Conflict - a matter of perspective?

We often hear conflict described in terms of personality clash - oil and water do not mix - chalk and cheese, and so on.  The distinction rarely progresses beyond the label or metaphors and the usual solution is to keep such people far away from each other or at minimum get them to tolerate each other.  The potential for mutual understanding, learning, creativity and growth is lost in the efforts to defuse the tension and fear of escalation.

We all have had experiences of intensely liking or disliking someone that we have lived or worked with.  We are usually more troubled by the dislike, at least to begin with.  We know how difficult it is to appreciate someone with whom we are in conflict especially when the conflict has become personalised.

The challenge, from a healthy conflict point of view, is how to use the spark and charge generated by personality differences in a way that strengthens the relationship and enhances productivity.   To do this we need to unpick these personality differences in a way that honours and values each and helps illuminate the dynamics between them. 

MBTI and TMS are well known psychological type indicators that help illuminate such differences and dynamics.  They make distinctions between people who prefer sensing to intuition as their main way of gathering information; between those who prefer thinking to feeling to make decisions; between those who prefer to extrovert or introvert their energy; and between those who deal with the outer world primarily through judging or perceiving. 

Understanding these distinctions helps prevent personality differences becoming personality clashes.  It utilises the attributes and perspectives afforded by these different personality types to resolve conflict and achieve greater productivity.  Research has shown that differences on the thinking- feeling and judging-perceiving polarities are the stronger indicators of potential conflict.

For example, Jack prefers Judging as his way of organising the world: He likes to be methodical, systematic, decisive and focused on results.  Jane, who prefers Perceiving, tends to be spontaneous, flexible, exploratory and focused on the process.  The proverbial chalk and cheese you might say.   This relationship is further complicated by the fact Jack prefers Thinking, (logical analysis, objectivity, policies etc.) to make decisions, while Jane prefers Feeling ( -subjective feelings, empathy, values, etc.)

Jack who is Jane's boss thinks he is shown up in a bad light when Jane fails to meet progress milestones and deadlines on time.  Jane thinks she is doing a great job and is busy with her team exploring new and better ways of improving their service to customers.  Jack, not for the first time,  gives Jane some fairly blunt feedback about her inability to meet targets.  He demands that Jane analyse what needs to be done and come up with a plan to get results in on time.  Jane feels hurt, and de-motivated.  She experiences Jack as cold, critical and unappreciative of the way she and her team adapt to customer needs.  He doesnt seem to listen when she explains that her customers are happy and that is more important to the business than his deadlines.  Neither of their needs is being met.  Neither values the other.  She feels she cannot work with him and has started looking for another job.

Many of you will resonate with this type of scenario and recount similar ones.  A knowledge of type would have helped Jack understand and value Jane's natural advantage in satisfying customers and not interpret as incompetence her tendency to view deadlines as moveable.  Jane might have appreciated the importance of plans and deadlines to Jack and not taken his feedback so personally.  A knowledge of personality differences would have enabled them to combine both Jack's natural talent for analysis and planning with Jane's flexibility and improvisation in face to face interaction rather than personalising the conflict and seeing each other as incompatible and incompetent.