Some conflict between team members is healthy and should be welcomed. If people debate matters of substance with each other and examine different points of view in a robust fashion then the team will benefit. Better solutions are likely to evolve.
However, regardless of how technically competent your people are there will inevitably be occasions when two or more of them fall out with each other or with other members of the firm. Strong negative feelings arise as a result of something said or done. Often remarks or actions are no more than thoughtless but they can still cause feelings of anger, annoyance or disappointment in others. Sometimes people deliberately ‘put down’ others or act selfishly with similar results. Conflicts among individuals can take several forms. The more common are avoiding talking to each other except when absolutely necessary, bickering, finding fault publicly, criticizing individuals in discussions with others and, in particularly serious cases, verbal abuse. All of these forms of conflict are unhealthy and can damage team performance.
I have noticed that many team leaders are well aware that they should tackle these disagreements before they get worse but in practice tend to avoid dealing with them. Professional life is tough and demanding, and confrontation with colleagues is often viewed as an unpleasant chore and an unrewarding hassle on top of the rest of the day’s work. However, there is no question that if you turn a blind eye to serious disagreements then negative feelings are quite likely to intensify and result finally in a serious breakdown of relationships. Team morale and performance will be adversely affected.
Probably the best way for a team leader to assist in the resolution of major disagreements is to act as a mediator. There are some useful practical steps that you can take:
- Bring the people who are in conflict together, with you, and describe to them both the disagreement and the unproductive behaviour that you are witnessing.
- Make no judgements and describe the problem as being one for you, the team as a whole and the individuals concerned. Let them know that you would like this discussion to concentrate primarily on the ways in which they are relating to each other rather than on the issue that initially caused the conflict. If, between you, you are able to tackle the behaviour that is preventing your colleagues from interacting effectively then it will become much easier, subsequently, for them to resolve the original difference in a more rational manner.
- Ask them in turn to describe what is going on as they see it. Ask them to describe what they perceive the other person to be doing that contributes to the disagreement, and what they themselves are doing that contributes to the problem. Don’t try to resolve the problem but ask questions, listen carefully and reflect back what you have heard in an effort to get to the underlying cause of the differences. Try to ascertain whether the disagreement is due to a misunderstanding about facts or information, a disagreement about how to proceed with an assignment, a disagreement about purpose or goals or a disagreement about basic beliefs or values. Try to help each person to accept some responsibility for the situation.
- Ask each person to summarize what the other person has said. This helps them to listen, acknowledge and understand each other’s views. Ask each of them to confirm that the summary is correct or, if not, seek clarifications. Don’t seek to resolve the dispute but rather listen carefully and ask questions to get as much relevant information out into the open as possible.
- Ask each person in turn to indicate points of agreement. It is not unusual to identify a large measure of agreement when a conflict is analysed calmly, with help from a third party, in this way.
- Ask each of them in turn to indicate points of disagreement and to suggest ways to resolve them. Help them, through questions, to offer some simple steps, involving give and take, to make progress.
- Agree a date, perhaps a month later, for the three of you to get together to review progress.
At some point it might be helpful to offer a few thoughts, to them, about how long-term effective relationships can be maintained. Roger Fisher and Scott Brown, of the Harvard Negotiating Project, provide some good, straightforward advice in their article Getting Together: Building a relationship that gets to yes (1989).
They suggest that for good working relationships we need not only good outcomes or results but also inner peace. For example, after a meeting with a colleague we want to feel competent, confident and content rather than uneasy, tense or angry. If we can say words to the effect ‘It is always a pleasure to work with you’ then this is a clear sign of positive feelings. If we don’t feel positive about the last transaction then we may dread the next and have more difficulty dealing with it. They also say that we need to have an ability to handle differences constructively. We know that the other party, in any relationship, has interests that may differ from ours. We know that we have differing and changing perceptions and values. The working relationship requires accommodations that satisfy the competing interests as well as possible and in ways that are acceptable to each person. They suggest six qualities that help us to deal with such differences in a constructive manner:
- Try to balance reason and emotion. We cannot work well with another person when emotions overwhelm reason. We cannot make wise decisions in the middle of temper frustrations. But neither is logic alone sufficient for solving problems and building relationships.
- Try to understand the other person’s interests and perceptions. Try to look at the world from her or his perspective. Also help the other person to understand how you see things. It will be easier to create solutions for differences if both parties understand each other even if they do not agree at first.
- Communicate effectively to improve understanding but also to allay suspicion. The more openly we communicate with each other the greater the chance that trust will develop.
- Develop trust by being reliable. Commitments entered into lightly or disregarded easily are often worse than none. Well-founded trust based on honest and reliable conduct over time can greatly enhance our ability to cope with conflicts when they arise.
- Be persuasive rather than coercive. It is better to try to influence our colleagues to cooperate through example, logical argument and moral persuasion than by coercing through threats and warnings. The more coercive the means of influence, the less likely it is that the outcome will reflect the interests of both parties and the less legitimate it will be seen as by at least one of them.
- Value your colleagues. Feeling accepted, worthy and valued is a basic psychological need. We all want others to listen to our opinions and to accept our right to have views that differ from theirs. Accepting that need in others as well as in ourselves will increase the likelihood of working out differences and producing good outcomes.
Fisher and Brown make two other important points about establishing and maintaining good relationships. The first is to separate people from the problems. The severity of the differences between two individuals tends to affect the way they interact. If we want a relationship that can deal with differences we have to improve the process itself, independent of the substantive problems involved. Relationship issues concern the way we deal with people, such as clearly or ambiguously and honestly or deceptively. Substantive matters are, for instance, targets, deadlines, advice, contracts and terms and conditions. It seems best to work on the relationship–how we deal with each other–independently of substantive differences. Once we have a good working relationship it is then much easier to handle differences about substantive matters.
The second additional point about maintaining good relationships is to be unconditionally constructive. This means that we should do those things, and only those things, that are good for both the relationship and ourselves whether or not the other person reciprocates. In personal relations if we adopt tactics of copying each other’s poor conduct the relationship is likely to deteriorate. If I put a bad interpretation on your conduct and copy it and you then follow my lead then communication breaks down, misunderstanding increases and trust disappears. An example is when two people each wait for an apology from the other. As time passes each becomes more upset or angry with the other and more determined not to apologize first. A belated and maybe grudging apology may be unable to put to rest a problem that could have been cleared up quickly by an unconditional apology by one person in the first place.