How do we deal with friction and conflict in our organisations currently?

It is a common perception that organisations primarily deal with conflict in order to avoid been taken to court and risk having outcomes which may not be in their interest imposed by an external agency.   The cost of fighting legal claims and the potential damage to image and brand are added motivation to deal with friction and conflict internally.  So how do organisations deal with friction and conflict, what support do organisations provide, and can the way conflict is handled add other kinds of value to the organisation beyond self-protection?

Organisational culture is reflected in how things are done, values, dominant beliefs and behaviour - cultural norms if you like.  Research suggests that managers predominantly tend to use force based on their positional power rather than collaborative strategies to resolve interpersonal and structural conflicts, with poor results at least 50% of the time.  These strategies tend to be driven by expediency and pressure rather than preference. Collaborative problem solving, though used to a far lesser extent, tends to produce mainly positive results.  Avoidance strategies produce predominantly poor results while compromise strategies, although also not often used, produce better results than forcing.  Curiously, though perhaps unsurprisingly, accommodation strategies barely get a look in.

While anecdotal evidence widely reflects this hierarchical culture and autocratic way of dealing with conflict, individual managers may differ based on the importance of the issue, time constraints, relative power and the importance of the relationship.  Excellent managers tend to adapt their strategy according to what is needed rather than imposing their preferred strategy in all situations. Employees are influenced by similar factors but, as one would expect, there is a far greater predominance of accommodating, avoidant and compromising strategies, particularly where power differentials are not in their favour.  Some organisational cultures are exceptional and reflect more open and egalitarian patterns of dealing with conflict.

The values of the organisation reflect its culture e.g. how it deals with conflict and in particular what kind of support for dealing with friction and conflict it invests in. What the organisation spends money on in relation to friction and conflict - the type of processes it supports and develops - gives strong messages about what is valued and seen as important.  Regrettably, the support offered by many organisations for dealing with conflict it tends to be for the formal processes and procedures, e.g. grievance or disciplinary procedures that deal with poor performance and inappropriate behaviour and these are usually adversarial in nature.  These support dealing with conflict in the later stages of escalation and in an adversarial manner both of which tend to be costly and ineffective.  Perhaps not the best message!

Managers are expected to be able to deal with friction and conflict.  The lucky ones may have received limited training in this regard.  However, being seen to be in conflict or having conflict in one's team is usually seen as a sign of incompetence that one does not advertise.  The tendency is therefore to hide or avoid or use ones positional authority to impose a solution.  Where do they look for support?

In general, most of the organisational support given (usually provided by Human Resources backed up by legal services) is aimed towards helping managers maintain control and sustain productivity within a high level of concern for legal constraints. This support is typically of a self-protective, legalistic nature. Unfortunately, when conflict has escalated to the level that formal support is requested by managers or employees, it is often too late to avoid damaging consequences to the parties, to relationships and/or to the business.

Staff, more often than not, have to rely on self or peer support that is usually informal, or from a trade union that is culturally more geared to fighting for terms and conditions of employment than improving relationships or productivity. This support, though valuable, is usually informal, given by people who have little experience in dealing with conflict, or from those with an adversarial industrial relations mindset. Most staff therefore tend to keep a low profile, minimise friction and conflict and keep it hidden for fear of making things worse.  In some organisations equality/ diversity or employee assistance programmes, coaching and counselling has been beneficial for staff, but many offering these services do not have specialist expertise in working with conflict though they may be able to offer help with basic communication skills.

It is mostly the case that there is little formal support for either staff or management who prefer not to go down a formal or adversarial route. This tends to result in friction and conflict being suppressed, brushed under the carpet or avoided with damaging consequences for the relationships, morale and productivity. Of course there are some individuals who have developed the capability to deal openly and constructively with friction and conflict but they tend to be the minority if not a rarity in many organisations.  There is a reliance on informal counselling and untrained mediation to fill the gap in support for dealing with conflict in its early stages.

Organisations tend to over-rely on avoidance or suppression of conflict.  When conflict will not go away they tend to use arbitration by those with authority and power to resolve conflict thereby encouraging dependence rather than staff responsibility. In some organisational cultures task is sacrificed in favour of maintaining harmonious relationships while in others the relationships are often sacrificed in favour of achievement of the task.  But we know that effective management of conflict and sustainable work practices require both task and relationship are valued equally. 

We also know that early recognition of friction and conflict is essential for effective management and resolution.  However, too often, it is almost as if friction and conflict is not seen as significant or serious enough if it has not escalated to a crisis or raised at a formal level of grievance or disciplinary.  Ergo it can be ignored and the issues marginalized. The 'stinking rhino' remains under the table but cannot be discussed so everyone suffers until it is no longer bearable and valuable staff resign or the conflict remerges as a fully blown crisis.

In short, too many organisations still use ways of dealing with friction and conflict that do not serve them well and that lead to adversarial encounters and damaging outcomes.  These ways are often underpinned by inappropriate cultural beliefs: e.g. that friction and conflict is dysfunctional and is best eliminated; that conflict and the troubling emotions that go with it are best kept hidden; that conflict will go away if you ignore it long enough; that those in higher positions of authority are the most appropriate to decide on and enforce the solutions to conflict; that on balance, competitive rather than competitive strategies work better; and that strong positions and hard-ball negotiation strategies are the best way of getting what you want and making things happen in the organisation.

Too often such beliefs and values give rise to conflict suppression, avoidance and over-use of formal procedures.  They do not deal with destructive imbalances in power relations or shortcomings in emotional competence, which are major conflict generators. They do not generate sustainable and productive relationships on which successful business depends. They fall significantly short of what is needed in modern organisations by way of providing constructive ways of dealing with friction and conflict. 

It is well known, though rarely explicitly acknowledged, that formal organisational processes for dealing with conflict deliver poor value, do irreparable damage to working relationships and rarely resolve the conflict in a satisfactory manner.  Everybody seems to come out a loser so people tend not to use such process if at all possible.  No bad thing you might say, but not if they are the only formal support that is offered.  So why do organisations continue to rely on processes that are of such doubtful value and, more importantly, why not spend the investment in ways that produce better results in dealing with conflict and a greater return on investment?

The second article on this subject explores some aspects of organisational culture that need to change for us to deal more constructively with conflict and what kind of processes we might therefore invest in to support it.