How to Benefit from Everyday Work Conflicts

One day, the president of a large organization hired an outside consultant to resolve a conflict between two vice presidents. The relationship between them deteriorated so much that they communicated only through messages, mail and intermediaries. At the beginning of the session, both vice presidents refused to even look at each other. Over time, they began to understand how their actions affected each other and began to look for new ways to interact – and then their external hostility gave way to closer cooperation. By the end of the session, the vice presidents were talking and even laughing together. However, although everyone was initially happy with the result, the results of the intervention were short-lived: within a month, the vice presidents resumed their struggle for influence – to the detriment of the company as a whole.

The effectiveness of the mediation process was that it allowed opponents to discuss differences and develop solutions. The process was quick, taking four hours of the vice presidents' time, and easy to schedule, requiring only that the opponents and the consultant coordinate their calendars.

Dependence on external solutions

However, the mediation process did not help to understand the interpersonal and organizational structures underlying the conflict. The vice presidents never figured out how their own unexamined assumptions about each other's motives led to the escalation of the conflict. They also neglected to examine how organizational structure contributed to tensions. Moreover, other members of the organization were not involved in the process and therefore could not analyze their role in the conflict or help resolve it. Finally, none of the participants had the opportunity to develop the thinking and communication skills needed to effectively resolve future disagreements.

In short, the personal and organizational structures that gave rise to the conflict were ignored, virtually guaranteeing that it would reoccur.

Is conflict necessary?

Conflict is such a common occurrence in organizations that we often accept it simply as a fact. As a result, controversial issues often go unaddressed until they either subside or escalate. When they escalate, we sometimes bring in an outsider to “solve” the problem. But escalating conflict comes at a cost because productivity, creativity, and morale suffer.

Is it possible to avoid such conflicts? If it does occur, are there approaches to conflict resolution that have a lasting impact? Can an organization learn to identify and resolve conflict before it escalates?

The disciplines of systems thinking and mental models offer powerful alternatives to traditional approaches to conflict resolution. By using core systems thinking methodologies to proactively explore and address the underlying causes of conflict, a leader can turn pesky problems into significant opportunities for the organization. As a result, tension between individual colleagues or departments can become a source of learning and ongoing success rather than a destructive force.

Pervasive conflict

We face conflict in the workplace every day: another department introduces a policy that makes our job more difficult; we feel offended by a colleague's offhand remark, which makes working with him a little more difficult; or our performance is lower than we expected, and we are afraid to tell our boss about it. And even mild conflict leaves us feeling frustrated, anxious, or angry, hindering our ability to think clearly and do our jobs effectively.

Some amount of conflict is inevitable. After all, each of us has our own way of thinking and perceiving based on our cultural, ethnic and educational experiences. In addition, we have different roles, responsibilities and types of authority, which leads to different ways of working and approaches to problems. Finally, some organizational structures inadvertently create conflict by promoting a functional focus, ineffectively distributing decision making, or allowing for incompatible, even conflicting, goals and reward systems.

Given that ignoring conflicts is costly, why do we often avoid resolving them until they escalate? There are many reasons: we want to be good. We don't want others to see us as brawlers. We want to choose which battles to fight. But the most difficult barrier to conflict resolution is when we perceive the problem as an immutable fact rather than as a solvable conflict. We often associate the causes of constant tension with stereotypical characteristics associated with certain professions, positions, departments or personalities; for example, “That’s how engineers are” or “What do you expect from a sales manager?” In such cases, because we feel powerless to deal with the problem, we ignore it until it becomes inevitable.

Traditional Approaches to Conflict Resolution

When conflict between individuals or departments reaches a breaking point, many organizations turn to a mediator. They often advise focusing on solving current problems rather than on the underlying causes of disagreements. The rationale is that the conversation will be easier if it is limited to the current crisis. Delving into history can be perceived as “opening old wounds,” a destructive distraction from resolving the current conflict. However, a fixation on the present makes it difficult to find long-term solutions to the fundamental causes of conflict.

Traditional approaches are often limited to interpersonal differences without considering systemic problems. This can make organizational learning and long-term conflict resolution difficult. When a mediator intervenes without improving the communication skills of the parties, dependence on external assistance arises. Finally, conflict resolution that focuses on individuals rather than the broader context of the team's ongoing development can sometimes cause defensiveness in those individuals.

Given these shortcomings of traditional ways of resolving conflicts, what are the alternatives?

Systematic approach to conflicts

From a systems perspective, conflict is an opportunity for deep learning. Because learning plays a key role in the long-term effectiveness of an organization, a systems approach focuses on studying all types of conflict, not just resolving an acute conflict between two people. The following characteristics distinguish the systems approach from traditional methods of conflict resolution.

• The goal is skill development, not conflict resolution. This approach reduces the pressure on people and increases their willingness to be reflective and open.
• Conflict is addressed before it becomes serious. A systems perspective allows people to examine conflict earlier and learn from it rather than being blocked by interpersonal disputes.
• The conflict is examined in the context of the group, which shifts the focus away from the conflicting parties and helps the group see its own role in the conflict.
• Systems thinking tools depersonalize problems. By mapping the cause-and-effect relationships around conflict in a group, participants shift attention from individuals to the larger dynamics of the system as a whole.
• Systems thinking tools enable the team to cope with complexity. System dynamics diagrams reduce polarization and oversimplification by making differences in assumptions clear. Such clarity opens the way to deep exploration and powerful dialogue.
• Mapping issues in a group encourages public, personal reflection. This process helps to understand that no one person is at fault, creating a safe space for everyone to explore their own role in the conflict.

When we look at conflict from a systems perspective, interpersonal tensions point us to hidden opportunities for improvement. Indeed, conflict is for an organization what hunger is for the body: a critical early warning system that signals that action needs to be taken. The systems approach does not focus on eliminating conflict at the root, but on eliminating unexamined conflict.

SAGE method

For the long-term health of an organization, getting the “right” answer is often not as important as getting those involved in a conflict to safely interact with each other, build relationships, develop communication skills, and co-create innovative solutions. We called this technique SAGE (an acronym for Step Back, Assess, Get Personal, Experiment).

Using the SAGE approach, participants create a shared understanding of the personal and organizational structures that prevent teams and individuals from working effectively together. The power of SAGE lies in its ability to help team members build the skills needed to change personal and organizational structures.

This process can also resolve serious conflicts that affect the entire business. To harness this potential, participants must represent a broad cross-section of the organization. Initially, a group of 15 or fewer people from different parts of the organization must go through the process under the guidance of an experienced facilitator over two days. Over time, they will be able to independently complete all stages in less time, if necessary.

Below is a description of the four stages of SAGE.

Step 1. Step back

The first step is to create space and intention in the organization to resolve a known conflict or series of conflicts. The goal is to encourage participants to feel safe in exploring the source of current tension. The facilitator begins the process by conducting a series of one-on-one conversations with group members. What does a facilitator do:

• Establishes relationships with participants and identifies critical issues and patterns of thinking that have led to problematic behavior patterns.
• Finds out what works, what doesn’t work and what is missing in the business; then develops a hypothesis about the reasons underlying each item.
• Plans meetings to enhance the team's ability to learn and collaborate while focusing on business objectives.
• Begins to stimulate systems thinking by asking stakeholders to identify actions they have taken that may have inadvertently caused problems for others.

Step 2. Assessment

In the second stage, participants develop a shared understanding of the conflict through exploration and creation of a systems map. A systems map is a graphical representation of the cause-and-effect relationships that create and maintain undesirable group dynamics. Developed based on participants' conversations about the conflict. Through the mapping process, the group begins to understand how organizational structure creates behavior, which in turn is created and reinforced by the thoughts and actions of individuals. This awareness is especially useful for taking the edge off “personality conflicts.”

At this stage the facilitator:

• Guides the group to create a rough systems thinking map for the issues at hand. The goal is not to create “perfect” cause-and-effect diagrams, but to openly explore the relationships between the forces that lead to conflict.
• Presents system archetypes to see if they can provide additional insight into the situation. Archetypes also show the group that their problems are not unique.
• Encourages participants to share their point of view more than usual.
• As the map is completed, it looks for points of disagreement about what is happening and why; and vicious cycles where the actions or inactions of one party create undesirable reinforcing dynamics. They often point to hidden sources of conflict.
• Introduces organizational learning tools such as the inference ladder and advocacy/questioning matrix. These tools help you overcome bad communication habits that can contribute to conflict.

Step 3. Go to the personal level

During this stage, participants practice dialogue skills to directly address sources of interpersonal conflict. They learn that everyone must take personal responsibility for their contributions to the creation and maintenance of undesirable structures. Most importantly, participants begin to understand how each of them unintentionally creates the very situations they do not want.

At this stage the facilitator:

• Shifts the focus from the relationships between structural forces to the “tension point” where active decision making occurs. This shift emphasizes the mental models behind decisions that support structural forces.
• Asks everyone to work in pairs to write down what they thought but did not say during the meeting.
• Two volunteers act out a previously unspoken conversation in front of the rest of the group, showing how a problem between them affects the entire group. As the underlying dynamics become clear, people's defense mechanisms weaken and compassion emerges.

Step 4. Experiment

At the final stage, the group draws up an action plan to develop and implement new ways of interaction. As part of ongoing skill development, each participant commits to conducting a personal learning experiment to develop a new skill, and the group as a whole develops an experiment to change the organizational structure. An example might be the sales manager attending weekly technical department meetings and having a technical department representative attend weekly sales meetings. By calling the plan an “experiment,” participants will be more emboldened to be innovative in their work. Additionally, since the group can later stop or change the experiment, participants do not have to worry about being limited by a bad decision.

Often the group commitments that arise at this stage are associated with improved communication and thinking behavior. For example, it is necessary to agree that when the group encounters a problem, group members will first try to understand it before attempting to solve it.

At this stage participants:

• They agree that they will try new models of behavior.
• They are patient and kind to each other's mistakes when trying to learn new skills.
• Plan two one-hour meetings during which they will act as mutual peer “coaches,” practicing and reflecting on their learning experiments.
• Meet as a group one day a month for six months to reflect on organizational and personal learning experiences and continue to practice and hone new skills.

By the end of the first two days, group members will have a better understanding of how their actions affect each other and how they are connected. They will also begin to understand how their thinking influences the results they get (or don't get) and how their thinking and actions support undesirable dynamics. Finally, they will begin to practice new thinking and communication skills, thereby building a strong foundation for future interactions.

SAGE in action

For example, at one high-tech manufacturing company, as it grew, management introduced demands for market-driven decision making into a culture that had previously been driven exclusively by technology. This change resulted in the need for collaboration between the technical, sales and marketing departments. However, several areas of conflict emerged between these groups, resulting in both personal animosity and inefficiency in new product development and sales. By going through the SAGE process with a consultant, key department staff were able to identify and discuss the structural elements that led to the conflict. As part of this process, they created a cause-and-effect diagram that made their collaboration difficult. In reality, the map created during the session was quite a mess, but when the group began to consider their behavior as part of a system, the dynamics emerged quite clearly and the map became more orderly. During the mapping process, they realized that the two groups had competing reward systems and began to recognize the structural inevitability of their conflicts.

The groups then identified areas where decisions were being made that were creating or exacerbating conflict. They explored the reasons for these decisions, which led to open dialogue. During this discussion, people were able to move beyond personal animosity and understand the motives of their colleagues.

As a final step, the groups agreed to experiment with other methods of collaboration both in new product development and in the sales process. For example, for eight weeks, the technical team will dedicate resources to exploring future product directions with the sales team. After completing the eight-week experiment, the groups agreed to meet for half a day a month to continue to develop their skills in recognizing, understanding, and dealing with conflict.

Implications for managers

Traditional mediation is well suited for short-term resolution of a specific conflict. A systems thinking approach can lead to a long-term structural solution to the current conflict. When learning and skill development are the goals, and the focus is on the organization rather than individuals, the process improves communication and improves organizational performance.

Through systems thinking mapping, the structural nature of conflict is revealed, which sheds light on the underlying dynamics that can unwittingly place two people in a confrontational relationship. Using the tools described in this article, participants can see the interaction between personal and organizational structures and begin to recognize their own responsibility for maintaining undesirable dynamics. By sorting out the problems that have arisen, the conflicting parties reach mutual understanding. Not only do they see the cost of not communicating, but they also begin to develop skills to deal with the inevitable future misunderstandings. Having the skills and confidence to clarify tensions makes employees more prepared to resolve them.

If a leader is willing to explore and resolve mild conflicts, he can turn annoying problems into significant opportunities for the organization. Conversations become more direct, so problem solving improves and decisions become more effective. Finally, and very importantly, when people express more of themselves at work, they are happier, more creative and more productive. In this way, systems thinking can help leaders turn conflict into long-term organizational success.

Conflicting departmental goals

Here's a modified version of the SAGE process that can be done alone and then in conversation with an opponent.

Step 1. Step back

• What works and doesn't work from a business, process, people perspective? Why?
• What actions have I and others taken that may have unintentionally caused problems?
• What are the goals of other stakeholders in the conflict?
• How would others answer the previous questions?

Step 2. Assessment

• What do hypotheses look like when they are displayed on a map?
• Where do our assumptions about conflict match up? Where do they diverge?
• Where do you need to collect more data?
• What hypotheses about the causes of conflict can we develop?
• Whose point of view is missing?
• What archetypes can help us understand the situation?

Step 3. Go to the personal level

• How am I contributing to or perpetuating this problem?
• What decisions do I make about this problem? What dilemmas do I face when making these decisions, and how do I resolve them? Are there alternative ways to resolve them?
• What assumptions/beliefs do I hold but don't express out loud?

Step 4. Experiment

• What are we trying to create?
• What are the possible solutions? What are the possible unintended consequences of these decisions?
• What experiment can I try to develop a new skill?
• What experiments in organizational learning can we all undertake?