatever the nature
of the conflict and reasons for it, you can better resolve it by treating
it as a problem to be solved, using the three-step E-R-I model, which
stands for the Emotions,
Reasons, and Intuition. These three steps are the following:
1)
1)
You first seek to calm
the emotions in the situation, whether these
emotions are expressed by someone else or your own (such as the feelings
of Irene in the illustration).
2)
2)
Next use your reason to assess, understand, and
evaluate the situation and the personalities caught up in it (such as
recognizing that Irene was too emotional to deal rationally with any
suggested alternatives and recognizing that there was someone else with
whom to better work out a resolution).
3)
3)
Finally, use your intuition to think of possible solutions and
alternatives, add in a dose of reason to evaluate the possible options,
and use your intuition to chose the way you want to respond. (For instance, in this case, the best
alternative for the company was providing Irene, as a new hire, with more
direction and training and accepting the bill – rather than opening the
company up to the potential of litigation with Jeremy over payment or a
suit from Irene over wrongful termination).
In the
E-R-I process, you blend these three processes together into an
integrated whole, using various techniques like a repertoire of tools you
can draw on as appropriate in a particular situation. Or if you are confronting several
problems, prioritize them to deal with the most important problems first.
In
essence, the ERI model is a “goal-oriented problem-solving process” you
can use to resolve conflicts throughout your whole organization by
treating them like problems to solve.
Often
it is a good idea to resolve problems in the early stages, particularly
when a conflict occurs between people who will continue to work
together. Otherwise, feelings of
anger, confusion, and other negative emotions can build up, making the
conflict worse, even when these feelings aren’t expressed openly.
It is
especially critical to look for the underlying source of the problem,
which isn’t always on the surface, to achieve a long-term lasting
solution. You sometimes have to
dig to find it, such as probing people involved in the conflict with
questions, since people may want to hide their feelings or may not even
be clear themselves. They just
sense something isn’t right or have vague feelings of distrust. It is best to seek clarity, so you
know what the real problem is.
In
some cases, a solution may be relatively clear-cut, such as clarifying
misunderstandings and working out a dispute between particular
individuals. But at times, you
may need to suggest changes in the workplace as a whole, such as
recommending to an executive that he or she should reassign people to
different work areas or divisions.
Sometimes, too, you may notice that an ineffective work process is
leading to a conflict, such as when not enough people are assigned to
carry out an assignment effectively, so that those working feel overly
stressed and engage in backbiting against each other. Should you identify such problems,
you might suggest changing or reengineering the ineffective process to
create more productive and satisfying work conditions.
Since one of the biggest obstacles
to resolving any conflict is feeling negative emotions, like anger,
jealousy, mistrust, and fear, a first step is getting them under
control. They may be expressed
openly, such as when someone yells angrily, or they can be under the
surface and turn into destructive actions like quiet sabotage and
backstabbing.
If
you’re feeling emotionally upset, start by getting calm yourself, say by
using a personal cue like pressing your fingers together, using
self-talk, or taking a time-out to get control. Then, once you have your own emotions in check, you can
help the other person deal with his or her own emotions. For instance, if someone is angry,
suggest a cooling-off period or listen to the reasons and show you really
want to understand and help resolve the problem.
Next,
using your reason, consider the various factors contributing to the
conflict, so you know where to intervene to make changes. For example, there may be
communication breakdowns, such as not being clear, not listening well, or
different understanding about meanings. There might be hidden agendas or
unexpressed feelings, reflected in discrepancies between nonverbal and
verbal communication.
In
some cases, your organizational culture and organizational politics may
be a factor. For example, in one
company, one woman was constantly in conflict with other employees,
because she was very aggressive and brash, whereas others had a much more
laid-back style. Since this lack
of fit couldn’t be easily resolved, in the end, it was best for her to
find another job. In your own
company, as appropriate, you might counsel the person to prepare the way
for a departure, help him or her adjust to the company culture, or work
with a top executive or manager to prepare for how to engineer a smooth
transition to another department or a termination.
Then,
too, a frequent source of conflict is different people’s interests, wants,
and needs or IWNs. If you think
about new ways to satisfy other people’s IWNs that might be a way to
achieve your own. A good way to
think about this is to create a list of what you believe are the motives
of those in a conflict and how you might satisfy these motives to get the
people to act in ways you prefer.
Also, consider the different types
of conflict styles you might use in different situations and with
different types of people. There
are five styles of handling conflict based on how assertive you are in
expressing your own interests and how cooperative you are in taking into
account other’s interests. These
five styles are:
-
- the Competing style, where you are more forceful and confrontive;
-
- the Collaborating style, where you take time to discuss each other’s concerns
and interests;
-
- the Accommodating style, where you go along with what the other wants;
-
- the Avoiding style, where you avoid or delay dealing with a conflict;
-
- the Compromising style, where you and the other party each give up a little
to resolve the problem.
Each of these styles can work well
under different situations, and not work well under others. To choose the best approach, consider
the particular circumstances,
personality factors, your organizational culture, and the IWNs of
the various parties.
Finally, after you understand the
reasons for the conflict and different approaches you or others involved
in the conflict might use, use your intuition to help decide how to best
resolve the problem. One
technique is brainstorming possibilities, either in a group or on your
own. When doing it by yourself,
write or tape your responses, and think of as many answers as you can
without trying to judge them. In
the second stage, review these ideas to choose the best ones.
Also, you can use visualization
techniques, like asking your “inner expert” for answers. Or if you are less visually oriented,
use self-talk, where you listen internally to a free flow of thoughts or
words after you ask yourself a question.
These intuitive techniques can help you see the problem more
clearly, imagine different approaches, and decide what to do, whether you
are taking action yourself or advising others.
|
