How to Resolve Conflicts

"Conflict is a natural consequence of human interaction. Put two or more individuals together for a significant period of time, and a difference of opinion is likely to arise.  When individuals clash, they can become so concerned with defending their viewpoints that they stop communicating. This isn't to say that disagreements can't be productive. They can generate constructive dialogues, from which new ideas are developed and implemented. However, when conflicts impede change and destroy the sense of teamwork within your group, you need to know how to manage them."

• Find common goals. Remind the parties of their common mission. Stay away from personality issues. Rather, ask the individuals to review their goals and focus solely on common or compatible ones. Once the goals have been identified, the group can move on to discuss how these goals can be shared.

• Identify the source of the conflict between team members. The more information you have about the disagreement, the more you can help resolve it.

• Gain commitment. Goals may be shared, but the preferred means of reaching them may vary. You want to reach a consensus on the best way to move toward achieving the shared objectives.

• Exercise professional courtesy. Brusque demands can only be alienating. Worse, hostility can become infectious, affecting all the members of the team.

• Look beyond the incident. It isn't always the situation but the parties' perspective of the situation that causes the anger to fester and may ultimately lead to a shouting match or other visible-and disruptive-evidence of a conflict.

• Find a basis for agreement. Team members may not agree with each other's viewpoint, but they need some starting point for discussion. Have them acknowledge a difference in opinion and seek ways to close the gap in thinking or otherwise eliminate the differences between them.

• Confront the issue privately. If you must confront a team member, customer or vendor, do so in private. Raised voices have no place in a work setting. But this does not mean that you let poor performance or lack of cooperation from another continue.

• Avoid hostility by reframing the conversation. Communicate with care. This is especially important when dealing with people who have had past disagreements. Advise them not to open the door to further disagreements by being either invasive or unnaturally friendly.

• Accentuate the positive. When you see evidence of positive performance from an employee who can be difficult to work with, acknowledge it as such. Let your team member know that such collaborative performance is appreciated.

• Clear the air. Talk in a frank but non-threatening manner. Talking with team members with whom there have been personality conflicts may enable them to put an end to further conflicts. Even if they just agree to disagree on a matter, it may be enough to end a disruptive conflict.

PASS

• A leader who solicits feedback. Raj began by asking his teammate Kevin for feedback about how he could improve as a project manager. Soliciting feedback from others is a great method for leaders to gain insight about how they are affecting others.
   

• A clear vision. Raj led with a clear vision for the remodel of the home. His vision was to knock out a wall upstairs and consolidate two bedrooms into one larger bedroom. Unfortunately, it was a real estate mistake, and therefore the wrong vision, but I give Raj credit for providing his team with a clear picture of what he wanted and standing by it.
   

• Understanding the leadership role. Sandy, project manager for Mosaic, understood that her time on the project needed to be devoted to directing, managing and supervising the project instead of being a "worker bee." She wisely and successfully fulfilled her functions as the leader and didn't get sucked into the trap of diverting her energy and attention to specific task work that she could delegate.

  FAIL

• Master the fundamentals of the game.  Football teams win by mastering the fundamentals. Raj, who had a background in real estate, lacked the basic understanding that additional bedrooms add value to a home. He also failed to hire the right contractor to complete the job on time, and Raj should have hedged against that possibility by tying his payment to completion of the job on time. These are fundamental rules of the real estate game. Raj failed to execute the winning play because he failed at fundamentals.
   

• Don't let ownership cloud your decision-making process.  Raj was highly influenced by Kevin in selecting the contractor. Instead of using his own judgment to evaluate the relative potential of the contractor candidate, he allowed Kevin's ownership in selecting the candidate and Kevin's pride in "thinking out of the box" to influence his decision. Ownership of an idea is a powerful driver of personal behavior and groupthink. The emotion behind ownership can overpower judgment and common sense.
   

• What criteria are you using to make that decision?  The most critical decision of the entire project was the hiring of the contractor. Instead of being a critical evaluator utilizing a defined set of selection criteria, Raj selected the contractor based only on Kevin's recommendation. He should have had a list of criteria including but not limited to having several strong referrals and a labor force sufficient to complete the job on time.
   

• What is the contingency plan?  Raj knew from the get-go about the potential risk of his contractor not performing, stating that it was commonplace for a contractor to fail to meet commitments. His fears were realized throughout this project. With less than two hours until the appraisers arrived and no appliances installed, the contractor munched a taco instead of hustling to complete the job. Yet, Raj still failed to develop a contingency plan and, as a result, the project was not completed on time.

  In contrast, Mosaic had a contingency plan. Midway through their project, Andy smartly realized the original contractor was in trouble and they would need additional resources to complete the job. He saves the day (yet again) by hiring an additional contractor. The result was a picture-perfect remodeled home ready for the inspection
   

• Trust your instincts.  Raj should have trusted his instincts and intuition about the contractor. Raj knew he was in trouble before he started by allowing himself to be placated by Kevin's emphatic endorsement of the contractor. Leaders need to pay attention to their own internal cues. Self-awareness and trusting one's intuition are business basics. Intuition has been defined as "logic working at warp speed." Not listening to your intuition can have disastrous results.
   

• There's no crying in the boardroom.  Sandy, project manager for Mosaic, broke down in tears in the middle of the project when she realized they were behind. Personal authority, which is at the heart of leadership, is lost when leaders lose control of their emotions. Followers need leaders who can provide order and protection. Everyone's trust and faith in a leader is shaken on a team when the leader breaks down in tears. Can you imagine a quarterback crying on the field just before a critical play?
   

• Here we go again -- keep your mouth shut in the boardroom.  Trump has thrown out, chastised, and fired previous candidates for voicing unsolicited opinions in the boardroom. After Trump told the Apex team to leave, Chris declared: "The chemistry is horrible on this team. We will be defeated again next week."

  Trump responded just as expected; he snarled that he will be watching Chris closely as project manager next week. Chris succeeded in becoming Trump's next target by opening his big mouth and displaying disloyalty. Now, the pressure is on him to demonstrate that he can come up with solutions to fix his team instead of just complaining. But who is going to follow and trust a negative leader who has displayed open disloyalty to his team?

  Ivana made the same mistake. She has been called into the boardroom enough times to know better. (Can you believe she is still a candidate?) Unsolicited by Trump, she opened her mouth and lobbed one last stink bomb at Stacie J., who Trump had been praising for her good work on the project. Trump, however, didn't buy what Ivana was selling. He nailed her, barking back, "Why are you so nasty?" Great question. Emotional intelligence and self-awareness are not strong suits of Ivana. Ivana is a fly in the ointment and continually fails to separate business from personal issues. She consistently injects negative energy into the team. As the sideline referee, I would thrown her out of the game on a personal foul. Personal attacks are counterproductive and can severely impact a team's performance.

MAUREEN MORIARTY
SPECIAL TO THE SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER