Hard-hitting advice

Workplace conflict costs UK businesses an eye-watering £24 billion a year, according to the EEF, with some line managers spending more than a day a week tackling associated issues such as sickness absence, grievances and litigation. That makes effective management of conflict a pressing business issue. But before you can manage it, you must first understand what it is. So what is the definition of workplace conflict? Essentially, it arises when someone insists that they are right and you are wrong, or vice versa. So, a basic component of conflict is opposition. Kevan Hall, CEO of consultant Global Integration, puts it like this: "We all have disagreements – we'd be fairly flat businesses if we didn't – but it's when it takes on an emotional component and people feel they are being disadvantaged that disagreement can turn into conflict. Therefore, it's very often more about style than content." Workplace conflict can take many forms. For the Arbitration and Conciliation Service, it may be that two workers simply don't get on; or that an individual has a grievance against their manager: "Conflict may take the form of rivalry between teams; or it may be apparent by the lack of trust and co-operation between large groups of employees and management." Conflict at work can provoke a range of behaviours from sulking at one end of the spectrum to physical violence at the other. However, Hall believes there are basically two types of conflict in a business setting: "One is about what it is we are supposed to be doing, so what is our strategy and what are our goals? Those really should be resolved at senior leadership level although they often do permeate down through the organisation. "The second and more serious type of conflict is probably about how goals should be achieved. When you get down further into the organisation, that is where all the different agendas, different functional views, different ways of doing things and style issues tend to kick in." Unresolved conflict is bad. It can spread like an infection, generating tension and producing factions. The Unite Union points out that it can also result in poor workplace morale, lower motivation, health issues such as stress and depression, poor performance and reduced output, and damage to the reputation of the organisation. But the consequences don't end there. As Penny Cole, national mediation lead at the EEF, explains: "You can also end up with inverse bullying. If, for example, there is a conflict between a manager and a team member, you tend to get team members cultivating allies. Managers can feel hamstrung "You then see subtle behaviours that can render the manager impotent to do their job. Managers in this situation can feel hamstrung because the organisation is expecting them to manage. However, they can't admit they are unable to manage and this can affect their health and career as well as business performance." Resolving conflict saves time and effort. It also saves costs in terms of productivity and it can lead to savings in terms of not drawing on sickness benefits or having to pay for substitute staff. However, Hall cautions, the last thing a business should do is to prevent conflict from happening altogether. "There is always a certain level of conflict in organisations and the mistake is to try and smooth it over. As long as you have the skills and processes in place to resolve conflict, it can be healthy." Cole agrees: "Conflict can be a trigger for change and can be creative if used positively... Inviting views on change can bring conflict out and that, perhaps, is where privately held views on what is right and wrong about an organisation can be aired, and a healthy dialogue can emerge." Nonetheless, conflict does need to be managed to prevent it from getting out of hand. The signs of conflict on the shopfloor vary from the blatant (for example, black eyes and bleeding noses) to the subtle (including irritability and passive aggressive behaviour). One clue to a developing conflict might be speaking in the past tense – "How come you didn't…", "Last Tuesday you promised you would…", "You said this was going to happen and it did not…" When we speak in the past tense we are often fixing blame. Sam Imperati, of the Institute for Conflict Management in the US, says: "You have a choice – fix the blame or fix the problem; build a relationship or build a case against your opponent." He believes we are socialised to come up with arguments that support our position – the 'facts', laws or policies designed to convince our opponents that we are right and they are wrong. However, the discussion can quickly degenerate as we to present our arguments in an increasing order of stupidity and absurdity. Imperati explains: "I start with my very best argument. You, my opponent, start with your very best argument. I give you my second best argument, you give me your second best argument. I see your second best argument and I raise you a third, you see my third and raise the fourth. Eventually, we are throwing arguments against the wall in hopes that they stick." This is the debate model: Position, argument, position, argument – winner, loser. As Imperati says: "It is the judicial way; if I am to win then you must lose." However, although this may be an effective way to settle disputes, it won't necessarily resolve them and that, for Imperati, is part of the problem: "A good settlement is when both sides walk away equally unhappy. It's not durable, it's going to come back to haunt us. The goal should be to fix the problem; what you need is a resolution." A resolution is when you walk away with your underlying personal and business needs reasonably satisfied. But how can it be achieved? One technique is to explore the issues rather than merely debating them. This four-stage process deals with both the emotion and logic in any conflict: - Validate – Validate your 'opponent' for talking to you even though you might disagree with the substance of what he or she is saying. "That's hard to hear, but I appreciate you putting it on the table and telling me straight to my face." - Empathise – Build a rapport with your 'opponent'. "This situation is confusing, frustrating and problematic, but let's fix it together." - Clarify – Ask open-ended questions designed to get the person with whom you are in conflict to talk. "Tell me more about what you want to see at work in the future." - Summarise – Repeat to your 'opponent's' satisfaction what he or she has said. "So, to clarify, am I right in thinking that you believe..." Managing the emotion and the logic Throughout this process, it important not to avoid stating your own position. The validation and empathising helps manage the emotion in the conflict, the clarification and summary manage the logic. Another technique advocated by Imperati is what he calls the 'umbrella question'. He offers this real-life example: "A company I dealt with operated a flexitime system for a number of years and then they took it away. They articulated the reasons, but there was gnashing of teeth, with the employees wanting to maintain flexible working. "However, the question was not 'flexitime – yes or no?' It was 'how can we ensure shift coverage while also respecting the need to plan personal lives, thereby meeting financial objectives and the fair distribution of work?' "With an umbrella question you simply fill in the blanks. How can you address the needs of your opponent while at the same time fulfilling your own needs, thereby satisfying what you have in common?" A third technique involves 'reframing' the issue causing the conflict. US mediator, writer and speaker William Ury tells this story to illustrate the idea: "The subject of difficult negotiation reminds me of one of my favourite stories from the Middle East of a man who left to his three sons 17 camels. To the first son he left half the camels, to the second son he left a third of the camels and to the youngest son he left a ninth of the camels." The three sons, so the story goes, got into a negotiation – 17 doesn't divide by two, it doesn't divide by three and it doesn't divide by nine. As a result, fraternal patience started to fray. Finally, in desperation, the brothers consulted a wise old woman. Ury takes up the story: "She thought about their problem for a while and finally she came back and said: 'Well, I don't know if I can help you, but, at least, if you want, you can have my camel.' "So then they had 18 camels. The first son took his half – half of 18 is nine. The second son took his third – a third of 18 is six. The youngest son took his ninth – a ninth of 18 is two. In total, that's 17. They had one camel left over so they gave it back to the wise old woman." Useful websites - ACAS – http://bit.ly/1ji3HfF - CIPD – http://bit.ly/1bdLbNl - EEF – http://bit.ly/1jnUgsB - UCL – http://bit.ly/1bdNfVE Five tips to forestall factory floor fisticuffs 1 Discover what people need rather than what they want. Needs can almost always be met whereas wants will probably require compromise. 2 Blaming, criticising negatively and complaining tend to undermine morale so confront them as soon as they arise. 3 Kevan Hall at Global Integration uses a four-stage model to resolve conflict: - Recognise and acknowledge that the conflict is happening by making it explicit. - Understand the differences by providing a forum where you can explore what the conflict is about and why it has arisen. Check for understanding by summarising, wherever possible using their words, not yours. - Create a shared purpose, by looking for areas of agreement on which to build. - Build and deliver agreement. This involves answering the question: What are we going to do differently in the future to ensure this doesn't happen again? If you are leading the process, you need to check to ensure the agreements are being delivered. 4 The EEF's Penny Cole says that mediation – the intervention of somebody who is impartial – can be valuable because "it can help people understand the consequences of failure to agree, or bring out hidden agendas". 5 Habits to avoid include talking too much, listening out for disagreements rather than agreements, failing to ask open-ended questions, making decisions during the conflict, and getting the balance wrong between emotion and logic. Addressing these errors will help you find a way through the conflict.