By Steffi Pluschkell, Ph.D., MBA
A fundamental dilemma in all organizations is how to foster cognitive diversity of thought and ideas to improve innovative decision quality while simultaneously minimizing emotional, affective conflict that can have negative effects on consensus building, implementation effectiveness and organizational performance. In Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking when the Stakes are High (3rd edition, 2022), the authors Joseph Grenny, Kerry Patterson, Ron McMillan, Al Switzler and Emily Gregory make the insightful point that “you can measure the health of relationships, teams and organizations by measuring the lag time between when problems are identified and when they are resolved”. Many problems in the workplace are not purely of a cognitive or task-related nature but rather emotionally charged conflicts.
The observable symptoms range from colleagues displaying obvious outbursts of anger, to varying levels of frustration, and harder to detect undercurrents of resentment and resignation that may simply present themselves in silence and disengagement. Many managers shy away from addressing these more or less noticeable clashes because they are either unaware of the conflict, don’t see the importance of doing anything about it (since it isn’t purely rational or cognitive in nature), or are simply at a loss for what to do. In order to manage such affective conflict effectively, one needs to develop both a sensitivity to detect it as soon as it arises and a willingness and aptitude to address it before the negative impact spreads. Listening skills and somatic leadership (emotional and social intelligence) capabilities such as self-awareness, courage and composure, presence and social dexterity are required and need continuous, patient practice to learn how to detect emotional issues that cannot be ignored without suffering negative impact to a team or larger organization.
Managing conflict is NOT about making everyone happy – a goal that aspiring and even experienced people managers can get caught up in even though they may, semi-consciously, sense the impossibility of carrying such a hefty goal on their own shoulders. While well-meaning, such an approach is not only misguided (nobody has the singular power to make all colleagues happy), but it can also backfire into decision paralysis, overwhelm and inaction. Managing conflict is also NOT about eradicating all cognitive conflict, which is absolutely essential to surface and debate a diversity of strong ideas that enable best possible innovative solutions to complex problems. The goal instead is to prevent or expeditiously repair substantial affective conflict that will otherwise reduce team or organizational performance due to markedly impaired implementation of decisions that have legitimately been made. The results are delays, poor execution, lack of synergistic collaboration, ineffective communication, more or less hidden resistance, re-dos, more meetings to realign, perpetual firefighting, lack of engagement and accountability, etc.
So, if consensus is NOT about making everyone happy, how then should it be defined? In Managing for Conflict and Consensus: Why great leaders don’t take Yes for an Answer (2nd edition, 2013), Michael A. Roberto describes consensus as a condition where people comprehend the final decision, have committed themselves to executing the chosen course of action, feel a sense of collective ownership about the plan, and are willing to cooperate with others during the implementation effort. This is a powerful definition that requires the discipline of going through an effective decision-making process, but does not require making everyone happy, does not require unanimity or even majority rule, and does not mean that one must find a compromise solution that marries elements of multiple options. In order to resolve affective conflict that arises along the path of the decision-making and implementation process, it’s best to first check in with yourself and raise your self-awareness towards your own interpretations (your “side of the story”), your assumptions, and your potentially limiting beliefs about what is true or possible.
The next step is to prepare for an issue-driven conversation. Think through and take some notes ahead of any meeting with an individual or team: What is the exact issue, why is it important, what does a great outcome look like, what have you done yourself to support the desired outcome, and what help do you want from the individual or group. In any conflict resolution discussion it is important to be specific about the problem you are trying to resolve, to show some vulnerability by calmly sharing your own emotions (not outbursts, but words such as “I am worried about…”, “I am concerned about…”, “I am afraid of…”), and to honestly acknowledge anything that you may have contributed to the conflict. Make sure to emphasize your desire to resolve the conflict and then invite input. The intent of such conversations is to reach closure with compassion and clarity, and to leave everyone fully understanding any agreements that are made.
Remember that “closure” is not just an act at a point in time but rather a process of continued accountability and follow-through by yourself and others. To sustain closure, it is important to take a disciplined approach and to not allow decisions to be revisited unless there is substantial new data, critical assumptions are proven false, or organizational objectives change. Effective conflict management is both solution-oriented (what needs to be done?) and process-oriented (how should decisions be made?). It requires leading with restraint and building trust by taking responsibility for your own choices. To reduce the risk of perpetual disruption due to affective conflict, you as a manager need to work continuously to maintain credibility and sustain the confidence that others have in you. A healthy dose of humility and compassion, paired with accountability and discipline, helps.