The Anatomy of a Conflict
Conflict is a trivial fact of daily corporate life. It’s a fact of life, actually. Exasperated opinion divergences are part of human relations, be it under organizational, familiar or love aspects. The diversity of thoughts and points of view is healthy and necessary to open new paths in a debate. However, it may become a social virus when it turns into an argument or a contest, openly or instigated from behind the curtains. Uncontrolled or unending conflict yields all kinds of setbacks for calm and balanced decision making processes; it induces sabotaging (consciously or not), and even betrayal, translated in careless gossiping; it deteriorates relationships tearing people apart; and in an alarming rate, it bleeds out a company while managers put personal victories above the company’s best interest. We see it happening every single day.
Managers are usually poorly trained to deal with conflict in a healthy way — at home, at schools, universities, and in business above all –, and that adds up another aggravating factor in an argument. On the other hand, the support of an observer from outside of the dispute, free of the many influences that both sides bring, helps to organize subjects and to come up with a negotiated solution. With that in mind, we have been advising businessmen and executives, working as adjudicators to solve different conflicts in different hierarchical levels: between boards and presidents, CEOs and directors, between directors, a director and a manager, between family members working together (e.g. conflicts between 2nd and 3rd generations), and so on.
To solve a dispute, we first look for the root of the conflict, so then we can devise a collaborative solution and end the problem. In most cases, the conflict begins for the simplest and seemingly invisible causes, and most of the times, very subtle ones:
1. People simply have different perceptions about the same fact, creating distinct realities. To interpret a fact, we use a combination of countless references, feelings and memories. Our reaction is a consequence of the meaning we attribute to something. That meaning, for us, is reality. We take that perception as our truth, be it a forerunner for positive thoughts and feelings or not. The challenge in overcoming a disagreement is to align those perceptions. In many occasions, it requires a facilitator from the outside to help in understanding and making the differences clearer. Managers do that every day. They try to solve conflicts between teams when they spot different perceptions that people may develop about a subject, settling which perception the team should adopt.
2. Managers have difficulties to organize and present their ideas clearly, with meaningful arguments to pass on their strategies and recommendations. Undoubtedly, methodology simplification and access to more friendly strategy and coaching tools are here to stay, and they help a lot in organizing and communicating ideas with greater agility. However, quality and consistency on the matter, carefully embedded within the tools, are items that make a complete difference in a debate. Even more important than the instrument per se are the manager’s or the facilitator’s arsenal of experiences and knowledge, their handle on conceptual nuances, the surgical strength of their analysis, and the ability to listen his or her team and come up with a relevant and definitive strategic vision.
The difficulty in articulating a consistent vision can also be influenced by the conflict between personal agendas and the company’s agenda. The manager is usually rushed by the impetus — or even by an unconscious dynamic — of standing by a point of view or project in which he has a better grasp or personal affinity, and with that in mind he creates stark and convincing presentations. Defending what’s best for the company, even if it goes against what you want the most, requires maturity and intellectual independence.
Knowledge and experience differences can also make it harder to reach and alignment. In conflict situations, the arrogance or lack of patience that the better prepared shows to the one with comprehension impairment end up in irritation and even insults. In moments like that, using knowledge as a tool to overpower the weaker part is a common mistake, because wisdom and patience to teach the other should prevail, aiming to clarify the point of view on the best way to achieve common goals.
3. Reports and executive presentations are riddled with generic and low granularity statements. The lack of specificity or precision in the blueprint of a problem or on demonstrating the solution creates questionable understandings, unnecessary tensions and, sometimes, all sorts of squandering. Once, a manager was appointed to elaborate an action plan to “aggregate new technologies to the business”. That was the name stated to one of the Strategic Plan initiatives. However, nobody explained to the manager what the intention behind the initiative was. After a month working with a 4-person team, the manager presented to the Strategic Committee a plan to update the company’s ERP, the executives’ notebooks, computers with gaps on the automation tools at their branches and other kinds of software, like project management tools. At the meeting — and also embarrassed — I reminded the group that initiative was aimed towards automation, but for the clients in the field; like fleet management in remote areas via GPS or satellite. That manager’s frustration could have sowed the seed for future conflicts with the vice-president that commissioned the initiative with inadequate communication.
4. Good old guessing or baseless generalizations create false references that feed the fires of disagreement. With experience, we learn that people tend to convert isolated occurrences into absolute facts. Examining evidences deeply shows that, in practice, people fall into the “2 are a lot, 3 are everyone” trap. We frequently hear allegations like “the clients didn’t like the new service” or “the employees are outraged”. When we ask how many gave negative opinions, the answer is usually irrelevant and doesn’t allow correct conclusions. That’s why management based on data is essential to avoid taking hasty decisions or based on false assumptions, helping out on educating managers and teams. Although very common, that is not an issue of dishonesty or a conscious desire to induce mistakes.
Actually, this is all about a common characteristic to managers, due to lack of training on how to avoid that kind of trap. In moments like that, an outsider would help to eliminate insubstantial variables and guide the debate and the decision.
5. Agreements about sensible topics, sealed informally and without written registration are time-bombs with delayed effects. One of the most important lessons we learn in life is that contracts or agreements, well written and signed by the parts were conceived to protect good partnerships from future conflicts. Oral communication of promises and future plans is surrounded by different perceptions and meanings for each of the involved. Making thoughts concrete with written language greatly enhances the chances of spotting semantic divergences that can be corrected in time. Obviously, written promises are easier to tear down if any regrets arise in the future, and that’s why people avoid registering agreements. The preference for what’s orally settled also happens for fear that the proposition of a written agreement may be seem by the other with a lack of trust in his or her agreement. In practice, it only delays the highly probable embarrassment that might appear in the future.
6. Trauma from the past are always contaminating the arguments of a present that can be different. In clear and simple English, “once bitten, twice shy”. The fear of reliving a frustrating experience from the past, tiresome impacts from a similar situation or painful lessons amassed create a nervous aversion to new facts. To shield the present from past troubles, we have to identify which scars may be motivating a rejection backlash, understanding the logic of the comparison. Therefore, we can bring up to conscience what’s useful and makes sense, and rule out whatever is not.
7. When in tense conversations, people tend to leave important things unsaid and don’t finish their thoughts in a precise and explicit way. In an argument or tough conversation, they leave incomplete thoughts hanging in the air, gaps that end up being filled — wrongly, most of the times — by the listener. A misinterpretation or erroneous conclusion provoke aggressive reactions or deviates the conversation to an unwanted path, worsening the conflict. At some point, if the confusion is cleared out, we hear the famous “that’s not what I meant”, or “you didn’t understand anything I said”.
8. The worst possible interpretation to a proposition or attitude from the other comes from the simple lack of true trust. That happens even with partners that built a company together based on friendship, upheld by real demonstrations of altruism and integrity in the past. It doesn’t matter the origin of a conflict of interest: a misread attitude or position — that could even be positive — may cause unreasonable hostility. That “suspicion” of real intentions and meanings behind an initiative may have innumerable explanations, but as long as the fairest and most authentic is not found, the imbalance in the relationship can trigger an earthquake a little ways down the road.
9. Conflicts may arise from the difficulty of one of the parts to see and break a trap of commitments. The commitment, be it a strategic directive, premises for a new contract, purchased assets, process or work relations changes, and so on. Changes in context may be possible — because of changes on the market, technological or regulatory advances. It may even be necessary that the company rethink decisions taken in the past that governs decisions at present and in the future. Resisting to transform a commitment might put a manager in a conflict situation with a peer, because of opinion divergences on what is the best conduct in facing a new decision to be taken. Clearing out the motivations for the change and leading the process in a structured and mutually agreed way is fundamental to overcome a dispute like that. It’s worth reading the article “Trap of Commitments”, in which we describe that dynamic in detail.
10. Hostilities are also sustained by the difficulty that one or both the parts find in making compromises and turning the page. For lots of reasons, even if all arguments for a dispute are clarified, it is usually hard to put an end to the debate. Although they can reach an agreement to finish the conflict, the contend lives on because one of the parts can’t help but to fix its own meanings to attitudes or ideas from the other. That reluctance in accepting another point of view and the conservation of the original problem weakens the bond and will not allow the wounds to heal. Contrary to that, it produces an Aquilles heel that will bring all that trash back someday. Turning the page also entails giving in some position or demand in favor of a greater and common goal. Knowing how to open your arms, break the conflict loop and move on, never looking back, may be one of the hardest challenges that we face every day in our relationships.
Of course, in this article we don’t consider conflicts caused by betrayal, corruption, criminal or dishonest practices, attitudes taken in bad faith for a sudden lapse or character deviation, among others. When the causes of that sort of conflicts are discovered, they trigger a dramatic break and are solved with the help of good lawyers.
However, in our mediation experiences, we generally observe that conflicts are caused by one of the 10 triggers we briefly described or the combination of some. Also notice that they all have the same roots: miscommunication. Fights and clashes arise not from what is said, but because of how it is said. Finding out the anatomy of the conflict and acknowledging its dynamics are the first steps to find a final solution for the contest and restore balance to the relationship. Undermining or burying valuable relationships because of the uncontrollable domino effect of misunderstandings that come up from a disagreement is a mistake we must oppose with all our strength. Otherwise, the regret may one day steal a good night’s sleep, and much as you want it to happen, there is no turn back in time or reshaping history with a happy ending.
