Turning friction and conflict into learning. (This is the first of two articles on the topic)

For most people in the workplace, incidents of low-level conflict or friction are something that occur in the course of trying to get something done and which impact adversely on others or interfere with what others have in mind/are trying to make happen.  These incidents may include the raising of sensitive issues, criticism of ideas or proposals, communicating unwelcome information, reacting to non-verbal behaviour that offends or trying to bring about change that others may not like.  Left unattended the tensions that arise can lead to communication or relationship breakdowns and escalate into other kinds of disruption or destructive behaviour. 

Most find themselves balancing the need to get things done with the need to maintain good working relationships.  Push hard on the task achievement and the relationship may suffer, back off on achieving your agenda in favour of maintaining cooperative relationships and goal achievement may suffer.  Can we do both?  In theory, yes, in practice it is challenging. It demands commitment to key values, considerable awareness, and ability to learn-in-the-moment (learn in the midst of action).

Clark and Myers (see book review) frame incidents of low-level conflict or friction as difficult conversations and suggest they have recurrent features, including baggage from the past that is difficult to put aside, issues that are too sensitive to discuss in an open way, people's experience of bullying or sense of threat, evasion of the difficult issues, or disruption/ subversion to prevent their discussion.  In relation to these recurrent features they suggest that the most fundamental challenge is to make 'discussable' those difficult, thorny or sensitive issues and to do so in a way that is acceptable to all parties.  No small challenge, but making issues discussable creates the possibility of dialogue and learning conversations which enable people to achieve goals in a way which maintains good working relationships. 

When we notice negative feelings such as stress, anger, frustration, fear, anxiety, grief, etc., they tell us that interests may be under threat, needs are not being met, values are being violated or beliefs are being challenged.  They are our 'alert' that we are entering perilous territory and a warning of the need to proceed carefully if we are to avoid or handle well the pitfalls (recurring features) we so often encounter when dealing with friction and conflict and so we achieve the positive outcomes we desire.

In a previous article I discussed the formula S + P + R => O. S, P, R and O represent Situation, internal Processing, behavioural Response and Outcomes respectively.   The situation (S) can often be outside of our direct control. But our awareness and the way we think and feel (P) reflects how we deal with friction and conflict, determines our behaviour (R) and, to a significant extent, influences the outcomes (0) we achieve.  So enhancing our capacity to process internally (to be able to learn-in-the-moment) greatly increases the likelihood of satisfactory outcomes when we are dealing with difficult conversations, with friction and conflict.

However, enhanced ability to process internally will not improve our ability to generate sustainable outcomes (goal achievement and good working relationships) unless we are also committed to some key values that underpin the process of learning-in-the-moment.  These include: (a) Surfacing and questioning any relevant assumptions, (b) Promoting partnership, and (c) Exchanging all relevant information.  These key value commitments are then expanded into the kinds of behaviour needed to implement them.

(a) Questioning assumptions

Surfacing and identifying assumptions may be the most important of the three, but all are necessary and interdependent and one without the others will not work effectively.  Assumptions work so swiftly, and often outside our awareness, it is hard to recognise that/when we are making them.  As a rule of thumb, whenever we use words like, "is, isn't, will, won't, always, never, must, shouldn't, do, don't", and so on, this can be taken to indicate that an assumption is operating.  Assumptions often look like facts/the truth to us rather than inferences, interpretations or partial truths.  For example, we may assume that when someone turns back when they see us coming that they are avoiding us, when they may just have forgotten something.  Unless we recognise and question our assumptions we close ourselves off from options/behaviour that are outside those assumptions.  E.g. if we assume that a conflict can only be sorted if one side gives in to the other then we close off the possibility of negotiating a mutually acceptable agreement.

Besides recognition, separating assumption from observation or suspending assumptions and testing alternative assumptions can help us re-evaluate our assumptions.  What did I observe as distinct from infer, conclude or believe? Is there any evidence to suggest that my assumption is not true? How else might I interpret my observations?  E.g. if we question the common assumption that admitting a mistake weakens our position, we open new ways of building trust and learning from experience..

(b) Promoting partnership

During friction and conflict we often focus on trying to achieve our  own goals and trying to manage the conversation unilaterally.  When we try to steer the conversation or strategically withhold information to advance our preferred goals this is not real partnership even if it includes doing what we think is good for the other person.  Partnership is not just about achieving outcomes that both parties agree with, it is also about sharing decision-making about how the interaction is managed.  E.g. unilaterally deciding that certain information might be painful for the other party to hear so you decide not to tell them without finding out what they would like.  Not only does hiding unilateral decisions disrespect other parties right to decide, they may also reduce access to points of view that would cause us to question our assumptions, thereby limiting our processing and options for learning and resolution.

Committing to and promoting genuine partnership demands that we inquire into and respect others needs and perspectives.  Shared decisions regarding content and process make it more likely that we will create more mutually acceptable ways forward than we could achieve were we unilaterally managing the interaction.  Jointly managing the process of interaction in a transparent manner makes it more likely that difficult and sensitive issues will be addressed in a way that is discussable and mutually acceptable to all parties.  Each person's perspective continues to inform the others' and the continual checking, prompted by the alert - the experience of negative feelings on either side - will ensure that the balance required by partnership is maintained and learning in-the-moment continues to inform progress.

(c) Exchanging relevant information

The way we exchange or do not exchange information is closely linked to the commitment to partnership.  Particularly when we assume the situation is "us against them" as win/loose or competitive, we tend to be strategic or tactical as to what relevant information we will share or withhold in order to gain most advantage.  When we commit to genuine partnership we commit to sharing all relevant information to other parties so that a full and shared understanding of the issues or situation can be generated as a basis for progress.  Anything less may lead to a breach of trust and a return to breakdown of communication or relationship when it is discovered.  Withholding relevant information also makes it less likely that relevant assumptions will be recognised and questioned and that all worthwhile options are considered.

Parties need to have access to all relevant information here including facts, views, concerns, feelings, reasoning process, concerns, wishes, perceived constraints and pressures, etc: not just what is believed to be expedient.  Sharing of all relevant information creates considerable vulnerability among parties risking exploitation by the other as well as maximising the learning potential and achievement of resolution.  However, such disclosure is unlikely to happen in the absence of the trust brought about by commitment to genuine partnership.   The three commitments are all interdependent in this way, one building on the other and all three need to be combined to achieve the "discuss-ability" needed for learning, progress and resolution.

Forms of speech: The Language we use, both verbal and non-verbal, is critical in communicating our commitment and in rendering difficult and sensitive issues discussable, especially in the emotionally volatile context of friction and conflict.  A core balance that needs to be struck is between the language of Advocacy and that of Inquiry - a distinction common to much theory and practice of dialogue.  The way we use both these forms of speech can enhance discussability or inhibit learning and progress, and reflects the extent to which we are committed to spirit and enactment of the three values.

Advocacy is the making of statements that indicate our views, perspectives, desires, evaluations, emotions, internal processing, and so on and is closely related to both the commitment to sharing information.  Inquiry refers to the questions and attempts to discover the other parties views, concerns, problems, reasoning, etc and is closely related to the commitment to partnership in the first instance.

Poor advocacy lacks transparency and does not make all relevant facts, feelings, wishes, conclusions, reasoning and so on available to other parties rendering them unable to evaluate the information they are being given or to determine its significance or validity.  Long rolling speeches that result in information overload, or that force the other to listen for too long, is also considered to be poor advocacy, as is advocacy without inquiry (a request to the other party for their response to the information or views shared) and both also violate the commitment to partnership.

Poor inquiry includes asking questions that are not genuine, or asking rhetorical or leading questions.  These imply that we are not really interested in discovering the other person's views, concerns, feelings, responses etc.  Poor inquiry can also refer to asking lots of questions where we do not tell the other party why we are asking these questions - inquiry without advocacy.  Such behaviour does not disclose our agenda and does not model or encourage the open sharing of information and may even provoke defensiveness and therefore undermine learning and progress.

Open advocacy entails sharing all relevant information in discussable form and taking the time to discover the other party's response to our advocacy.  Open inquiry requires that we ask genuine questions that offer the other party the opportunity to share their perspective and makes clear the reason for our inquiry.  The interplay of both enhances the likelihood that we make our conflicts discussable in a way that is acceptable to all parties and that we progress and learn from them.