Conflict management critical in the knowledge economy
Managers and HR practitioners need to be experts in the realm of conflict management. Organizations that ignore that statement do so at their own peril. Unresolved or poorly resolved workplace conflict causes stress to everyone involved and stressed workplaces can be very costly to organizations.
That’s because the economy has evolved from valuing manual functioning to prizing cerebral functioning — brain has become far more important than brawn in the knowledge economy. The competitive edge in the 21st century will be gained through innovation of the workforce. Where poor conflict management is allowed to exist, innovation and cerebral capacity — the very things organizations pay most for — are lost and with them goes any potential for a competitive edge.
Therefore it’s critical for any performance management approach to include a mechanism to assist in conflict resolution.
The difference between numbers and people
If HR practitioners and managers are looking for a reason to envy the finance department, it’s this: numbers are, more often that not, easier to deal with than people.
With numbers, four plus four always equals eight. But with people, four plus four almost never adds up to eight in the eyes of two individuals. You can say something to one person and the same thing to someone else, and they walk away with two very different impressions.
Welcome to the grey zone. When dealing with people, things are seldom black and white. Nor do they add up the way one expects or thinks they should. And the navigating tools organizations have developed for dealing with people issues, such as performance management systems and complaint or grievance processes, are only as good as the abilities of the individuals using those systems.
It is one thing to have a formal performance management system in place and quite another to be effective as a manager of performance year round. The first is all about making sure there is structure, opportunity and encouragement for managing performance and the latter is all about doing it well.
People issues usually come at managers and HR practitioners in one of two ways: Either they see something they think needs dealing with or they are presented with something to deal with. When they are initiating the encounter, they may anticipate a conflict because of past experience with either the individual or the situation.
But often there is no warning whatsoever as the problem walks through the door unannounced. In either case, the response to the situation may impact upon the ultimate health of the resolution and the employment relationship.
Too much time spent justifying who is right
There is a big problem with the kind of conflict that is escalating in workplaces and the way it is managed. Inordinate amounts of time, money and energy — emotional and otherwise — are spent trying to resolve conflict that is either preventable or containable.
But instead of preventing or containing conflict, time and effort is often spent justifying why one side is right and the other is wrong.
In The Dynamics of Conflict Resolution, Bernard Mayer said people engage in conflict either because they have needs and interests they consider incompatible with someone else’s or they have needs that are met by the conflict process itself. Arguing about right or wrong engages managers in the latter.
To get at resolving the conflict, one has to consider the needs of the people involved. But managers and HR practitioners don’t normally enter conflict situations thinking about their own or the other party’s needs. More often, they react to the way the conflict is presented to them — the emotion, the communication and the information that is presented. And while listening to the other party, they are often planning in their heads the next move to counter what they perceive, at a deeper level, as a personal attack.
Seldom are the real causes of the conflict considered. In fact, conflict may exist for many reasons completely unrelated to either party. The conflict might be caused more because of physical or budget constraints than due to anything that has happened between the two parties. Understanding the underlying causes of conflict can make it easier to discuss the problem.
This assumes, of course, that people are even prepared to enter into the dialogue of conflict. Theorists studying conflict have concluded there are various conflict-handling styles. For example, when presented with a conflict the first reaction often is to avoid. Conflict avoiders ignore the problem until they cannot take it anymore or are forced to deal with it, and then they become competers. Competers continually find themselves in win all or lose all situations. Natural accommodators always say “yes,” but wish they would have said “no” and end up feeling like a doormat with no control.
Once one understands the nature of the conflict, learns to expect conflict and improves one’s ability to use more than one style in conflict, it becomes easier to resolve.
How managers and other leaders handle conflict has a big impact on employee motivation and performance. Mismanaged little problems can quickly become big ones and unnecessary conflict is often the result.
Managers and HR practitioners need to become more conflict competent. To do that, they need a better understanding of the causes of conflict, how it develops in workplaces and within individuals and how to respond to it. Simply put, they need to increase their skills in navigating the greyest of the grey zone.
Rhonda Smith is a lawyer based in Millbrook, Ont. She speaks and trains in labour and employment, performance management and conflict resolution. She can be reached at [email protected] or (705) 932-2436.
That’s because the economy has evolved from valuing manual functioning to prizing cerebral functioning — brain has become far more important than brawn in the knowledge economy. The competitive edge in the 21st century will be gained through innovation of the workforce. Where poor conflict management is allowed to exist, innovation and cerebral capacity — the very things organizations pay most for — are lost and with them goes any potential for a competitive edge.
Therefore it’s critical for any performance management approach to include a mechanism to assist in conflict resolution.
The difference between numbers and people
If HR practitioners and managers are looking for a reason to envy the finance department, it’s this: numbers are, more often that not, easier to deal with than people.
With numbers, four plus four always equals eight. But with people, four plus four almost never adds up to eight in the eyes of two individuals. You can say something to one person and the same thing to someone else, and they walk away with two very different impressions.
Welcome to the grey zone. When dealing with people, things are seldom black and white. Nor do they add up the way one expects or thinks they should. And the navigating tools organizations have developed for dealing with people issues, such as performance management systems and complaint or grievance processes, are only as good as the abilities of the individuals using those systems.
It is one thing to have a formal performance management system in place and quite another to be effective as a manager of performance year round. The first is all about making sure there is structure, opportunity and encouragement for managing performance and the latter is all about doing it well.
People issues usually come at managers and HR practitioners in one of two ways: Either they see something they think needs dealing with or they are presented with something to deal with. When they are initiating the encounter, they may anticipate a conflict because of past experience with either the individual or the situation.
But often there is no warning whatsoever as the problem walks through the door unannounced. In either case, the response to the situation may impact upon the ultimate health of the resolution and the employment relationship.
Too much time spent justifying who is right
There is a big problem with the kind of conflict that is escalating in workplaces and the way it is managed. Inordinate amounts of time, money and energy — emotional and otherwise — are spent trying to resolve conflict that is either preventable or containable.
But instead of preventing or containing conflict, time and effort is often spent justifying why one side is right and the other is wrong.
In The Dynamics of Conflict Resolution, Bernard Mayer said people engage in conflict either because they have needs and interests they consider incompatible with someone else’s or they have needs that are met by the conflict process itself. Arguing about right or wrong engages managers in the latter.
To get at resolving the conflict, one has to consider the needs of the people involved. But managers and HR practitioners don’t normally enter conflict situations thinking about their own or the other party’s needs. More often, they react to the way the conflict is presented to them — the emotion, the communication and the information that is presented. And while listening to the other party, they are often planning in their heads the next move to counter what they perceive, at a deeper level, as a personal attack.
Seldom are the real causes of the conflict considered. In fact, conflict may exist for many reasons completely unrelated to either party. The conflict might be caused more because of physical or budget constraints than due to anything that has happened between the two parties. Understanding the underlying causes of conflict can make it easier to discuss the problem.
This assumes, of course, that people are even prepared to enter into the dialogue of conflict. Theorists studying conflict have concluded there are various conflict-handling styles. For example, when presented with a conflict the first reaction often is to avoid. Conflict avoiders ignore the problem until they cannot take it anymore or are forced to deal with it, and then they become competers. Competers continually find themselves in win all or lose all situations. Natural accommodators always say “yes,” but wish they would have said “no” and end up feeling like a doormat with no control.
Once one understands the nature of the conflict, learns to expect conflict and improves one’s ability to use more than one style in conflict, it becomes easier to resolve.
How managers and other leaders handle conflict has a big impact on employee motivation and performance. Mismanaged little problems can quickly become big ones and unnecessary conflict is often the result.
Managers and HR practitioners need to become more conflict competent. To do that, they need a better understanding of the causes of conflict, how it develops in workplaces and within individuals and how to respond to it. Simply put, they need to increase their skills in navigating the greyest of the grey zone.
Rhonda Smith is a lawyer based in Millbrook, Ont. She speaks and trains in labour and employment, performance management and conflict resolution. She can be reached at [email protected] or (705) 932-2436.
