How we transform conflict into shared strategy and personal growth
What if conflicts at work weren’t something that we are trying to avoid? What if we experienced conflicts as a source of innovation and personal growth? What if getting support for transforming conflicts didn’t feel like admitting failure but like the obvious thing to do?
Ever since the findings of project Aristotle about the importance of psychological safety for team effectiveness, it has somewhat become a focus for many companies to create such environments. In environments that feel psychologically safe, people dare to
- speak up when they don’t understand — even when they think they should,
- disagree with what someone says — even when that person is higher up a hierarchy,
- admit mistakes — even when the mistakes were costly for the company, and
- ask questions that challenge the status quo — even when they are not sure themselves what else to do.
Guess what? In order for all these actions to feel safe, you need to know what will happen when there is conflict. This post describes what to do when a conflict is rooted deeper than a brief discussion. Spoiler: “Let’s just be nice to each other” doesn’t quite cut it. This post is about the hard work of transforming conflicts like grown-ups.
There is nothing wrong with having conflicts
Conflicts are a natural occurrence of collaboration. Think about it. The alternative would be that everyone has the same opinion on every matter all the time. This is not only unlikely but also undesirable. There would be no innovative progress if we all thought the same way all the time. You could go as far as saying: If we both think the same, one of us is redundant.
Most people are used to raising conflicts at work with their boss to settle the matter. I am convinced that conflicts cannot be resolved by a boss. A third party — like a boss — may decide on how to proceed regarding a conflict. However, only when the involved parties understand each others’ perspectives and needs, can the conflict be transformed into a shared strategy to meet everyone’s needs.
Therefore, when a conflict arises, we…
- Ask the other party (person or group) for conflict resolution.
- Sit together and try to sort it out between the two of you by having an open conversation.
- If you can’t agree on a way forward, choose a mediator you both trust. Be clear that the mediator will not impose a decision but support you in communicating — so that you may arrive at your own solution.
- Only if mediation fails or one party refuses to engage in conflict resolution, escalate the conflict to someplace else to be dealt with there — usually somewhere up a hierarchy. They start at step 1. Be clear on that by doing so you give away most of your agency in transforming the conflict.
There are some base assumptions that we like to remind ourselves about when conflicts arise:
- No-one is out to get you. People do things to reach their own goals. Whatever someone else is doing, they most likely don’t do it to annoy you. Hanlon’s razor applies: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”. I prefer replacing the word “stupidity” with “ignorance” because it is less offensive to the person and it is more descriptive about the person’s (lack of) awareness of the current situation.
- Addressing a conflict is not an attack — at least not when done constructively. Addressing a conflict in good faith and with the right wording makes it easier for the other person not to feel attacked. However, this is not a guarantee that they won’t. If you engage in good faith and with non-violent wording, that’s on them. You are responsible for your actions. You are not responsible for their reactions. Don’t use the fear of hurting someone’s feelings as an excuse not to address conflicts. Think radical candor = care personally + challenge directly.
- People do change their behavior. We change our behavior all the time. We just don’t like to be changed. This is why it is so important to understand each other’s needs. We are social animals. Our body rewards us with Oxytocin for social bonding activities. If we understand what someone needs and how to accommodate them, we actually enjoy doing so.
- Not addressing conflict is a slow energy drain. While it may be costly to address conflict, not addressing it ensures lower but never-ending cost. You can either invest a couple of hours today, strengthen the relationship, and move forward with combined forces. Or you can ignore the conflict, use those couple of hours today to do “real work”, let the relationship deteriorate, and just press on though you are misaligned. This is a surefire way towards frustration and resentment.
Addressing conflicts feels uncomfortable. Reminding ourselves of these base assumptions makes it easier to do it anyway.
When is conflict constructive?
How we approach conflicts can be depicted on a spectrum. On the one end of the spectrum lies artificial harmony where we avoid conflict altogether. On the other end, we engage in personal attacks with the intent to hurt our opponent. Both ends suck. Artificial harmony appears good. Whereas personal attacks are obviously bad. It is natural to cling to artificial harmony because we are afraid of moving closer to personal attacks. Ironically, this invites talking about others behind their backs and fosters environments that are overly political — as in not psychologically safe.
The constructive conflict sweet spot lies somewhere in the middle where we engage in — sometimes heated — arguments about ideas, but don’t leave them with emotional residue afterward.
Signs that you are at the artificial harmony end:
- You talk about people and what irritates you about them when they are not present, instead of talking with them.
- You are frustrated with people and their behavior.
Signs that you are in the constructive conflict zone:
- You argue for or against an idea but it doesn’t negatively affect how you relate to the person who brought up the idea.
- You respect people you argue with and there is no emotional residue after an argument.
Signs that you are at personal attacks end:
- You argue against the person who brought up an idea instead of the idea. They must be wrong because of how they think and are.
- You resent people after having arguments with them.
Right. Now that we agree that conflict is not only necessary but even useful: How can mediation support us coming out the other end unharmed?
The five steps of mediation
“The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”
— George Bernard Shaw
Two people tried to sort out a conflict amongst themselves but seem to be stuck. So, they ask a mediator for help.
The role of the mediator is to make sure that communication has in fact taken place — meaning that the conflicted parties have heard and understood each other, and that they both know that they did. Arguments never settle a conflict. Understanding does. Understanding itself is the biggest part of conflict transformation.
In mediation sessions, I guide the conflicting parties through five steps.
- Realize that you already made a huge step
- Describe the conflict
- Understand your own perspective and needs
- Understand the other person’s perspective and needs
- Devise a shared strategy that meets everyone’s needs
Step 1: Realize that you already made a huge step
This step is about dissolving thoughts like “Is it really necessary that we escalated to mediation?” and “Do we have to involve another person in this? It’s not that big of a deal.”
By agreeing on getting help from a mediator a huge step towards conflict transformation has already been taken. To strengthen this shared commitment, it is worthwhile pointing this out and celebrating the involved parties for taking this step. Most people with a conflict never make it this far. If both parties did indeed agree to mediation on their own terms and this sinks in, a fundamental mind shift has taken place from “Me vs. You” towards “Me + You vs. the problem”.
The outcome of this step is an openness of each party to engage in the conflict in good faith.
Step 2: Describe the conflict
This step is about turning statements like “I don’t even understand why this is a problem?” into “I see how this is harmful to reaching our shared goals.”
One of the involved parties usually experiences the conflict more clearly than the other. As a mediator, I let them describe how they experience the conflict. “What do you observe that leads you to feel the need to say something?” It is natural for the other person to get defensive at this stage. Allow them to describe their observations. Stick to the facts at this step. Don’t try to figure out who is “right” or “wrong”.
Once there is a “good enough for now” description of how the conflict is experienced by both involved parties, agree on why it is beneficial to both to sort this out. “What are we trying to achieve together that would benefit from resolving this conflict?”
The outcome of this step is a commitment to deal with the conflict to reach a shared goal.
Step 3: Understand your own perspective and needs
This step is about turning statements like “It just doesn’t feel right” and “That’s just how it should be.” into “I prefer option A because I need …”. For instance, turning “I just don’t like pair programming.” into “I prefer solo programming because I need peace and quiet to focus.”
To set the stage for the following steps, I find it helpful for each party to realize that they are indeed looking at the same thing — just from a different perspective. Their perspective is majorly influenced by their needs that they are trying to meet in the context of the conflict. And those needs, in turn, are influenced by the roles people have in the context of the conflict. Ask: “Why is this important to you?” For a list of basic human needs refer to this NVC needs inventory.
The outcome of this step is an explicit statement for each party about their needs that affect their perspective of the conflict.
Step 4: Understand the other person’s perspective and needs
This step is about turning statements like “You just don’t get me.” into “Yes, that is how I experience it.”
Once both understand their own perspective and needs, it is time for them to understand each other. I find it useful for each party to describe in their own words the perspective and needs of the other. “What I heard you say is…” “This is important to you because…” An important component in this is to have each of the parties confirm that the other’s description is accurate (enough). “Did I get that right?”
Did you ever experience an argument where people talk past each other and each party keeps repeating what they have already said — maybe in slightly different words? This happens when the other side never confirms that they understood what has been said. We all have a basic human need for being heard and understood. As long as this is not met, it is next to impossible to move on and work on a shared solution.
The outcome of this step is that both parties feel heard and understood by the other even though they might not necessarily agree with each other.
Step 5: Devise a shared strategy to meet everyone’s needs
This step is about turning statements like “We just see things differently. It’s either my way or your way.” into “We can both get what we need if we do it this way.” For instance, turning “I don’t want to pair program. You can pair with someone else if you need it.” into “We try to do things on our own first, but we pair with each other when we get stuck on an issue for more than 30 minutes.”
Once we understand our own needs and the other person’s needs, we are equipped to devise a shared strategy that meets all of them (well enough). “How could we approach this so we both get what we need?” According to Marshal Rosenberg, there are no conflicts on the needs level, only on the strategy level. It may still be challenging to find a shared strategy though and in rare cases that shared strategy might be “let’s go our separate ways”.
The outcome of this step is that both parties agree to a shared strategy on how to deal with the conflict and the context when this strategy applies.
OK. Now that we know the steps to take to get from conflict to shared strategy, let’s look at some tools that are useful while we take those steps.
Useful tools to bring to a conflict
Using emotions to identify needs
When we have a conflict with someone, we most likely feel frustrated, upset, or ignored. Each emotion has a function and tries to convey information about our context or ourselves. Ignoring emotions while trying to transform a conflict is like trying to solve a riddle while deliberately turning a blind eye to the most important clue. Unless we are bored and are trying to make it more difficult than necessary, this is not a smart move. Refer to this post on “How we make use of emotions at work” for more details.
Understanding our own (and the other person’s) emotions is essential. It is unrealistic to expect anyone to fully understand our perspective — that includes ourselves — if we leave out how the conflict makes us feel. Clarity about our feelings enables us to identify our needs. The trick is to share our emotions without getting emotional. NVC to the rescue.
Using nonviolent communication (NVC)
Using the four steps of nonviolent communication can be helpful because it allows people to be less defensive and more open to critique.
- State factual observations that are leading you to feel the need to say something.
🚫 No judgment. No evaluation. No blame.
❌ Avoid phrases like “you are …”, “you never …”, “you always …”
✅ Use phrases like “I see …”, “I hear …” - State the feeling that the observation is triggering in you.
🚫 Avoid moral judgment. Don’t put the responsibility for your feelings on the other person.
❌ Avoid phrases like “I feel … because you did …”, “You are making me angry.”
✅ Use phrases like “I am feeling ..” - State the need that is the cause of that feeling.
🚫 Avoid stating interests and really get down to the underlying needs.
❌ Avoid phrases like “I want to achieve …”
✅ Use phrases like “because I need ..” - Make a concrete request for an action to meet the need just identified. Be clear and specific. Request, don’t demand.
🚫 Avoid making demands instead of requests. If the other person declines and you get angry, you stated a demand, not a request. Avoid making vague hints that can be misinterpreted.
❌ Avoid phrases like “you should…” “you must …”, “or else”
✅ Use phrases like “Would you be willing to …?”
Using polarities
When there are deep-rooted preferences for opposing strategies, I find it beneficial to map the polarity to help people understand the opposite pole. By going through the positive effects (top) and negative effects (bottom) of both poles in a structured way, people find it easier to loosen their stance on defending “their side”. They become more open to seeing and appreciating the benefits in the opposite pole, which increases the likelihood of an agreement on a balanced approach.
Here is an example of mapping a polarity between integration and autonomy in the pursuit of an efficient and effective organization.
A typical polarity (aka tension, paradox, or dilemma) consists of an interdependent pair of seemingly opposing strategies that actually need each other over time to be successful. When we experience the negative effects of one pole to the neglect of the other, it is easy to see this pole as the problem and the positive effects of the other pole as the solution. This invites either-or-thinking and obscures the interdependence between the pair. Visualizing the polarity and its positive effects as well as its negative ones makes it easier to stay in both-and-thinking.
Summing up
Here is a cheat sheet with the above steps and tools.
How this fits in the bigger picture
There is no self-organization without conflict. Self-organization only works as long as we keep each other to account. Conflict transformation is essential to do so. We rely on each other to step up and approach each other when we fail to uphold our commitments. This is difficult and often feels uncomfortable. Freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin — you can’t have one without the other. We strive to rise to our aspirations, and at the same time, we fall to the behavior we tolerate. If we want to get closer to our aspirations, we need to reduce the gap between them and the behavior we tolerate. Doing so requires getting good at and comfortable with conflict transformation.
If you are keen on more information on related components of self-organized companies, please descend with me in this rabbit hole.
Parting questions
- Which conflict drains your energy at work?
- Have you ever addressed the matter directly with the involved person?
- What keeps you from doing so?
- Who would be a good mediator to help you transform this conflict?
- What would it take for you to no longer avoid conflict?
- What would it take for you to actively seek out and enjoy constructive conflict?
This together with all other concepts on this blog is nicely bundled up with 88 visualizations, 37 videos, and 11 templates in my New Work by Design Transformation course. Helping you put New Work into practice for less than the price of a consulting day.
