Wk 3: Apply 2

50 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

1. Problem to solve. These seem easy—so easy that we probably don’t consider them conflicts. We talk it over. We listen. We consider. We decide. We move on. Most, in fact, are resolved at this level.

Mark and Miranda, and Rachel had together bought an olderbuilding, now a duplex. Mark and Miranda would live on one side of the duplex, Rachel on the other. Actually, the legal term for their purchase was “joint tenancy,” which tied the neighbors together through a carefully crafted contract, except for one detail. Despite the consideration given to many shared matters, such as utilities and a common basement, the one thing the contract did not clarify was the exact property line between the two units.

Soon enough, they had a “problem to solve”—how to define the property fairly, either by hiring a surveyor or simply by walk- ing around the property together with stakes and a measuring tape. As easy as this would have been to do early in their rela- tionship, they just didn’t get around to it. There were too many other pressing needs—hanging curtains, painting the kitchen, or planting the garden—that were easier and more fun to do than having this difficult conversation.

2. Disagreement. This gets a bit more challenging. The parties begin to see that they have different views and each moves into the ter- ritory of declaring who is right, who is wrong. People take actions based on assumptions and perceptions.

Rachel decided to build a patio, and she took down a trellisbeside the existing patio when she did it. When Miranda looked out her kitchen window, she was surprised that the trellis was gone. This felt aggressive to Miranda: “But, Rachel, we never talked about this.” To Miranda, the trellis and the area around it looked like a natural dividing point between the properties. Clearly, to her, that trellis was on her property. Meanwhile, on their side of the property line, Mark and Miranda did not want to get into an argument with Rachel, and they tried to take steps to

WHERE WE ARE: LEVELS OF CONFLICT 51

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

avoid that. They did not have a further discussion with her about the trellis. What they didn’t do was propose a sit-down conversa- tion with Rachel so that each could hear the other’s views and they could reach some mutually acceptable understanding.

When we can solve problems and resolve disagreements at these lower lev- els, they dissolve easily. There is not that rear-end collision we described in the first chapter—the quarrel that gets everyone’s attention. But hindsight is 20/20. As we watch this dispute unfold, it is easy to see what the three of them could have done.

3. Contest. Ratchet it up a bit, and people swing into the next level of this model. Now it is about who is right, who is wrong, and the impor- tance to each party of being right. Because—if we are wrong, then what? Are we less for it?

After some time had passed, the question of the trellis and ofRachel’s unilateral action gnawed at Miranda. These are her words describing the next step: “I drew plats, I made lots of draw- ings that offered what I thought were reasonable options to initi- ate discussion. I told her, ‘Now that the trellis is removed, let’s solve the rest of the property-line issue and compromise on the other divisions needed.’ I’d drop these proposals off. Rachel intimidated the hell out of me. She shut me out of any conversa- tion—she would get snippy and snotty.”

At this level, fear continues to rise, trust further erodes. Blame increases, along with negative assumptions and attributions. Because there is little communication, peo- ple create stories about what the other person is doing and why. The fil- ters we use to make these interpretations are clouded by our own view

Honest disagreement is often

a good sign of progress.

—MOHANDAS GANDHI

A long dispute means that

both parties are wrong.

—VOLTAIRE

52 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

of the situation—and about how right we are and how wrong “they” are. From this story we generate hostile attributions and characterizations.

4. Fight. The stakes are higher yet. A fight moves the parties to the possibility of pain. Someone will get hurt, maybe both parties—emo- tionally or physically. People move into defensive mode. How can they inflict pain on the other to the point that the other gives up? Fights are for winning. Fights are for not losing. (Sometime people define winning as losing less than the other guy.) In any event, compromise counts as a loss.

By now the neighbors had stopped talking to each other—not fordays or months, but for years. To avoid talking to each other, they would leave the utility bills in a common area, and write notes of complaint when a math error is caught. Rachel would watch Miranda water her garden, and seethe at the impact this would have on their joint water bill. Mark and Miranda left messages on Rachel’s voice mail when they knew she wasn’t home to answer the phone. They sent e-mails. E-mails were particularly satisfying because then they had proof of the message they had sent.

When Rachel came home with a German shepherd and when she put up shutters, Mark and Miranda took it personally: “Now, she even has a guard dog!” Then Rachel confronted Miranda: “Did you walk through my yard yesterday? You set off my dog.” What Miranda heard was hostile and combative. Miranda’s view was, “I felt like it was purposeful—she was putting together a plan to get me.”

At this point in a conflict there is no communication. Trust is nil. Blame and wild assumptions have taken over. Any action or statement made by one party is seen by the other as hostile.

5. Intractable conflict. This is the kind of conflict we all dread— conflict with a capital C. There is no going forward. Everyone is well beyond winning and losing. The parties are in a dangerous territory,

WHERE WE ARE: LEVELS OF CONFLICT 53

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

where the only answer anyone can see is annihilation, or at least com- plete separation.

Rachel had had enough. She was selling her half of the house.She demanded that Miranda and Mark do the same, at the same time. As far as she was concerned, their joint tenancy con- tract required that solution. Selling their home was the furthest thing from Mark and Miranda’s minds—they had a small child, they loved the neighborhood (except for their relationship with Rachel), and they wanted to stay put. Rachel finally said, “Sell your half when I do, or I’ll take you to court.”

The case ended up in front of a judge. Years after the event, the memory is still painful. Miranda continues to talk about the money that she and Mark lost and have yet to recover—in lawyers and court fees, in time away from work. Mark and Miranda can- not count the emotional toll all of this took on both of them, and the stress it created within their own relationship as well. Looking back, Miranda observed, “Avoiding conflict can cost more than just tackling it.” They had gone from possibly uncomfortable con- versations to the reality of the difficulties (time, money, emotion- al costs) of litigation.

You can appreciate how this escalation may play out in a workplace situation. For example, the boss and the staff have had differences from the very beginning. The first week in her new position, Paula announced major changes in the work schedule. From her view, it was important to establish her authority early on. When a staff member questioned a deci- sion, Paula was unable or unwilling to sit down and talk through the mat- ter. Rather, when she heard the beginnings of a disagreement, Paula would make a declaration about what would happen, and then begin peppering the staff with e-mails to see if they were following through on her demands. The staff’s efforts to talk to Paula about this ended in more directives. When three of her top performers gave notice, within days of each other, Paula was stunned. She couldn’t understand what

54 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

had happened or why they were leaving. The staff had reached level five—intractable conflict—and Paula had no idea how this had hap- pened. Had she heard and responded to their concerns earlier, repairs might have been possible.

Whenever and wherever possible, find ways to resolve differences and disputes before conflicts get to level five. That will save you time, money, and an emotional cost that cannot be calculated. People often turn to the courts for the final settlement of their disputes, though courts often don’t correct the problems that people have brought with them. The courts are littered with broken relationships—business as well as personal. I have mediated countless situations like these.

T wo brothers opened a restaurant together. They had not clar-ified in the early days of startup who would be responsible for what. When the restaurant hit hard times, the two became entangled in a nasty legal battle that shattered their relationship, as well as destroying the business.

Five young men were eager to start a company together. Theyhad been fraternity brothers; they stood in at each other’s weddings. In those early days, when the problems were small and manageable, they were too busy to be concerned about minor disagreements. Over time, as their lives changed and the business and the disagreements grew, the conflicts became insurmount- able, the distrust and fear became more than they could manage, and the business was destroyed as one filed lawsuits against another.

Yes, resolving differences earlier is better. Complete separation is often not that simple—and maybe not even possible. In the world of work, even after a termination, the boss and the employee can still find ways to inflict pain on one another, likely through lawsuits or assaults on one or another’s reputation.

There are intractable conflicts, but still we press to find a way

around and through them. At some point, the cost of keeping the con- flict alive is no longer worthwhile. When each party realizes there is no winning, together they may begin looking for another way. Based on his experience in resolving the conflict in Northern Ireland, George Mitchell was sent as special envoy to the Middle East. As he took this assignment, he said, “There is no such thing as a conflict that can’t be ended. Conflicts are created by human beings, and can be ended by human beings.”

Strategies for Each Conflict Level So, the earlier you resolve a conflict, the better. What can you do if the situation has moved up the scale? Is it hopeless? Not if you are willing to put considerable effort into repair. Depending on how far the conflict has gone, how long it has been deteriorating, and how important the relationship is to both parties, transforming a deep-seated conflict is pos- sible, although it can take considerable effort over time. I often tell clients, “You didn’t get into this quickly. You can’t get out of it quickly, either.”

When you are thinking about strategies for responding to problems at each of these levels, consider this: the level of conflict increases as the emotional involvement goes up and as the trust goes down. The follow- ing strategies are built on managing those changes.

WHERE WE ARE: LEVELS OF CONFLICT 55

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

If we are all in agreement on the decision, then I propose we postpone

further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves

time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding

of what the decision is all about.

—ALFRED P. SLOAN, AS QUOTED BY PETER DRUCKER IN THE EFFECTIVE EXECUTIVE (OXFORD: ELSEVIER, 2007)

Resolving Level 1, “Problems to solve,” calls for clear communica- tion skills and a collaborative solution-seeking approach. I delve more into that approach and how to use it effectively in Chapter 13, “Reaching Agreement.” However, at this point, know this approach begins with clearly stated issues or problems to solve, and it relies on

good listening skills and the ability to identify interests. Agreeing on shared goals, even though individuals may have differing priorities, can help set a positive tone. Keeping conflict resolution at this level is possi- ble when there is an atmosphere of trust within the office, there is a cul- ture that views conflict and differences as healthy, and people are encouraged to raise questions and to disagree constructively, even in the face of difficulty.

At Level 2, “Disagreement,” the tension and anxiety have begun to rise, and the fear of conflict is mounting. “What if the conflict becomes bigger?” “What if we can’t settle it?” “What if I get upset, or she does?” What if? What if? What if? There is the potential for the difficult dis- cussions to go badly—it is that potential that creates the fear. If you have had difficult, nonproductive conversations before, your fear of that hap- pening again is even higher.

At this stage, you need more structure to create a safe place for dia- logue. You need to specify some ground rules (guidelines, if you prefer) for how you are going to talk to each other. This can be as simple as, “Can we agree that one of us will talk at a time?” Or, “I’ll listen to you, will you listen to me?” You will need to clarify a common goal or objec- tive around which you are all looking for a solution. For instance, within the workplace, the productivity or the mission may be a common goal. Another may be maintaining an atmosphere where people can come to work looking forward to the day, rather than dreading possible interactions. These steps decrease the anxiety and difficulty of the con- versation.

At Level 3, “Contest,” the intensity and, hence, the fears are higher. Distrust is rising between the parties. As the drive to be right takes over, people in the workplace start reaching out for allies—people who sup- port them in their position, who agree with how right they are, fanning the flames of conflict. A few people cluster at the coffee pot, or in one another’s offices, talking about what has gone wrong: what he said, or what she did, or how badly “they” acted. As the distrust mounts, com- munication about the issue becomes more difficult, often disappearing completely.

At this level, you need a more structured process. To manage the dis- trust and anxiety, you need to ensure process clarity: what is going to be

56 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

WHERE WE ARE: LEVELS OF CONFLICT 57

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

decided and how? What will the ground rules be? What data do we need and who will gather it? When will we meet and who will lead the meet- ing?

When you are at Level 4, “Fight,” the fears are high and the emotions are running strong. Trust between the parties has reached such a low that neither party wants to participate in constructive discussion. Often the conflict at this point has grown larger and more diffuse. At an earli- er stage, there may have been two or three issues to resolve; now even identifying specific issues becomes challenging, as fears and assump- tions have been built on top of one another. The parties have gone beyond having a problem or issue to resolve. Distrust and suspicion have overwhelmed all aspects of the relationship.

At this point, you need external help. This help may be someone both of you trust within the organization, or someone hired from outside to serve as a mediator or facilitator. In addition to resolving the problems that were the origin of the conflict, the mediator may need agreement on new ground rules for how people will work together or interact within the workplace in the future. To be of any value, such commitments require a system for monitoring and accountability. These commitments may be written into performance plans or monitored through regularly scheduled follow-up meetings.

If the conflict reaches Level 5, “Intractable conflict,” the people who are immediately involved are not able to make a joint decision. It is time to turn to an external authority to make that decision. At Levels 1–3, the conflict is at a level where the parties themselves can still negotiate with one another, if they have communication tools and skills to manage their differences. When conflict reaches Level 4, trust has deteriorated to a point that an external person whom both of the parties trust is necessary to provide a process for communication. Whereas at Level 4 an outside source can facilitate communication, Level 5 requires someone else to decide the outcome. The power difference between the parties may be too great, or there may be serious threats of harm to either or both.

Workplace bullying falls into this category and deserves special attention here. Over the past several years, my conversations with mis- erable employees have increasingly included claims of being bullied or subjected to hostile work environments. By workplace bullying, I mean

behavior that is aggressive, unreasonable, and persistent. It can be ver- bal or nonverbal, and can be subtle and insidious. This behavior gener- ally involves emotional or psychological abuse or humiliation. Bullying behavior occurs regularly over a long period of time, and includes verbal abuse, intimidation, regular threats of dismissal, character assassination, smear campaigns, and social ostracism. Most often, it’s a boss who car- ries this out; occasionally a co-worker engages in this behavior.

In this or in other forms of Level 5 conflict, someone with clear authority needs to take appropriate action—as a decision maker and as a monitor to hold people accountable for their actions. This may be someone higher up within the organization, or it may be an external authority, such as a judge or an arbitrator.

Consider This

] How do you resolve problems when they arise?

] Do you promote an atmosphere where disagreements are encouraged?

] Consider the conflicts within your organization. At what level is each one? What can you do now to begin to resolve one of them?

Note 1. Speed Leas, Moving Your Church through Conflict (Herndon, VA : Alban Institute,

2002).

58 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

W hen Sam gets an e-mail from his boss, giving him another assign- ment that is due this Friday, Sam reads the e-mail, shrugs to himself, and continues with the project he is working on.

When Tasha gets an e-mail from her boss, giving her another assign- ment that is due this Friday, she sighs, marks it down on her calendar, and scrambles to add it to her to-do list.

When Marvin gets an e-mail from his boss, giving him another assignment that is due this Friday, he picks up the phone and calls his boss to bargain. “I can’t get that project done on Friday, but if you can finish that report I am working on, I’ll get the new project mapped out so someone else can fill in the pieces.”

When Louisa gets an e-mail from her boss, giving her another assignment that is due this Friday, she calls him on the phone and explains, firmly and clearly, “I can’t possibly get that done by Friday. I already have a stack of work to do this week.”

59

How We Respond: Approaches to

Conflict

C H A P T E R 5

When Bernie gets an e-mail from his boss, giving him another assignment that is due this Friday, he puts aside the report he is working on and goes into the boss‘s office. “What do you need this project for? I need more information. And let me be clear with you about the projects I already have on my plate this week. Let’s see if we can devise a solu- tion that works for you and for me.”

When we face differences and disagreements, we have choices about how we will respond to the situation. If you were to ask Sam, Tasha, Marvin, Louisa, or Bernie what their approach to that moment was, they may not be able to tell you. Each of them just responded in the way that made the most sense to them. We probably do not spend much time thinking about these choices; we may not even consider that we are making a choice. We respond in a way that we feel is comfortable and right for the situation. Most of us use only one or two approaches near- ly all of the time.

Here is a short quiz that will help demonstrate the differences in these approaches. Picture yourself in the middle of a disagreement at work. Which of these statements sounds most like you?

1. I back off and let it go, even if it means that nothing is settled.

2. I prefer to do what others want for the good of the relationship.

3. I focus more on my goals and less on what others want.

4. Everyone should accept a little less than what he really wants so we can get on with the work.

5. I go to great lengths to understand what is important to others and to make sure they understand what is important to me.

Maybe the answer you give depends on whom you are having the disagreement with—your boss, your subordinates, or your peers or team- mates. Maybe it depends on how important the disagreement is to you or to the office. Maybe it depends on other things going on in your life at the time, your mood, your health, the weather, the stock market, or what’s happening at home. This list cites five such patterns: avoiding, accommodating, driving, compromising, and collaborating.

Most of us have preferences and patterns for the choices we make. Sometimes our approaches work well. At other times, these patterns may

60 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

be limiting and self-defeating. The people we work with have their own patterns and preferences, as well. As a manager, understanding your own approaches to conflict can help you make better decisions in how to respond to conflicts you face. Further, understanding more about the approaches of the people you supervise gives you additional tools to manage conflicts effectively.

Over the past thirty years, various authors have written about these different approaches people take.1 There are assessments available online that can help you identify your own preferences. One of the most accessible of these guides is Style Matters: The Kraybill Conflict Style Inventory at http://www.riverhouseepress.com.2

In this chapter I present in depth each of these five approaches to conflict listed above. Figure 5-1 is a visual way to understand these dif- ferent approaches and their relationships to one another. The vertical axis represents concern or energy for one’s own goals (wants, needs, expectations), or the goals of the group one belongs to. The horizontal axis represents concern for the relationship or for the other person (or people), his or her wants, needs, and expectations. While the figure helps to explain and understand these differences, bear in mind that there are no distinct boundaries between these approaches.

Figure 5-1. Approaches to conflict.

HOW WE RESPOND: APPROACHES TO CONFLICT 61

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

Consider This

] As you read the descriptions below, think about your own choices. When things are going smoothly, how are you inclined to respond?

] How do you respond when tension rises in a disagreement? Does your reaction pattern shift?

There is no one right way to approach conflict. Each of these styles is appropriate in some circumstances, inappropriate in others. One chal- lenge is to learn to use different approaches depending on different cir- cumstances. As behavior specialist Abraham Maslow said, “When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.”

Another dynamic to recognize is how your preferred style might shift when you are in a stressful situation.3 If your approach shifts dramati- cally when the tensions rise, you are likely to create confusion and dis- trust in those you work with. For instance, if your preferred style is accommodating under normal conditions, and your behavior shifts to directing when your anxiety rises, others are likely to be wary, finding your reactions unpredictable.

For each of the five approaches mentioned earlier, consider how that style can be an appropriate response to conflict. Then look at the down- sides of overusing that style. Finally, for each approach, there are tips for working more effectively with another person who uses that approach.

Avoiding The first example in the quiz, “I back off and let it go, even if it means that nothing is settled” is a statement of avoiding. It sits in the lower left- hand side of Figure 5-1: low energy for or attention to either the rela- tionship or the task, as well as your own concerns. At times, there are good reasons to choose avoidance:

> Don’t sweat the small stuff. Let go of problems that, in the grand scheme of things, are just not that big a deal. Sometimes you have so many bigger problems to deal with that it’s better to let this one go. Suppose someone leaves a coffee cup in the office sink; it is easier to

62 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

HOW WE RESPOND: APPROACHES TO CONFLICT 63

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

wash it out than to either chase down the culprit or create signage to hang over the sink.

> It’s just not worth it. You can spend a lot of energy banging your head against a brick wall, to no good end. Let it go—avoid the conflict. Suppose, for example, that when a new policy on comp (compensatory) time comes out, you as manager read it and groan. Now, you will have to explain to staff that the extra time they are putting in during this crunch won’t be compensated the way it was last year. People are not going to like it. They will complain, but there is nothing you can do about it. You don’t waste energy and effort trying to get the policy changed. You know from past experience that once something like that has been decided, the decision is final.

> Sometimes people need time to cool off. Or you need to cool off—or to get more information, or to consider what is going on, or to better understand what the problem might be. This is tactical avoidance; it is a short-term response, a postponement. You will revisit the conflict when you are better prepared.

On the other hand, some of us avoid problems, differences, and dis- agreements when the situation really needs to be addressed. A manager who always avoids conflict creates a very difficult workplace for every- one. For example:

> Small problems get bigger. Problems that start small or are man- ageable can grow into situations that are much harder to deal with—or even become insurmountable barriers. Avoidance seems like the best route to take—until a negative behavior becomes a pattern. For example, one coffee cup in the sink is a small thing; however, when staff consis- tently leave their dirty dishes stacked in the sink, expecting someone else to clean up their mess, the problem needs to be addressed.

> The appearance of unfairness. Overuse of avoidance in the workplace can create significant difficulties. On survey after survey, the biggest complaint workers have is the perceived unwillingness of man- agers to take action against poor performers. Those who do pull their weight in the office, who are dependable and productive, watch another who is not held accountable. Their motivation and morale drop as they

64 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

begin to wonder, “What is the point? Why am I expected to be responsi- ble when others are not?”

> No paper trail. A manager who avoids confronting a poor per- former often creates a difficult scenario. After weeks, or months, or even years, of not holding the employee accountable for the quality of his work or her tardiness, of avoiding the confrontation, and perhaps even of giving this person, year after year, positive performance reviews, the manager reaches a tipping point of exasperation, and calls the human resources office, wanting to terminate the employee. HR’s response? “You can’t fire this person. You have no justification in his personnel file.”

> No visible presence. I have worked with a few managers who seem to have perfected the ability to get from their own offices to the elevator without making contact with anyone else in the office—so, they never have any problems. At least, none that they can see. Others who work with them, however, are increasingly frustrated. Problems that could be resolved can’t even be raised.

Simone and Luis were really ticked off with their boss, Mike.Over the past year, they had met with him several times, pre- senting a carefully written, long list of their frustrations—support that the office needed, projects that were not getting done, and the like. Each time Mike listened to them, and then explained, “Right now I am really busy; I’ll get to that in a couple of months.” Months came and went, and he never addressed any of their concerns. One Monday morning, Mike came in to work only to hear the news that both Simone and Luis had found other jobs. Mike avoided, again and again, issues that could have been resolved. Now he faced a crisis in the office that he could not avoid.

Why do people avoid conflict even when avoiding as a technique is really not working for them? Often, it is fear: fear that their emotions will get out of control, or fear that they will hurt someone’s feelings, or some- one will hurt theirs, or fear that they will do the wrong thing, or make a mistake. To move away from avoiding when you recognize a situation

that you need to address, find ways to create a safe place for people to talk (see Chapter 13 for more detail):

> Set up a time to talk that allows both parties to express their ideas and concerns.

> Find a neutral place. If you are having a difficult discussion with an employee, come out from behind your desk. Talk over a conference table, or consider a more informal setting.

> Allow people (yourself included) time to think through their responses or decisions.

> Develop guidelines for the discussion so everyone knows what behavior is expected from one another. Simple statements like, “One person talk at a time” or agreeing to listen to one another can set a tone for productive discussion.

> Establish a common goal or purpose. Clearly state the problem to be solved, or question to be answered, rather than state the answer you want someone to agree to.

> Stay focused on issues, not on personalities or on assigning blame.

If you are working with an avoider, alert the individual early on to potential problems or issues that may need to be addressed. Also, give the person time to think and consider, rather than demanding an answer in the moment.

Consider This

] Do you find yourself avoiding conflict more often than you’d like? Are there problems you can’t talk about? People you avoid?

] Are there conversations you are not having?

If so, identify the steps you will take to address one issue that needs attention.

Accommodating In the short quiz at the beginning of the chapter, the second response “I prefer to do what others want for the good of the relationship,” is about accommodating. In the lower right-hand corner of the chart (Figure 5-1),

HOW WE RESPOND: APPROACHES TO CONFLICT 65

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

accommodating places higher importance on “the other” or “for the group” than for what may be “important to me.”

There is a lot that is positive about accommodation as a strategy:

> Accommodating behavior often springs from feelings of com- passion and empathy: “Their needs are great, my needs are small. What can I do to help?” For example, when Tom’s young daughter was diag- nosed with leukemia, others in the office stepped in to cover his work- load, no questions asked. The needs, expectations, or goals of the group are more important than those of the individual. Being a team player often means putting aside your own desires for the greater good of the whole group.

> Sometimes accommodating can be like money put in the bank. “What you are asking for here is important to you, less important to me.” There is a spirit of cooperation within the office. When one employee has a daunting deadline looming, another person will offer to help out. So accommodating others sometimes gives you the leeway to ask for favors in the future. With team spirit, there is an unspoken expectation that favors will be reciprocated down the road.

> Customer service is all about accommodating the customer. “What can we do to help?” “Certainly, we’ll take care of that right away.” My boss, other departments, and different offices in the organization have needs and requests, as do external customers. It is your job to respond, to deliver, to give them what they need when they need it.

There are limits to accommodating, however:

> Unlimited accommodating can’t be sustained over time. You run out of resources or energy to take on every task that is requested or expected of you.

The boss put a report on Carole’s desk, saying, “I need thiscompleted by Friday afternoon, close of business.” Carole, ever accommodating, did not tell him that she was already swamped with tasks, all of them urgent. Rather than disappoint

66 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

HOW WE RESPOND: APPROACHES TO CONFLICT 67

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

him, Carole said okay. As the paper sat on Carole’s desk, she con- sidered her choices: (a) I can run myself ragged, rearrange child care so that I can be at the office until 11:00 on Thursday night; (b) I can deliver an insufficient report; (c) I can call in sick; or (d) all of the above. What she couldn’t do was tell her boss that she could not get all of the projects on her list completed on time. Something would have to move from top priority status. Not only was she paying the price for her over-accommodating, but as a burned-out employee she was also not much use to the boss. Better that he should know what she was struggling with and find another way to get the work done than for him to lose a good employee to overload.

> Sometimes, accommodating just encourages others to take advantage. Then, they don’t take responsibility for their own work.

Mara in operations needed an emergency order filled. Shecalled procurement. Fair enough; everyone has emergen- cies sometimes. Joe, the head of the procurement office, fre- quently advocated for customer service, and Mara was, after all, the customer here. So, Joe jumped through a few hoops, circum- venting the usual process to get the order delivered. On the oper- ations side, the message Mara learned from this experience was that she didn’t really have to go through the standard procedures and fill out all that paperwork. She discovered that if she simply called procurement and declared, “It’s an emergency,” Joe could make it happen. It took a little time for Joe to realize that he was now always acting in crisis mode and he began to wonder how he got to this point.

Why do people overuse accommodation as a response to conflict? Why do they allow their high concern for the relationship to override their own interests? The manager or supervisor who is desperate to be liked by her subordinates can slip into accommodation mode more often

68 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

than is healthy for the organization, failing to hold staff accountable for their time or work products. “I want you to like me” “I want you to see me as a good person ... a good worker … a good boss … a good guy.” Likewise, the subordinate who is too accommodating to the boss risks burnout and resentment as the assignments keep piling up.

A manager can also overuse accommodation when dealing with his or her own superiors or the external customers, committing the staff to more tasks than they can handle, and thereby losing sight of the priori- ties he or she has already established for the team. The result may be promises that cannot be kept, staff burnout, and important priorities not receiving adequate attention.

Consider This

] Do you find yourself saying, “Yes, I can do that” when in your heart you are saying “No, I can’t possibly take on one more thing”?

] Do you hear someone’s request with some agitation: How could they be asking me to do that again? And still find yourself agreeing to the task?

] If your answer is yes to these questions, identify one issue that is important to you. What strategy can you use to raise this issue without concern for damaging the relationship?

If you find you are over-accommodating, try the following:

> Acknowledge the importance of the relationship.

> Identify the issue at hand that needs to be addressed.

> Build the relationship so that, as future problems arise, you can work through them without fear of rejection.

> Learn to say no to a request, perhaps by giving the other person alternative solutions.

If you are working with a person who is a strong accommodator, try the following:

> Pay attention to the relationship, as well as to the issue at hand.

> Ask nonconfrontational questions about the person’s concerns, preferences, and opinions.

Living on the Bottom Half of the Chart Working with an avoider or an accommodator can seem like a pretty good place to be—or at least it can feel comfortable for a while. With avoiders, you don’t have to talk about difficult issues because they never come up. As long as no one voices a complaint, there is no problem to solve. And with accommodators, you can get what you need. As long as you make it clearly known, the accommodator is ready and willing to comply. What is not seen, under the surface, is the simmering resent- ment that can come back to bite you in uncomfortable places. That resentment can lead to passive-aggressive behavior, or what we call “the grits factor.”

Sometimes people who overuse avoidance and accommodation resort to passive-aggressive behavior. What do we mean by passive- aggressive behavior? On the receiving end, you may know that something is not right, is not working, but you can’t quite put a finger on it. The passive-aggressive person may go to great lengths to avoid or to accom- modate—or to appear to avoid or accommodate, while undermining your efforts or policies, hoping that you get the message or feel the pain. Since the issues that need to be addressed are not on the table, you can’t work together to find solutions, or even any way to move forward toward finding those solutions. The person’s anger and resentment grow—and are often fed by—his or her reluctance or inability to address difficult issues.

When Sarah, her old boss, left, Mary was really disappoint-ed. Mary and Sarah got along so well. Sarah really under- stood people, was organized and responsive, and was lots of fun to work with. When Sid came in to replace Sarah, he just was not the same. He didn’t talk much with Mary. He kept irregular hours. He didn’t tell her when he was coming or going, or what was going on. He didn’t ask about her job or concerns or life.

Unaddressed, Mary’s list of complaints grew. She didn’t dis- cuss them with Sid. Instead, she spent lunch hours with other members of the staff, telling them in the smallest detail every misstep she saw Sid make, criticizing every decision he made or initiative he began. It wasn’t long before she had quite a follow-

HOW WE RESPOND: APPROACHES TO CONFLICT 69

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

ing in the lunch room. They could all complain about the boss, and nobody had to take any responsibility for the situation. Others didn’t know where all of the animosity came from. And Sid? He had no idea what was going on or how to change the sit- uation. He only knew that he walked into a mounting wall of hos- tility every morning.

Passive-aggressive behavior can be pretty costly. On the factory floor, there is an expression, “malicious compliance.” Workers who are ticked off at management have the last word, “Yes, you can tell me to do this, and I will do it—and when it fails miserably, you won’t know who to blame.” Passive-aggressive behavior: you can’t get a firm grip on what is going on but you know that something is wrong.

On the other hand, it’s a lot like cooking grits. Some of us have cooked grits the old-fashioned way—not microwave grits, but the real kind, simmered on the stove in a pot. The process goes something like this: Bring the water to a boil. Slowly pour in the grits, stirring constant- ly to keep them from lumping. Turn down the heat, and continue to stir so the grits don’t stick to the bottom of the pot. Experienced grits cooks all know that, at this point, you must stand back from the pot. While the grits are simmering, they have an uncanny way of popping up in the most unexpected places, spitting bits up into the air. If you are not careful you will have boiling hot grits on your face.

Sometimes people who live in the world of avoidance and accom- modation are like those grits in the pot. Suddenly they erupt in the most unlikely places. Wow! Where did that come from? He was always such a quiet guy. Well, “that” came from gobs of resentment that have been simmering over time, maybe years, until they pop up in your face. If you are working with someone who has these tendencies, it is in your best interest as a manager over the long haul to give the individual ways to be more open, honest, and forthcoming about voicing his or her concerns. There is more on this in Chapter 14, on listening.

Similarly, as a manager you may be guilty of passive-aggressive behavior. If you recognize your own tendency to hold onto resentments and engage in passive-aggressive behaviors or have blow-ups (like those

70 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

HOW WE RESPOND: APPROACHES TO CONFLICT 71

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

grits), you can develop the necessary skills to become more direct with your employees, raising issues and addressing differences and needs as they arise. That kind of behavior change takes time and a lot of courage and commitment, but it can be done.

Consider This

] Do you see yourself sometimes engaging in passive-aggressive behavior?

] Do you find yourself in the middle of a grits explosion, wondering yourself why you blew up so quickly?

Directing In the short quiz at the beginning of the chapter, the third statement is about directing: “I focus more on my goals, and less on what others want." Looking again at the Figure 5-1 chart, you’ll see that the vertical axis represents concern for oneself or for getting the task done. Directing is in the upper left-hand corner and represents high concern for what you want, need, or care about, or high concern for “getting it done,” and less concern for what others want, need, or care about. Directing is an appropriate approach sometimes, and it is inappropriate at other times. First, let’s see the many ways that directing is an appropriate response to disagreements and disputes:

> If you can state in clear terms what you want, need, or expect, you greatly enhance the possibility of getting what you need. A good manager will say, “Here are my priorities, here is why, thought through and listed.” When the manager clearly states the vision, the mission, the work to be done, the team appreciates the clarity and the direction they are being given.

> Healthy directing brings out the best in each of us. When the office puts together a proposal for a project, many people expend a lot of effort. What does this project need? What do we bring to it? How can we deliver in a way that stands out against the others? The energy and the thought processes that go into this direction raise the standard for everyone.

> Solid direction—even a good argument—can bring everyone closer together. This has been a huge lesson for me about conflict. That is, going toe-to-toe with someone who matters to you (boss, subordi- nates, or coworkers), and working through a difficult issue shows you that the other person will stick with you through it. You demonstrate your commitment to the work and to each other by engaging one anoth- er fairly. Likewise, you are still working together, often better than ever before, because you understand each other and you are assured of mutu- al loyalty to the mission and goals.

On the other hand, there is danger in always being in directing mode. A person who is always directing, who lives by the axiom “My way or the highway,” creates unnecessary challenges for him- or herself and for everyone else as well. Here are some of the downsides of always being in competitive mode:

> People who are always in competitive mode are often fixated on being right. Other people’s ideas are not solicited or considered. When others raise concerns or questions, they can be shut down immediately.

> Or one person (sometimes the boss) takes credit for the work of the entire team. As he or she briefs higher-ups at the conclusion of the project, the report sounds as if that person completed the project single- handedly. All the work that the team has done is disregarded.

> Every disagreement can become a win-lose contest, with the competitive person committed to winning no matter what the cost. Sometimes this strong commitment to winning at the other’s expense degenerates even further to lose-lose: “Maybe I’ll feel some pain, but if I can make you lose more than me, it will be worth it.” As Coach Vince Lombardi famously said, “Winning isn’t everything. It’s the only thing.” This works really well for a football team, but in working relationships the “losers” do not simply walk away from the game. In disagreements or conflicts, over time the others who are not being heard or acknowledged for their contributions, or who are made to feel inept or unvalued, start looking for ways to even the score.

> The manager needs the support of others to implement ideas. If

72 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

you are always in competitive mode, you will find pretty quickly that you are hanging out there by yourself. Others may become hostile and com- bative, or give up and withdraw. Or, as one of my favorite baseball caps says, “I’m their leader; which way did they go?”

Consider This

] Are you eager to confront—so eager that others may back away from working with you, or avoid discussions with you?

] Do you insist on having the last word?

] How important is winning to you?

If you see yourself using this style too often, identify one disagreement and commit to using the solution-seeking model in Chapter 13, “Reaching Agreement.”

If you see yourself being overly competitive, try the following:

> Slow down.

> Rather than rush to give the answer, or give directives, practice listening; become curious about others’ ideas and views. You will find less resistance to your own ideas when you can take others’ views into account.

People who are always in directing mode want to be seen as compe- tent, smart, and, above all, right. They want to be respected for who they are and what they know. How do you respond to someone who seems to be stuck in directing mode? Give them respect, and talk in terms of their interests. Both can go a long way toward opening up the competitor’s ears to what you have to say.

Similarly, demonstrate respect for who they are, what they know, and where they have been. You will read more on this topic in Chapter 15. Suffice it to say here that a person who is always in competitive mode wants to be seen as valued and worthy. Make certain that your tone of voice, your nonverbal communication, and your words convey that. At the same time, talk in terms of the other person’s interests. Talk about why what you have to say may be important. Think WIIFM— “What’s In It For Me”—from the other person’s perspective. Before you

HOW WE RESPOND: APPROACHES TO CONFLICT 73

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

raise an issue, ask, “Why might he want to hear about what I have to say?” “What does she need from me?” This is the difference between “I need a raise” or “I deserve a raise,” and “Here is my value to you,” or “to the organization.”

Compromising At the beginning of the chapter, the fourth statement was “Everyone should accept a little less than what they really want so we can get on with the work,” and this represents the compromising approach. On the Figure 5-1 chart, compromising is right in the middle. Yes, there is con- cern for what is important to you, as well as what is important to others, but in the interests of getting things done, everyone gives a little. I don’t get all of what I want. You don’t get all of what you want. We split the difference, meet somewhere in the middle. Traditional bargaining is one example of compromising, and it has several strengths to handling conflict:

> Compromise is useful when there are built-in limits to the resources available. The phrase that is often used in negotiation is “fixed pie.” If you are dealing with a fixed pie, a limited resource, compromise has the potential to give each party an acceptable partial resolution. For example, the management team working with the $9 million shortfall found themselves with limited resources—even more limited than they had imagined at the beginning of the year. Compromising was the approach they used to find a solution. After gathering as much informa- tion as they could, ultimately the group decided that each department could manage with something less than they had expected in order to come up with a viable answer to the budget problem.

> Compromising can yield a fairly quick, “good enough” answer. Suppose the front counter schedule was challenging for an auto service facility. With a limited staff and the need to offer coverage in the evening hours, the manager set a schedule that seemed to fairly distribute the workload, including the 6:00 to 9:00 P.M. time slot. Everyone worked one evening a week, a compromise that provided no one person would be responsible for handling this less desirable period.

74 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

HOW WE RESPOND: APPROACHES TO CONFLICT 75

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

But, sometimes compromising doesn’t yield the best decisions. For example:

> People can be too quick to jump to an intermediate solution and get a less than satisfactory result. In the standard budgeting process, a small amount of money may not be adequate to accomplish anything meaningful. Rather than pursue decision making through compromise, whereby each component receives a small allocation, setting priorities and assigning the limited resources to a single project may achieve bet- ter results.

> Compromising can become more of a game than a good deci- sion-making tool. When we know that decisions will be made through compromise, we tend to raise our goals at the outset, anticipating the compromise and perhaps thwarting the process.

The budget process for the Jones agency started in January.Each office submitted its request for funds for the next fiscal year. After everyone finished the arduous process of justifying staffing needs and new initiatives, budget analysts sat around the conference table cutting those requests, considering other possi- bilities, and adding a little here or there if they could until they met the target number. Each office knew, as everybody at the con- ference table knew, that the requests submitted had to be higher than the actual dollars needed; it was how the budgeting game worked. Sam, the naive director who submitted a budget that was too finely tuned to the actual needs of his office, was disappoint- ed when the final budget was delivered; there would not be enough money left to do what needed to be done.

Consider This

] Are you sometimes in too much of a hurry to get an answer and move on?

] Might you be missing important information that could help everyone get to a better solution?

To move away from too much dependence on compromising, to keep from smacking your forehead later for missing a more comprehensive, less obvious solution, slow down. Get more information before thinking about an answer. Explore the possibilities. Find out what is important to the parties involved. Discover what is important to you—what this deci- sion is really about—before making the decisions.

Collaborating In the beginning of this chapter, the fifth statement was “I go to great lengths to understand what is important to others, and to make sure they understand what is important to me”; this statement describes the approach of collaborating. On the Figure 5-1 chart, collaborating is placed in the upper right-hand corner. It translates to high concern for what you and the relationship, as well as high concern for what is impor- tant to others. Breaking the word collaboration down to its parts, it is easy to see the “co-labor” in it— or, working together. In collaborating mode, both parties first spend time understanding the situation from both perspectives, then together they build a solution that works for both. When both the relationship and the decision are of high impor- tance, taking the time that collaborating requires is well worth the effort.

The positive side of collaborating behavior is obvious:

> Everyone has his or her needs and expectations met. For instance, in the earlier example of the auto service front-counter sched- ule problem, the manager consulted each member of the staff about his or her preferences and personal situations. One member was taking classes at the local college, giving him a split shift through the week around his classes, and the evening hours every day really would work well for him. Another employee was juggling child care and her hus- band’s work schedule, and coming in later and working later each evening would work well with her. The solution was achieved through collaboration.

> Collaborating on a solution builds support for the decision. By working together to find a solution, both your needs and the others involved are appropriately met. When everyone leaves the room, people

76 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

HOW WE RESPOND: APPROACHES TO CONFLICT 77

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

have a stronger commitment to implementing your decision. Each has ownership for problem solving when anyone hits a stumbling block.

> Collaborating builds the relationship. Building a mutually bene- ficial solution through collaboration requires listening to one another and respecting each other’s views and opinions. When you engage in this approach, the trust bond among manager and staff is strengthened. When there is another disagreement, you all engage one another in find- ing a solution because finding the last solution went so well.

When I first saw the Figure 5-1 chart, I naively thought that collab- oration was the answer to all of the world’s problems. We talk until we find a solution that meets your interests, needs, and expectations as well as mine. But when I applied my newfound enthusiasm to practical, real- life situations, I found that there were downsides to always collaborating all the time.

> Sometimes collaborating takes more time than the decision jus- tifies. Perhaps you have attended those seemingly endless meetings, as I have, where everyone’s opinion is sought ad infinitum on a relatively triv- ial question, as everyone looks for a solution that will make everyone “happy.” What would make me happy at that point is for someone to make a decision so that we can get on to more important things.

Kelly was responsible for purchasing a new printer for theoffice. Should it be wireless? Was inkjet sufficient or did they need LaserJet quality? Should they combine the fax function with the printer and eliminate the office fax machine? Kelly spent valuable staff meeting time soliciting others’ ideas and input, pre- senting various cost proposals and options to the group. Members of the group were impatient. “Kelly, we trust you to make a good decision. Can we move on?”

> Sometimes collaborating may take more time than anyone has. In an emergency or a crisis, the leader needs to give directions so that staff can take action.

78 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

> Sometimes the manager is reluctant to step in and make a tough decision, preferring to rely on a collaborative approach for fear of mak- ing a mistake. But making a decision too slowly in the search for con- sensus can be a bigger mistake.

> Collaborating can be used to avoid making any decision at all. “We’ll wait until everyone agrees,” becomes another way of saying, “We’re not going to make any decision.”

> Collaborating simply may not be possible. Where the disagree- ment or conflict is over limited resources, there may be no way to “expand the pie,” to build a solution that answers everyone’s needs.

By the way, I don’t use the term win-win when discussing collabora- tion. It is a popular phrase, but it can mislead people into expecting to win—getting back into that mode of “winning” at all costs. Decision making is often more complicated than win-win.

Consider This

] Do you sometimes agonize over getting to a decision— looking for everyone’s agreement before moving forward?

If you tend to overuse collaborating, the best solution is to create realistic deadlines for decision making. Solicit input from others, with the understanding that, if you can’t reach a solution together within this time frame, then you will make the decision. If you are working with someone who overuses collaboration, encourage the person to make decisions and provide deadlines.

Understanding these style differences in approaching conflict can help us to hear each other and respond to our differences more effectively. Remember, each person brings strengths as well as weaknesses to any decision-making process. In complex conflicts or disputes, resolution requires using each of these approaches appropriately along the way. As a manager, there will be times to clearly state and hold to your own needs and priorities, times to accommodate the needs of others, times when the only solution to a problem is to compromise, and times when you can work with others to achieve a collaborative answer.

STYLES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

AVOIDING—"Conflict? What Conflict?"

> Often appropriate when the issue is relatively unimportant, the risks of harm are too high, time is short, or a decision is not necessary.

> Often inappropriate when negative feelings may linger, resentment may build, or problems that need to be addressed are not resolved.

> Often the choice when people fear the consequences of raising issues.

To respond to avoidance, create a safe environment for solving problems.

ACCOMMODATING—"Whatever you want is okay with me."

> Often appropriate when issue is more important to the other person, tasks involved are part of your work responsibility, favors and requests are traded over time.

> Often inappropriate when others could benefit from your wisdom and experience, or habitual use builds resentment.

> Often the choice when people are concerned about the relationship.

To respond to accommodation, raise issues without confrontation, assure others that the relationship is not the issue.

DIRECTING—"My way or the highway."

> Often appropriate when differing ideas and opinions need to be expressed, when an immediate decision is needed, or when energy is generated for accomplishing tasks.

> Often inappropriate when cooperation from others is important to implementation and buy-in, win-lose dynamics are created, or others are treated with disrespect.

> Often the choice when a person wants respect or control of the situation.

To respond to directing, respect the person’s knowledge and expe- rience, help the person identify how it is in his best interests to cooperate or collaborate.

HOW WE RESPOND: APPROACHES TO CONFLICT 79

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

COMPROMISING—"Let's split the difference."

> Often appropriate when finding some solution is better than a stalemate, cooperation is important but time and resources are limited.

> Often inappropriate when you can't live with the consequences, finding solutions that better meet the needs of those involved may be possible.

To respond to compromisers, slow down. Make sure you understand what the issue is, and identify the interests before jumping to a solution.

COLLABORATING—"How can we solve this problem together?"

> Often appropriate when the issues and relationship are both significant to those involved, cooperation and buy-in are essential to implementation, there is reasonable expectation of addressing the concerns of everyone.

> Often inappropriate when time is short, the issues are unimportant, finite resources make it impossible to create a solution that meets everyone’s needs.

> Often the choice when a person or group wants joint ownership of decisions.

To respond, set realistic, definite deadlines for decision making. Encourage individuals to take responsibility for decisions without unreasonable fear.

Notes 1. Various authors have created similar charts for understanding these different

approaches along a continuum of assertiveness and relationship, including Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann, Thomas Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (Tuxedo, NY: Xicom, 1974); and Robert Blake and Jane Mouton, The Managerial Grid (Houston: Gulf Publishing, 1964).

2. Ron Kraybill, Style Matters: The Kraybill Conflict Style Inventory (Harrisonburg, VA: Riverhouse Press, 2005).

3. Ibid, p. 12.

80 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

M rs. Bingen taught us a lot in the fourth grade that was beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic, such as how to answer the telephone, how to introduce ourselves to someone new, how

to introduce a friend to another friend, and so on. The lesson on how to shake hands stuck with me: “When you hold out your right hand, squeeze the other per- son’s hand firmly. That shows that you are strong and confident.” All my life I have practiced this lesson. And when I have shak- en hands with someone who did not respond with a firm grip, I secretly wanted to teach that person the right way to do it.

A different lesson waited for me on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota, where I was volunteering during the sum- mer several years ago. Larry Peterson, a Presbyterian minister, had lived on the reservation with the Lakota Sioux for twenty some years and he had become the cultural interpreter for our group.

81

Who We Are: Cultural

Considerations

C H A P T E R 6

Strangers in a new

culture see only what

they know.

—ANONYMOUS

82 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

One night Larry told us about a time when he took several young Native Americans to a church function in a neighboring town. On their way home, the children complained about their aching hands. They explained to Larry that they dreaded shaking hands with “those church people” because of their “hard handshakes.” The children viewed these handshakes as aggressive. As they explained to him, “You should offer your hand with no resistance, so that others will know that you come in peace.” Here was a surprising lesson for me on the differences among cultures. For many years, I had assumed there was but one way to shake hands—the right way—which just happened to be my way. I was startled to realize that others who had a different approach were equally logical in their own reasoning.

My summer visit to the reservation gave me a taste of how our cul- tural differences shape our worldviews, and how those views direct our behaviors. Larry had moved to the reservation with his own European- American upbringing and its set of cultural norms. But he was unaware of many of these norms and beliefs until he lived among people who did not think the way that he did. When he arrived, an elder of the tribe said to him, “If you are not going to be here at least twenty years, it’s just not worth it.” Not enough time, in other words, to get to know him and for him to get to know them. Clearly, this was a different sense of time than Larry held.

Another story from Larry concerns a young member of the Lakota, who was away at college in California. He received a phone call; his grandfather was seriously ill. Without question, the young man left school to attend to his dying grandfather. Family was the most important thing in his life, and there would be no missing this last chance to be with someone so important to him. Larry reflected on his experience as a young man, away at college many years earlier. His mother called; his grandfather was facing death. But his mother reassured Larry, “Your grandfather knows how much you love him, and knows how important your studies are to your future. Stay at school and finish your exams. You can come home to mourn with us later, even if you miss the funeral.” Those cultural differences in values can play out in the workplace as well, in the ways a manager and his staff face difficult decisions.

Culture Defined Culture is generally thought of as an integrated pattern of human knowl- edge, beliefs, and behaviors that characterize a group of people—the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group. The continuance of a group’s culture depends on the group’s capacity for learning and transmitting its knowledge to succeed- ing generations. Generally, a group’s culture consists of unwritten rules about how its members (however they identify themselves) do things.

These rules vary from group to group. How a family expresses affec- tion—or doesn’t; how children address adults; how people in the neigh- borhood drive their cars or view law enforcement—these are just a few of the subtle, day-to-day interactions that teach us what is important in life and how people should treat one another. These rules and values are not formally taught. We acquire them as we grow up, as we learn and practice interactions within the group. The values we embrace may be defined by where we were born, where we live now, our educational background, our religion, and our gender, race, or ethnic group, to name a few factors.

Consider This

] List as many cultural groups as you can that form your identity. (Consider where you were born, where you were raised, your family’s heritage, your sex, your sexual orientation, your religious beliefs, your level of education and where you went to school, your ethnicity.)

We Are Products of Our Groups Each of us belongs to several groups that help to define the rules of life we understand and live by. This makes it difficult to make broad gener- al statements about how this person or that person will behave in a given situation. For example, I was born in the American (U.S.) South and I have a Southern accent. But my father was in the army and we moved around quite a bit, so the assumptions of my cousins, who grew up in the South, are not the same as mine, though we may sound alike. An Asian woman who was raised in San Francisco may look very much like some- one raised in Taiwan, but her cultural experiences, and hence her atti-

WHO WE ARE: CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS 83

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

tudes and beliefs, will be quite different. That said, there are tendencies and preferences that can help us understand some of the differences between us.

Inevitably, in the workplace these cultural differences meet one another and sometimes clash. These differences can unconsciously shape the preconceptions we have of each other, and may create con- flicts. They also may inform opposing ideas about how to approach addressing those conflicts. Similarly, our cultural differences can create distrust. What you have done or said may make perfect sense in your worldview, in your understanding of what is important and your percep- tion of how people should behave toward one another. In a workplace exchange, my reaction to what you have done—because I don’t see the world exactly the way you do—may be confusion or bewilderment, or even anger. In my view, you have not met an expectation, or have broken a commitment—even an assumed expectation or commitment. We have never talked about our cultural expectations and differences, often because we didn’t even know what they were.

When Cynthia was growing up, the house was very quiet inthe mornings. Family members got up, got ready for the day, and went on their way, being careful not to disturb their father, whom they all knew as someone to be avoided until at least noon. Angelo’s house growing up was a bright, noisy place from morning until night. When he came down to breakfast, everyone said good morning. It was the accepted way to start the day.

Cynthia became Angelo’s boss. When she came to work, she walked past Angelo’s desk, straight to her own office every day. It never occurred to her to interrupt her own thinking to say “Good morning.” Over the months that they worked together, Angelo watched Cynthia walk by his desk each morning and continued to wait for, to expect, Cynthia to greet him like, in his mind, “any civilized person would.” Angelo put many interpretations on Cynthia’s behavior: that she didn’t like him, that he was not doing a good job, that she was cold and unfriendly. When Angelo final-

84 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

ly told Cynthia how her behavior affected him, she was taken aback. It never occurred to her that he would react negatively to what seemed to her to be normal behavior.

A Caution Be careful: The temptation to generalize is strong. If we can fit people into neat models and boxes, they can seem much easier to manage: “You know how those Italians are,” or “Of course, she’s a woman. You know how they overreact”; or “[insert group] always does [insert stereotype].” Remember, culture does not account for all of the differences among people in the workplace. Sometimes the differences between people within a given culture may be greater than the differences between groups! With that caveat in mind, the next time you find yourself in a confusing situation, ask yourself how your own cultural assumptions may be shaping your reactions, and try to see the world from the other's point of view.

When I walked into the meeting room, I could feel the ten-sion among this team of managers. The conflicts between them had been brewing for some time. In this first meeting, I could see and hear the cultural differences: the manager was from India, one team member was African American, two appeared to be European American, and one described himself as “born in Iran, lived in India as a child.” What impact did their cul- tural differences have on the conflicts before them? I was never exactly certain how this belief or that worldview created the situ- ation in which they now found themselves, though I knew that they were dealing with differences that were probably deep and wide. My work, as I saw it, was to understand and respect their differences rather than label their attitudes.

While volumes have been written on culture and cultural differ- ences, our intention here is to highlight a few of the ways that cultural

WHO WE ARE: CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS 85

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

differences impact disagreement and resolution in the workplace. With this information, you can begin to develop an understanding of the impact of these differences.

Culture Examined Many authors have created models for understanding the dimensions of culture as a way of better understanding the differences among us. In the 1970s, Geert Hofstede, a sociologist from Belgium, worked with IBM at its facilities around the world. Though the corporate culture of the company is the same wherever its offices are, he saw that the work- ers in different locations held different attitudes about how they worked together. From his extensive research, he developed country-by-country assessments of beliefs and values that shape workplace behavior.1

Based on his experience with the Hopi and the Navajo, and then his travels in Europe and Asia, Edward T. Hall popularized the concepts of “high-context” and “low-context” cultures in his book Beyond Culture.2

High-context cultures are more collectivist—that is, people view their relationship to the group as very important; reliance on nonverbal com- munication is high. In general, cultures in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, or indigenous groups in the United States are in this high-context category. Those in low-context cultures are more individual- ist—that is, individuals make choices and decisions with little concern for what is important to the group. Generally, in the United States and Western Europe, the individual is seen as the most important component of society. Though most people in modern society have some experience with both of these modes, these different worldviews play out in myriad ways in our approaches to conflict and in our communication styles.

In yet another model, Craig Storti, in his lively workshops on “Communicating Across Cultures” for the U.S. Department of State, uses several dimensions of cultural difference to help people identify the various preferences that they have as individuals and as members of par- ticular cultures.3 He calls these the locus of control, concepts of right- ness and fairness, management style, attitude toward uncertainty, and communication styles.

As we explore the ways that culture shapes our belief systems and our behaviors, bear in mind that there are many ways to look at, listen

86 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

for, and understand these differences. In an argument or debate, some groups often refer to authorities or experts to legitimize points; for oth- ers, their own experience is more persuasive and convincing. In short, it is a cultural thing, learned within the group one was raised. So, we arrive at our truths from different directions, each convinced that our way of understanding is the correct way.

My own European-American view of time is linear. This is so deeply ingrained in me that when I read of other groups, for whom the con- struct of “past, present, and future” has no meaning, I cannot wrap my brain around their perspective, no matter how much I try. In another example, for some cultural groups time is of the essence. Punctuality is important. To be late for a meeting is an insult to others. But for other cultural groups, time is a much more fluid concept. The intention to meet is what is important, the designated time is approximate. “Let’s meet at 10:00” has two very different interpretations, though each assumes that the communication is clearly understood by the other.

A missionary working in Germany once told me of her experience of Germans and Ghanaians meeting together at a local church. In the Ghanaians’ view, church started as you were preparing to go to the serv- ice, stopping at neighbors’ homes to gather them up and bring them with you. For the Germans, church started at 11 A.M., whether you were in the building or not. As she related this story to me, by the time the Ghanaians arrived, the German service was almost over.

Another worldview difference that has a dramatic impact on our life choices and expectations in the workplace is the view of destiny. In some groups, there is a strong belief that one controls one’s own destiny. Yet other groups hold the view that fate and external forces control where people are and what they can expect. We see this in disagree- ments ranging from the workplace to the community to the political arena. “Pick yourself up by your own bootstraps” runs smack into “It is my lot in life.”

Five Dimensions of Cultural Difference To give us more of an understanding of the nature of culture, let us examine five common dimensions of cultural difference: communica- tion, tolerance for uncertainty, power, identity, and time.

WHO WE ARE: CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS 87

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

Communication: Direct or Indirect How do we talk to one another? This ranges from direct to indirect. Those on the direct end of the spectrum speak what is on their minds. Their preference is to tell the truth (as they see it) rather than spare another’s feelings. Communication is strictly about the transfer of infor- mation. Yes means yes. No means no. Those on the indirect side prefer to show more deference to the group or other individual, likely to spare feelings or to preserve harmony. Their speech may be hesitant, slow, or quiet. “I was thinking maybe if you had time for lunch, we could.…” “I don’t know about this, but I think.…” In this indirect pattern of speak- ing, there is a rising intonation at the end of every statement, making each sentence sound like a question. The emphasis is on building rela- tionships.

In cultures where indirect communication is the norm, people have many ways to say no without ever saying no. They use phrases like “I think so,” “Probably,” “We’ll look into it,” “We’ll see,” “Maybe.” All these can mean no without using the word no. Harmony is preserved by avoid- ing being definitive or using what may sound like a harsh negative. In individualistic or low-context cultures, however, people tend to be ver- bally direct. They value communication openness, are willing or eager to self-disclose, and prefer clear, straightforward communication. In low- context cultures, direct approaches are seen to contribute to a positive management climate. In collectivist or high-context cultures, indirect communication is preferred because the image of group harmony is essential.4

In the United States, directness is often seen as the dominant or preferred style in the workplace. In her book Talking from 9 to 5, Deborah Tannen, who once said, “communication between genders is cross cultural,” explores the differences between the direct style and the indirect style as it is experienced between men and women, as well as between national cultures.5 In Tannen’s book, as well as in Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers,6 the problems that sometimes result from indirect communication styles can be life-threatening. Both authors cite airplane-cockpit dialog that led to airplane crashes.

Gladwell, for example, describes a disastrous interaction involving a Columbian co-pilot, the airplane pilot (also Columbian), and the

88 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

air traffic controller in New York. Gladwell describes the incident:

“Imagine the scene in the cockpit. The plane is dangerously low on fuel. They have just blown their first shot at a landing. They have no idea how much longer the plane is capable of flying. The Columbian co-pilot tells air traffic control ‘That’s right to one- eight-zero on the heading and, ah, we’ll try once again. We’re run- ning out of fuel.’” Gladwell refers to this as “mitigated speech”: “when we’re being polite … or when we’re being deferential to authority.”

The thing you have to understand about that crash is that New York air traffic controllers are famous for being rude, aggressive, bully- ing. . . . They handle a phenomenal amount of traffic in a very con- strained environment. . . . The way they look at it, it’s “I am in control. Shut up and do what I say.” They will snap at you. And if you don’t like what they tell you to do, you have to snap back. And then they’ll say, “all right, then.” But if you don’t, they’ll railroad you. (pp. 194–195)

It can be seductive to put our own interpretations on these style dif- ferences—to make assumptions such as, “Direct communication is more powerful,” or “A person who uses indirect communication is insecure.” These assumptions are not always true. The manager may give a direct and clear (not necessarily harsh) message: “Have that report on my desk by 5:00.” Bosses may also communicate effectively with subordinates indirectly to accomplish tasks. “I would like to see that report before you leave today”; from the boss, this may be indirect, but the employee can still receive the intended message. On the other hand, the manager who uses indirect and unclear messages is not likely to get the needed results— for example, “How is that report going?”

Power differences especially affect direct and indirect communica- tion, how it is given as well as how it is received. The direct may be, “I’m going to lunch. Cover my calls.” The indirect would be, “I’m going to lunch. Would you mind covering my calls?” A boss can comfortably use either the direct or the indirect style to communicate with an employee. But that same direct tone from a subordinate may not be received by the manager as acceptable because it implies an incorrect power relation-

WHO WE ARE: CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS 89

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

ship between the two. Within your own organizational structure, you may talk to employees with a more direct style, and yet with your boss you will use a more indirect style. A subordinate’s saying, “Get that report to me by 5:00 today” to his boss would be heard quite differently from a boss making that same statement to her employee.

Understanding how these cultural and power differences impact communication includes responding to them appropriately:

> Avoid assuming that a person who uses an indirect style is weak, or that a person who uses a direct style is domineering or arrogant.

> Manage your own style preference and modify it when appropriate.

Tolerance for Uncertainty: High or Low How comfortable are you with taking risks—and with the possibility of failure? On the high end of the scale, some people are willing to take risks. They set up new businesses, move to a new places, question the existing rules. These people are often the early adopters of new technol- ogy, eager to take on the newest smart phones or digital equipment. Their preference is for fewer rules, and they are generally more tolerant of differences in values, opinions, and beliefs. On the low end of this scale are people who value tradition, for whom new is not necessarily better, and who feel taking a risk can be dangerous. For these people, beliefs and values are firmly held. There is one right answer. Rules and structures are tight.

Embracing a new career or developing a new business line or prod- uct, investing in a new venture or moving to a new town where the job market is better—these are more comfortable options for those at the high end. At the low end, maintaining traditions and respecting the rules are stronger inclinations. In the workplace, there are those who are eager to jump into new assignments, and they do so with the attitude, “I don’t know how to do it, but I am eager to figure it out.” Others are more cau- tious, with the hesitation, “I don’t want to commit to doing something unless I am certain I can succeed.”

90 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

Alfie (at the high end) was willing to step up and challenge theboss’s ideas, even though he knew it could be risky. The boss might get upset and respond negatively. But Alfie would take the risk. “What is the worst thing the boss can say? He’s not going to fire me.” Some of Alfie’s peers were really glad to have Alfie around. They had the same questions, but it was a lot safer to sit back and watch what happened to Alfie, then decide whether to join him or not. Alfie complained to me, “When the boss isn’t around, they are all agreeing with me. Then when I say some- thing, nobody in the meeting backs me up.”

Hannah (at the low end) knew the rules. Whenever her boss proposed a new approach or procedure, she was quick to quote the manual. She knew the SOP upside down and backwards. She resisted change, and preferred to keep things as they were. When the boss announced that she would need to move her workspace, Hannah was full of questions. ”Why do I have to move? Here is just fine.” When I asked her what she liked about her job, she answered, “The security of it.”

As a manager, you need to understand employees’ differences in dealing with uncertainty, risk, and change. Try to do the following:

> Be responsive to their needs either for stability or for risk taking.

> With those on the low end of this dimension, avoid too much change when possible, provide explanation when necessary, and give advance notice.

> For those on the high end, provide stimulating opportunities to take on new projects.

Power: Egalitarian or Hierarchical Who has the power or authority to make decisions, and how does that individual use that power? Of those on the egalitarian side of this scale, people expect to have some control or influence over the decisions that affect them. There is a spirit of inclusion: we are all in this together, and

WHO WE ARE: CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS 91

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

everyone’s voice is valued. On the hierarchical side, people expect that those with power or authority will make the decisions. The lower rank- ing people give deference willingly to those above them. So, this is a dimension of culture that particularly impacts management.

The egalitarian boss will engage the staff in decision making on sig- nificant policy decisions, usually through staff meetings or one-on-one conversations. For subordinates who also hold the egalitarian view, this is as it should be: “We should be consulted on these issues.” For those on the hierarchical side, however, this egalitarian approach can be frus- trating. These employees are often more comfortable saying, “You are the boss. Tell me what to do and I will do it.” The egalitarians among us may find themselves making the same statement, but that is because they believe it is what is expected of them, though they will not be happy about it. They really want and expect to have input.

Cultures develop within organizations. I think back to my graduate program in conflict resolution; it was notorious for our vocal participa- tion in all the decisions that the faculty made—or tried to make. But that was the culture of the program—the worldview of the students: we should have some way to participate in the decision-making process. Across campus, in other graduate programs, there was much less activism. The culture of the math and science programs or the nursing programs was more hierarchical—students read the catalog and the syl- labus, and then followed the course of study as it was laid out.

Organizations have different cultures, different operating systems. A person functioning effectively within the military for twenty years has a clear understanding of the importance of hierarchy, as do all of the peo- ple she works with. When she retires and takes a job in a civilian work- force, though, she discovers that the unwritten rules are different in an egalitarian system. If she is the boss, she may have difficulty adjusting to employees who expect to negotiate assignments. Indeed, she may be frustrated by the (in her view) inefficiency of the more egalitarian approach.

As a manager, you need to understand the nature of egalitarian ver- sus hierarchical perspectives. Consider doing the following:

> Allow opportunities for those who value egalitarian principles to

92 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

provide input into decisions that may impact their workplace or responsibilities.

> Practice providing clear guidance and organizational structure for those who are more comfortable with a hierarchical approach.

Identity: Individualist or Collectivist Is your identity defined more by your own accomplishments or by your membership in a group? Those of us on the individualist end of this spectrum make choices and decisions based on questions we ask our- selves, such as “What do I want? What do I need? What do I care about?” Those of us on the collectivist side are concerned with the good of the group, asking questions like, “What is best for the group? What does the group need or want or care about?” This topic relates to a discussion earlier in this chapter, in regard to the concept of high- and low-context cultures. In general, we can pair the attributes of the individualist with the low-context culture, while the col- lectivist view is aligned with the high-context culture.

In the previous chapter, I introduced a model for considering the typical approaches to conflict resolution (Figure 5-1). Using this model, we see that those on the collectivist side often show a preference for avoidance and accommodation. They approach disagreement with high concern for the group or the other person. As reported by Stella Ting- Twomey, it is rare in Asian cultures to have open conflict because conflict appears to disrupt group harmony.7 In contrast, in American cul- ture, the individual is often considered the most important component of society: there is a high concern for individual rights and freedoms. Those on the individualist side are more likely to respond according to the vertical axis (high concern for self or the task at hand), in directing mode.

Looking at the diagram in this light, you can see the stereotypes that pair up with these behaviors. Individualist people on the vertical axis are often considered arrogant and egotistical; collectivists on the horizontal axis are likely be seen as weak, as pushovers. But these are stereotypes, not prescriptions; they can limit our ability to understand one another

WHO WE ARE: CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS 93

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

We all know we are unique

individuals, but we tend to

see others as representatives

of groups.

—DEBORAH TANNEN

and to appreciate the contribution that each type of person makes to a healthy workplace.

Privacy, personal space, and individual accountability are empha- sized at the individualist end of the scale. In collectivist cultures, group accountability dominates. Several years ago, in responding to lessons learned from Japanese industry successes, U.S. businesses showed a strong movement to apply these collectivist lessons to teamwork in vari- ous industries. It didn’t always work—the cultural change required was too great.

For example, the Library of Congress reorganized its organizational structure into teams. Previously the work had been assigned to individ- uals, and their performance was evaluated as individuals, based on the number of titles cataloged and quality of the work. Shifting to a team structure was a huge cultural shift for these employees; they would now be evaluated based on the productivity of the team. This created more conflict than predicted. At the implementation level, team members argued over who was carrying their weight and who wasn’t, who was doing their fair share and who wasn’t. Management eventually aban- doned the approach, in part because of the contentions and conflicts that were created.

This dimension of individualist versus collectivist identity also helps us understand different attitudes about saving face. “Face saving” refers to the importance of maintaining a good image and the strategies we use to save face in conflicts. Those on the individualist side are most con- cerned with reputation, credibility, and self-respect—all related to the ego. Ting-Twomey explains that American subjects, for example, tend to adopt self-face preservation and maintenance, focus on self-face issues, use control-focused conflict strategies and confrontational strategies, and display stronger win-lose orientations. For Americans, loss of face means personal failure, loss of self-esteem, or loss of self-pride on an individual attribution basis. On the collectivist end, however, saving face is related to honor, on how the incident reflects on the family, the group, or the organization. Asian subjects tend to use face-smoothing strategies, mutual-face preservation strategies, and conflict-avoidance strategies. For Japanese and Korean subjects, loss of face means disrupting the group harmony, bringing shame to their family, classmates, or company.8

94 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

How might this dimension of culture play out in the workplace? As one example, consider the individualist boss who may want to recognize individual effort in order to demonstrate appreciation for a job well done. The collectivist employee may find being singled out in this way embarrassing, rather than as a moment of pride.

In understanding the individualist and collectivist preferences, the manager needs to:

> Be aware of the needs and expectations of employees.

> Appreciate the contribution to group cohesion that the collectivist makes.

> Allow opportunities for those on the collectivist end to express concerns, assured that they will not hinder the harmony of the group.

> Provide rewards and appreciation appropriate to the preferences of the people you manage.

> Recognize the individualist’s desire for acknowledgment.

Time Orientation: Short Term or Long Term The dimension of time, as described by Geert Hofstede, refers to the adherence to, or pursuit of, “traditional values.”9 At the short-term end of this spectrum, a person’s view of life and decision making takes place within a short time frame. For example, the short-term thinker will view shareholder interests in terms of the next quarterly report. He might pro- pose laying off 2,000 employees because this will make the financial statement look strong. But it may have negative consequences for the long term, as it could leave the company short-staffed, unable at the end of a downturn to respond quickly to a growing market. Getting things done fast is important, but the focus is on short-term rewards. There is little concern for how a decision fits into the longer view of history. The short-term thinker says, “Time is money, you know.”

On the other hand, the person with a long-term orientation views decision making in a broader context. There is no hurry to make a deci- sion; more consideration is given to history and long-range future impli- cations. Rather than rush into a decision, the long-term thinker slows down her decision making. Decisions will have far-reaching implica-

WHO WE ARE: CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS 95

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

tions; let’s not be in too much of a hurry to make a change that could have long-term consequences. “Slow and steady wins the race.” In Japan, people take out hundred-year mortgages for their homes. It is hard to imagine that kind of long-term thinking in the United States.

Several wine makers from California visited Bulgaria to advisethe Bulgarians on how to produce more and better quality wine. As they began to share their wisdom, one Bulgarian looked at them in amazement at their audacity, “Gentlemen, my wine cellar is older than your country!”

As a manager dealing with people’s differing concepts of time, you need to:

> Recognize the perspectives others may bring to the decision- making process.

> Be responsive to those differences: the urgency of the short term, and the patience of the long-term.

Consider This

] On this spectrum of cultural differences, what are your pref- erences?

Communication Direct Indirect

Tolerance for Uncertainty High Low

Power Egalitarian Hierarchy

Identity Individual Collective

Time Short-term orientation Long-term orientation

96 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

Power and Culture In the United States, the management level of corporate America is heavily populated with Americans of European cultural origin.10 Among this group are people with a strong tendency toward the left-hand col- umn of this cultural scale. Working with, managing, and supervising peo- ple who bring a different worldview to the workplace can challenge their beliefs. We often want to work with people who act like ourselves, who do things the right way—which means doing things “like we do.” Those in power often subconsciously reward and recognize those who reflect the dominant culture’s view.

As a European American myself, it is often difficult for me to see the world from others’ points of view. I carry my own biases from my own belief system, whether I am aware of those biases or not. Within the dominant culture, there is often an unconscious expectation that “they should all be like us.” Somehow, our thinking goes, we can put up with their little quirks and quaint customs (i.e., their cultural views) and maybe one day they will become enlightened and see the world as we do.

The diversity of today’s workforce (race, gender, ethnicity, religion, and so on), which reflects the changing demographics of the U.S. popu- lation, creates disputes and conflicts that are often driven by cultural views. The behavioral differences between the dominant group and minority groups can result in an “us versus them” mentality, whereby we see ourselves—whoever we are—as doing things the right way and oth- ers as doing things the wrong way. As demographics shift further, the dominant group can feel threatened, and the opportunities for conflict and distrust will increase. In addition, this growing diversity forces change, sometimes slowly, sometimes dramatically, and change inside an organization is always hard. Frequently, it is change itself that creates conflict. The effective manager of the 21st century has the ability to see that diversity can bring strengths as well as challenges to the workplace, and has the skills necessary to manage the inherent differences.

Notes 1.Geert Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage 2001).

WHO WE ARE: CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS 97

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

2. Edward T. Hall, Beyond Culture (New York: Anchor Books, 1976).

3. Craig Storti, Figuring Foreigners Out (Yarmouth, Me.: Intercultural Press, 1998).

4. Stella Ting-Twomey, “Cross-Cultural Face-Negotiation: An Analytical Overview.” Paper presented at Simon Fraser University, Harbour Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada. April 15, 1992.

5. Deborah Tannen, Talking from 9 to 5: How Women’s and Men’s Conversational Styles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who Gets Credit and What Gets Done at Work (New York: William Morrow, 1994).

6. Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers: The Story of Success (Boston: Little, Brown, 2008).

7. Ting-Twomey, “Cross-Cultural Face-Negotiation.”

8. Ibid.

9. Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences.

10. Thomas Kochman and Jean Mavrelis, Corporate Tribalism: White Men/White Women and Cultural Diversity at Work (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009).

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

98 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

Y es, what we are arguing about does make a difference. What do we disagree about? Is it the terms of the contract? Are we strug- gling with how we can get the task done? Or who does what and

when? Or does the argument touch on our very core values and princi- ples? Standing back and thinking about a disagreement before you begin to discuss the matter with someone else can help you find your way through the conflict to reach a resolution.

Figure 7-1 shows most sources of conflict on the left-hand side, arranged from those that are easiest to resolve to those that are hardest to handle.

Information conflicts can be relatively simple to resolve, once you recognize them as such. Conflicts of interests and expectations take a lit- tle more time to understand. Once you do, however, you often can open up options that will meet the needs of each person involved. Structural conflicts are often out of the control of the parties involved, so resolving them requires new strategies. Conflicts in values are by and large not

99

What We Are Arguing About Matters:

Sources of Conflict

C H A P T E R 7

100 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

American Management Association • www.amanet.org

negotiable. You must first identify that the differences are about core val- ues themselves, then you can begin to find a way to the other side of the conflict. As you see later in this chapter, however, conflicts may not fall simply into one category or another, and often have effects on each other.

Now, take a look at the right-hand side of Figure 7-1: “relationships.” Arrows point back and forth between relationship conflicts and all of the other types of conflict because relationship conflicts make all of the oth- ers more difficult to resolve, and because other conflicts can complicate relationship conflicts. In this chapter, I first describe all of the conflict sources in the left-hand column, then I tackle the challenges of rela- tionship conflicts.

Information Information conflicts are disagreements about facts or data: the numbers written in the report, what the policy or the contract says. These can be the easiest conflicts to address. If the disagreement is about informa- tion—I have one set of facts and you have another—once you identify that as the problem, you and the other party can agree on where to get information that you both will accept.

Request denied.” Karyn read the message on her screen, toostunned to think. She was beyond exhaustion; her mother was still at home, sick and frail. Karyn had submitted a request for advanced leave to deal with this most recent round of trouble.

“

Figure 7-1. Sources of conflict.

INFORMATION

STRUCTURAL CONFLICTS

VALUES

RELATIONSHIPS

INTERESTS & EXPECTATIONS

Just a few minutes before, Richard was in his office, scrolling through the day’s endless list of e-mail requests and directives. Projects were piling up, staff were calling in sick. How was he supposed to get the work done with the round of flu that was sweeping through the office? And here was Karyn’s appeal, one more in a nagging stack of requests. Couldn’t she see that they were already shorthanded? She’d already used up all the leave she had, how could she be asking for more?

Karyn was convinced that there was some way to get advanced leave. She had seen others do it. She would pay it back. She just needed help this one time. She was desperate for time off to get her mother settled into a nursing home. Meanwhile, Richard knew he was right. It was the supervisor’s prerogative to allow leave or not, especially advanced leave.

When Karyn finally walked into Richard’s office, they both reached for the dog-eared manual on his desk. They could read the policy from Human Resources. If the answer wasn’t clear there, they would call to get clarification. A common understand- ing of the information was all that it took to find a way through their disagreement.

Often, the key to resolving information disputes is to agree on which authorities or sources of data to use, or on the methods used for gather- ing the data.

HOW TO ADDRESS INFORMATION CONFLICTS

> Agree on a common source of information.

> Agree on a process for gathering data or facts.

Interests Conflicts over interests and expectations generally take more effort to understand and resolve. To begin, what do I mean here by interests?1

Most of the time, when people discover themselves in disagreement, they declare their positions—they make demands or stake claims. Each

WHAT WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT MATTERS 101

American Management Association • www.amanet.org