Workplace conflict: turning negative into positive
When we think of conflict, we tend to associate it with undesirable actions or events. We might recall a disagreement or confrontation that made us feel uneasy and even rattled. Conflict results from real or perceived opposition to one’s values, actions or decisions. Interpersonal conflict is destructive, with damaging consequences on relationships, productivity, innovation and even worker health and wellbeing. But is conflict in the team or organisation always a bad thing? Well, it depends on how the conflict takes place, and that is something that the project manager – or indeed any manager or leader – has a lot of power to influence.
I'm going to propose another way of thinking about conflict. My proposition is that with the right leadership, conflict can in fact be a good thing. Yes, conflict can be negative, but it can also be constructive. Some of the main advantages of constructive conflict are that it enables greater participation in decision making, communicates better information across the team, strengthens team cohesion and ultimately leads to better choices and solutions.
The approach a leader takes towards conflict will heavily influence the consequences and results. There are a number of tactics a leader can bring to their team to keep constructive conflict from slumping into interpersonal conflict. Eisenhardt, Kahwajy and Bourgeois identified five tactics in particular which I will expand on below.1
The first tactic is to focus on the facts and draw people’s attention to more, rather than less information. Instead of giving a team more scope to debate, having more information that is objective and up-to-date date actually directs the focus to be on the substantive issues rather than personalities. Bringing a lack of factual data to the discussion only risks time being wasted on debating opinions of what the facts might be. Focusing on facts will redirect people's energy from personal emotions to solutions.
The second tactic is to multiply the alternatives. In other words, this means generating more options to make decisions. Choices will become less black and white, giving team members more room to move in their level of support for the various options. Rather than the team being split in two between those who support and oppose an option, having multiple alternatives will channel their energy into solving problems and allow for integrative solutions. Further, multiplying the alternatives will prevent tunnel vision and jumping to premature conclusions.
The third tactic is to create common goals. The more clearly people understand goals and expectations, the less likely they are to doubt their work or act based on assumptions. Creating a common goal which the team can unite around will frame the decision-making exercise as a collaborative, rather than competitive, one. Studies show that common goals build team cohesion by emphasizing the shared interest of all team members in the outcome of the debate. Without a common goal to work towards, team members become less likely to correctly perceive each other's opinions and more likely to misinterpret and blame one another.
The fourth tactic is to use humour, which has a powerful impact on mood. Not only does using humour relieve tension, but it makes business fun and fosters a collaborative environment. Humour can also be used to blunt the threatening edge of negative information, making the communication of difficult information more tactful and less scary. A good mood relaxes defensive barriers; being in a positive mood is more likely to make a person more forgiving and creative in a given situation.
The fifth and final tactic I'll mention here is to balance the power structure. A fair decision-making process is more likely to encourage team members to accept decisions without resentment. However, if they feel that the process is unfair, ill will can easily escalate into interpersonal conflict. The fact is, autocratic leaders tend to generate higher levels of interpersonal friction. If a manager's team lacks power, they will become frustrated by their inability to make important decisions, leading them to becoming more like politicians than teammates, plotting and scheming to attain more power.
High-performing teams are pretty much destined to have conflicts. It is therefore paramount that project and team leaders foster an environment that gives conflict the best chance of being constructive. Hopefully you'll find the tactics mentioned above to be useful and practical tips for helping to ensure that conflict is constructive in your team.
Footnotes
1. Eisenhardt, KM, Kahwajy, JL & Bourgeois, ILJ 1997, “How management teams can have a good fight”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75, No. 4, pp. 77-85.
