Leadership Academy: Managing Conflict

Kevin Webster

PART I

I decided to take this survey myself and give it to my wife to see how her reactions and
perceptions differed from my own. We ended up having the same top two styles, but we
differed in their rank. I rated myself as Dominating and Avoiding while she ranked me as
Avoiding and Dominating. At least we agree that I can be a bit bipolar when it comes to
my reactions to conflict. I can see how the inconsistency of these opposite reactions
would make others uneasy. While both can be appropriate in different instances, neither
is ideal in most circumstances.

I can see how a dominating or aggressive attitude would work with a very hierarchical
organization and can allow the leader to make his opinion or viewpoint heard and
followed. I think that avoiding conflict can be the best option when you are in a low-
importance conflict where the outcome isnt important or when a cooling off period might
be necessary to think clearly. Thats why I think I use it. My natural reaction is to be very
aggressive and argumentative but in an attempt to keep my emotions under control, I
may shut down and become very passive.

I understand that this aggression can be very harmful to a team dynamic and can lead
to hurt feelings. This aggression might force others to compromise if I overpower them.
Avoiding can be a problem when a decision is necessary since it tends to postpone any
final decision making. By being passive, my opinions might not be heard and I may end
up being resentful of any decision the group makes without my input.

I think my wife ranked me higher in the passive category because its often the strategy
I take in our personal arguments. There are times when I value preserving the
relationship more than anything else, so I tend to roll over and let my wife dominate
the conflict.

I think the best way that I can be more effective in interpersonal conflict is by doing a
better job of expressing my viewpoints, then letting others do the same. Its not an all-or-
nothing game where there has to be one winner and one loser. Compromise is
appropriate in many situations. Being able to collaborate is an even better option to
allow all parties feel like theyve come out ahead with their needs met.

I think that I can be dismissive of others ideas when attempting to reach a compromise.
My desire for control can get in the way. By taking a step back and seeing the bigger
picture, I can do a better job of understanding someone elses viewpoint and learn to
identify where our goals converge.

PART II

For this section, I selected the situation where the construction crew chief suspects one
of his workers is doing drugs. In this case, the response that I thought I would truthfully
take was to talk to the worker and remind him that what he does on his own time is his
business, but while hes at work, its my business. I think that my libertarian viewpoint is
what guided this answer the most. I think it also fits into my passive aggressive
tendencies where I may address problems indirectly. I think this choice respects the
privacy of the worker and the choices he makes outside of work.

As the boss, its my responsibility to keep the welfare of the team in mind. Its not ideal
to micromanage every decision one of my employees makes. I can see that this might
turn into a problem that I have to address more than once. Perhaps this conversation
shocks some sense into the worker, but as happens all too often in addictions, a relapse
is on the horizon. By not addressing the concern directly, I might also face denial or
excuse making by my worker.

I think an effective follow-up might be to bring this worker in to talk (on a different day
when hes not high) to try to understand the motivation behind his drug usage. Perhaps
hes going through a messy divorce and could benefit from talking to the companys
mental health counsellor. Maybe hes addicted and wants to quit, but he needs
additional support to know that his job is waiting for him when he gets out of rehab.
Maybe he was hurt on the job and is using drugs to try to mask the pain and keep up his
productivity. Until I understand my employees point of view, any conclusion I reach may
simply be a personal judgment. I ranked the completely passive option as the least
effective since ignoring the problem may endanger my crew. It is usually only more
helpful to gather additional evidence when Im trying to make a case against him to
HR. I should be rooting for the success of my team members, not looking for ways to
get them fired.

PART III

I think that some degree of conflict is essential for all high performing teams. If there is a
team with absolutely no disagreement or conflict, it would be hard to say that groupthink
hasnt grabbed hold of the team members. I dont think that a good interchange of ideas
can take place without at least the occasional argument. I can say from personal
experience that teams where there is an interplay between team members produce the
most unique and well thought out ideas.

One specific example that comes to mind was my assigned team in the Organizational
Behavior in the first quarter of the MBA program. We had to work together through a
simulation where each team member had different priorities and goals. We reached a
point when there was no clear-cut solution and were divided on how to proceed. We
started by explaining our rationale and worked to understand the opposing viewpoint.
Both sides understood the opposing viewpoint but the disagreement continued. In the
end one side seemed to overpower the other with their enthusiastic conviction, and the
other side acquiesced. Thinking back on the conflict, a compromise would have been
difficult to impossible to reach.

Of the six tactics outlined in the article, the one that I use and think is most valuable is to
focus on the facts. I think that you can spend too much time gathering data, but it is
essential to have data to base decisions on truth rather than opinions. Arguing over
assumptions or thoughts on a topic is unproductive when data will solve the
disagreement. If two leaders are reviewing the same facts and figures, there may still be
disagreement about the best way to solve a problem, but not about the problem itself.

Another tactic that goes hand in hand with fact-based decisions is to create common
goals. I liked the Steve Jobs quote about the different discussing the best way to get to
San Francisco as opposed to discussing the best way to get to San Francisco or San
Diego. If there are implicit goals in the organizations culture or explicit goals in the task,
it is best when everyone is on the same page regarding them. When group members
secretly vie for personal or departmental goals instead of the group goal, it can be
nearly impossible to reach a consensus. One example of when Ive employed this
strategy in a school group setting is when completing an assignment. Even though wed
like the workload to be equally shared among all members, we understand that we have
the common goal to complete the assignment and earn a good grade. With this
objective in mind, individuals may be more willing to pick up the slack for others when
required.

When conflict does arise, I think its essential for the manager/group leader to referee
the discussion (or appoint someone with this task). This way we can make sure that
everyones ideas are heard and appropriately considered. While we might never reach
it, we should strive for egalitarianism. As an individual contributor, I think its essential to
remain professional. If the conflict turns personal, tempers flare and productivity
declines. Personal quips can also damage future team tasks as team members refuse
to work with certain other members. Individuals also must listen intently, work to
understand the others point of view, and thoughtful consider the merits of the other
sides argument. I have been caught in the trap before to simply argue because I want
my suggestion to be honored, regardless if it the best idea or not.

In our culture, we generally strive to keep emotion out of professional conflicts, but
human nature often steps in and takes hold. Individuals may feel personally attacked if
their ideas are not being considered or team members may feel as if they are fighting
each other when really they are fighting for the same common goal. Emotions may be
constructive in a conflict by helping individuals to rate the level of importance of the
argument itself. Perhaps if there is little personal interest (and little emotion behind the
discussion) an individual is more likely to compromise or acquiesce to the others
perspective. When multiple people are very passionate on a subject, perhaps additional
time is needed to consider options or gather more data before reaching a conclusion.

PART IV

I think the largest source of conflict are from interpersonal disputes. In my experience,
peoples emotions and egos come into play all too easily and quickly. I think its through
trial and error and experience that we learn how to leave our emotions outside of
professional disagreements at work or school. I think this is the largest difference
between my undergrad and MBA experience with team assignments. After experience
in the business world, MBA students have obtained a certain amount of interpersonal
conflict resolution, so they are able to come to the table better prepared to interact with
others professionally. This being said, we still let our emotions and egos get the best of
us. We have troubles juggling work, school, and personal lives, so tempers may flair.
When theres a disagreement, and outside stress is present, its easy to let our
emotions take charge.

That said, task oriented conflicts will come up. One such example was in my first
elective Creativity. My team managed to keep interpersonal conflicts to a minimum,
but we disagreed on multiple occasions regarding the amount of creativity wed
demonstrate. Should we stay more on the practical or the outlandish side of things?
While we had differing opinions to this basic question, the discussion that followed often
led us to a better solution than we had previously imagined. We would begin to
compromise and meet somewhere in the middle, finding an idea that was original but
marketable. We did find that our conflicts were the crucible for creative solutions.
While conflicts might not always have this positive outcome, in our situation, we were
able to multiply our ideas and find something great.

I do think that conflict can be the crucible for creative solutions but I think this primarily
applies with task-oriented conflict. When personalities clash, its hard to imagine that
something good will come from it. Perhaps this is part of why I think that more conflict
arises from interpersonal problems. These are the conflicts that often dont have a
beneficial outcome, so they come to mind more readily. When theres a disagreement
over a specific task, I have been able to help bring together everyones ideas and create
the gestalt effect.

PART V

While the conflict Im going to describe wont rival the Hatfields and McCoys, it is a
disagreement that has come up during my internship. One project Im currently working
on is a PowerPoint presentation that will be presented at an upcoming board meeting.
Given the high visibility of this presentation, and the more experienced audience, I
wanted to create something that was very restrained and sophisticated. I began with a
subtle dark background and based the color scheme on the corporate colors. When I
showed the first draft of the first few slides to my boss, she asked for ideas to make it
pop. I described various effects that I could achieve and her eyes lit up. I could see
that what she wanted was a flashy PowerPoint with lots of animation. Although I
disagreed with her perspective, I conceded. After I made it glitzier, she loved it. When
she showed our progress to her boss (who will be giving the presentation) he said it was
too gaudy and wasnt appropriate for the audience. He then gave some direction how to
tone it down. The problem was that since he saw the glitzy version, even with his
suggestions, we ended up with a subtle flashiness (if there is such a thing). I think that
had my boss presented my original presentation to the SVP, he would have appreciated
it and made fewer changes. I continue to concede to my superiors, and do my best to
produce their vision, but we my boss and I still have a fundamental disagreement in the
overall feel of the presentation.

I created an online word cloud to show the words that come to mind about this
presentation conflict.



My honest reaction regarding this conflict is that I wish that my boss had simply
respected my professional opinion and allowed me to create the presentation I
envisioned. We have kept professional interpersonal dealing throughout this conflict, so
this has been able to remain a task-oriented conflict. Should the presentation be flashier
or more subtle? I can catastrophize the situation and say that if the presentation isnt
perfect, people will lose their jobs, but in all honesty, I realize that whether we ended up
with my vision, her vision, or anything in between, the presentation will be successful.
We both agree that the content is solid. Changing the style of it will have very little cost
if our conflict is not resolved. We both simply want the presentation to reflect well on our
department and to communicate the data to the board members.

I think Id have to label my reaction thus far as accommodating. Even though I disagree
with my boss viewpoint, it is most important for me to respect our power structure, so I
am conceding. I think given the situation, this is an appropriate response to the conflict.
Ideally, if we were on a more equal levels, we would be able to be collaborative and
incorporate the best aspects of both of our ideas to come out with a better presentation
than either of us would have created on our own. We both have valuable opinions and
experiences. The real collaboration is most likely to take place between my boss and
her boss. It is my responsibility to help create the vision theyve set forth.


PART VI

The most important concept that Ive picked up during this module is the idea that
different conflict management styles may be appropriate in different situations, and its
ideal to find the one that will allow you to be most effective. In a conflict, I think its a
good habit to think of what you want to accomplish and the possible effect on the
relationship itself. Perhaps a dominating style is the best to get your way in a situation,
but if it comes at the peril of the relationship, maybe avoiding or accommodating would
be preferable.

I think the best way to strengthen a relationship during a conflict is through
collaboration. By working together, you can gain a greater insight into what makes the
other person tick plus you can (hopefully) end up with better results than if other
concessions had been made. Collaboration can also create buy-in for yourself and
other group members, which can be essential to increase engagement during a project.

Below I tried to create a flowchart to identify which of the general styles might be most
appropriate. Its imperfect and oversimplified, but I think it can be a guide when there
might be a question.