Conflict Management

• the common causes of conflict
• how to handle conflict more effectively, using the Glasers’ Breakthrough Conflict approach
• the barriers to effective conflict management
• how leaders and managers can assess and improve their conflict-management skills
• the absolute do’s and don’ts of conflict management

Further reading

The Glasers' book, "Be Quiet, Be Heard" sets out practical skills to help individuals and organisations tackle a wide range of communication challenges that occur in day-to-day life.

Transcript

Female interviewer: Doctors Peter and Susan Glaser are experts in the field of conflict resolution. Their consultancy, Glaser & Associates, has helped many major organisations across the world to change the way they manage conflict and build trust.

Here we talk to the Glasers about how individuals in organisations can manage conflict effectively, the barriers that need to be overcome and how we can all assess and improve our conflict management skills. We also talk to them about their breakthrough conflict programme for conflict resolution.

What in your experience are the most common causes of conflict in the workplace?

Peter Glaser: Well, you know, that’s an interesting question because it’s not usually major things, it’s more what we might call seething irritations…

Susan Glaser: …that really begin from petty annoyances. Sometimes when we interview people in the workplace and they share with us their conflicts, they precede it by saying, it’s really embarrassing how small this sounds, but I think what happens is when something small happens and it’s not addressed, then pretty serious conflict habits can accrue and habits like, I don’t tell the person that I am sat with, I talk to somebody else who I trust more. So the person who is the source of my concern may never hear from me at all, but other people are churning it around. So when we say they can be petty annoyances from my workmate speaks too loud or interrupts me, or someone else in another department makes decisions that affect my work…

Peter Glaser: …or my manager is micromanaging me or some colleague doesn’t include me in decisions that are going to be affecting my work.

Susan Glaser: So the problem lies not necessarily in the issues themselves, but really in how we tend to deal with those issues.

Peter Glaser: Or in this case, not deal with those issues.

Susan Glaser: So probably the most common form is, as Peter mentioned, to just not say anything, to not really tell the person directly when there is an issue.

Peter Glaser: Or, if we do tell them, it comes out in an offensive manner. We don’t mean it to be offensive, but they take it that way and so something small gets blown into something bigger.

Susan Glaser: And by the time we finally say anything, it comes out of an emotional reaction rather than a clearly thought through intentional conscious conversation.

Female interviewer: So you are brought in at quite a late stage to help organisations to manage their conflict issues?

Susan Glaser: Well, you know, you would think that. We are not necessarily called in at a late stage to help groups manage conflict. In fact, much of the work we do is really called in by organisations who want to learn more about conflict before it happens, almost proactively. So, our work is enjoyable because we are often working with enlightened people who say conflict is not the problem, conflict is really important, it’s how we work through conflict that really matters. It’s great because we get to work with groups who want to learn how to master conflict resolution, not just to deal with it when it has exploded.

Female interviewer: Can you explain a bit more about how conflict can be good for employees, managers and the wider organisation?

Peter Glaser: It’s our feeling that an organisation cannot move from what Jim Collins refers to as ‘good to great’ without hitting the issues head on and so we’re very big proponents of instituting direct conversation, sometimes that involves some conflict and that’s okay. To echo Susan’s words, it’s how we work through the conflict where the real issue is.

We see conflict in a number of ways. One it’s a blinking, yellow light that says, ‘notice me, something needs to be fixed, something isn’t working well’. Also, there’s a whole body of research that’s really quite recent and it comes from one of the longest bodies of research going, 1942 the first subjects were taken, and it’s called the Framingham research, and in a recent 10 year follow up, it was discovered that women who held their tongues with their husbands were four times more likely to die in that 10 year follow up. So, I mean we are talking about pretty important stuff.

Susan Glaser: The research is interesting here because it’s not just well then, if silence can be a killer, then just let it out at all costs, because there is additional research that suggests that people who have a negative and hostile arguing style, actually suffer serious health issues as a result.

Peter Glaser: So interestingly the way these studies were done, they gave husbands and wives who had actually been married for quite some time, they gave them contentious issues to discuss, issues revolving around how to handle money, issues revolving around chores in the house, and then they videotaped these couples and the couples who are raising their voices, pointing their fingers and in other ways communicating in a hostile manner, had a significantly higher degree of plaque on their coronary arteries. They gave everybody an MRI. So we actually can pinpoint the effects of aggressive arguing style. So somewhere between clamming up completely and not saying anything and letting it all hang out there is a sweet spot in there that needs to be focused on because that’s where the action is in terms of good effective communication.

Susan Glaser: Well, and in terms of the health issues, I thought it was interesting that when the researchers were interviewed who did these series of studies on health and conflict, the absolute commitment of all them was to say how we do conflict is as much related to how long we live and how healthy our lives as the following four factors, obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, whether or not you smoke. So it’s pretty incredible to have how you do conflict linked up with those factors.

Peter Glaser: So, in short, I mean what we are saying is conflict isn’t the issue. Conflict can be quite healthy. It’s really how we communicate through that.

Female interviewer: So that’s conflict management on a personal level and I suppose you could carry that through and look at it from an organisational perspective, how organisations enable their employees to manage conflicts can lead to the overall health or otherwise of that organisation?

Peter Glaser: That’s exactly right.

Susan Glaser: Absolutely. And the other piece is the one that Peter mentioned earlier which is without conflict in the workplace, there is no way for that organisation to move from good to great because in the end if people are uncomfortable talking about the things that are not working, that organisation cannot get better and better. If every time we talk about something that’s not as good as it could be or should be, it turns into this big emotional situation rather than conflict being something we do well, then that organisation has way too many things that people are talking about to move it to the next level.

Female interviewer: So your breakthrough conflict programme has been designed to help organisations and their employees to manage conflict situations better. Can you tell me a bit more about your approach?

Susan Glaser: Well, our approach for breakthrough conflict is really based on four skill sets and all of our research and consulting over the last three decades has been designed to create communication skill models that are easy to understand and to master. They are nuts and bolts, concrete, evidence-based skills. So, for example, we have a skill model for responding to criticism and anger so that people have a real clear set of five steps that they can go through when faced with someone else’s criticism. We have a model for raising delicate issues and that’s a four step model so that people have the ability to share what they need more of or what they need less of or what’s not working in a way that, rather than getting the other person defensive, brings them in as a thought partner to help solve that problem.

Peter Glaser: We have a model for checking out perceptions or usually misperceptions so that people can go right into that silence or right into that confusing behaviour that they are witnessing and be able to open it up and really explore what’s going on and have a discussion to how to fix things.

Susan Glaser: Too often people have perceptions that are based on just belief. Sometimes people say to us, ‘What do you do about passive aggressive people?’ Passive aggressive means this is a person who isn’t saying they are upset but they are doing things that make you feel not all is right. We have a model to enter into a conversation with that person.

And our fourth model for gratitude and recognition is a four step model to be able to say to someone, ‘I appreciate your contribution to our team’ and to do that in a concrete and specific way.

Peter Glaser: And if I could add, I think the most important is that first model that deals with listening because our latest book is called "Be Quiet, Be Heard: The Paradox of Persuasion" because we are firmly convinced that the ability to listen to even the most intense downside feedback is critical to effective communication both at the personal as well as the organisational level.

Susan Glaser: Very often, people who are in our workshops or people who have read our books say to us, ‘Well, these skill models are fine, but don’t you have to have trust there first?’ The question goes something like this, how could you ever have a really good discussion if there isn’t trust there, or, how could I ever use that model, we have no trust in our relationship?

The assumption is that trust is a prerequisite for communication. We believe that trust is not a prerequisite for communication, it is a by-product of communication, and the implications of that are vast. If we wait around for trust to emerge before we start communicating with people, we are going to wait a lifetime because trust is not going to pop up in the absence of communication. But communication really provides the mini bridges to trust and as long as we keep communicating, consciously, skilfully, we are creating these bridges to trust and one day we wake up and think, ‘Gee I don’t know when this happened, but I trust him now’, there’s trust with her at this point and it is hard to identify exactly when it happened because the trust is really built on these series of communication bridges.

Female interviewer: What do you think are the biggest barriers to managing conflict effectively?

Susan Glaser: One of the biggest barriers is our tendency to go silent and to not talk when things are disturbing us.

Peter Glaser: Or at least not to talk to the people who are most directly the subject of our concern.

Susan Glaser: People have serious fears about being candid about concerns in the workplace and I think when this happens, and we ask people in our seminars and workshops, we say, ‘So why is it so hard to raise delicate issues at work?’ and people give us a myriad of answers. But it really boils down to fear that the problem won’t get solved and the relationship will be scarred if I bring this up. Out of those fears people avoid individuals at work with whom there is a conflict or even the mildest taste of it.

Peter Glaser: Or if they are not avoiding them, they are acting out in ways that suggest, ‘I am not very pleased with you’, although they are not clear about what it is they are bothered about.

Susan Glaser: One of the things that we believe is that using the very concrete skills that we talked about earlier, people can turn conflict on its head and we say, ‘Here’s where the bar needs to be’, if you are in a conflict, there are two things to go after, an important problem solved and an important relationship strengthened. That should be the goal of any kind of conflict. And I think we all know that that just simply doesn’t happen.

But I think another barrier is that when we are in conflict very often we try to get the other person to understand us rather than trying to understand them. What happens is, when you have two people, both trying to get the other person to understand and nobody trying to do the understanding first, that conversation goes nowhere. So part of what we deeply believe is that in order to make conflict work productively, my first impulse needs to be to understand you because only when you really believe I understand you will you be willing to try to understand my perspective, it’s different from yours.

Female interviewer: So two things that are really important are what you said before about listening and being willing to concede some ground when you are having these conversations?

Susan Glaser: Yes. And I guess I don’t want to make this sound too simple because it’s really not simple. Most of us get a physical reaction to conflict and to criticism. You know, it happens different ways for different people.

Peter Glaser: Well, physiologically speaking, our cortex and thinking part of our brain actually gets short circuited in our amygdala, the more primordial part of our brain actually takes over. So I mean, we are really fighting our own anatomy and its not, you know, simply using the skill, it takes a lot of focus.

Susan Glaser: And I think different people have experienced different physical reactions. So for me when it happens, it usually starts with butterflies in my stomach and then my face gets hot.

Peter Glaser: And for me, my throat tightens up, I might speak in a higher octave, my ears turn this flaming red, and so we all get this physiological response that makes it a challenge.

Susan Glaser: And that came directly from our cave dweller ancestors and in fact in the days when we lived in caves it was a useful response. There is a really interesting study in the Harvard Business Review that looked at all of this and in that article the researcher said ‘But why is this still happening? I mean we are not living in caves, there aren’t beasts attacking us’, and that’s when they came to the conclusion that as humans we have evolved into symbolic creatures, meaning our words are our weapons and so it doesn’t have to be a beast getting ready to eat us alive, it could be the person we report to saying, ‘I have been told that you are not engaging your workforce and I am very worried about that.’ The beast is at the door. Or it could be one of the people who report to us saying, ‘You micromanage me and I just can’t work under this.’ What’s happened is, the effect of verbal criticism has taken the place of true danger and so what we need to do is begin to sort that out in a way that lets us respond, as Peter mentioned, from our cortex rather than our amygdala and that’s how the models that we have developed come into play, because it is a way to regroup and to turn an unconscious, autopilot reactive conversation into a conscious, intentional discussion.

Female interviewer: So moving the natural inclination away from fight or flight and finding something that works for everyone concerned?

Susan Glaser: Yes.

Peter Glaser: Yes.

Female interviewer: Obviously managers and leaders have to manage conflict on a fairly regular basis but how can they best evaluate their conflict management skills, you know, how do they know if they are doing a good job?

Susan Glaser: Go to the people at work who experience it the most, my peers, the person I report to and the people who report to me, and ask straight out, ‘Give me some feedback on how you experience my conflict management skills.’

Peter Glaser: So what do I do, for example, that you think really is working well, or, what am I doing that you would like me to stop completely or at least do less often, or, what am I doing that you would like me to do more of or better than I am currently doing now? Those kinds of questions really tease out from the people around us those things that we need to know to improve our own conflict management skills.

Female interviewer: And I suppose that could be on an informal basis or it could form part of a more formal appraisal process?

Peter Glaser: That’s right.

Susan Glaser: Exactly. It could be done both formally and informally.

Female interviewer: We talked a bit about breakthrough conflict, but what practical steps can managers take to improve their conflict management skills within a bit of a nutshell?

Susan Glaser: My first recommendation would be engage. Whatever happens, don’t go silent and mull and stew and talk to other people and complain, don’t just do nothing, because when you are not talking to the person who is the source of your issue, you are not moving forward on it and you are laying some pretty toxic ground there. So if my first recommendation is to engage, to me that means being intentional and conscious, asking the question, ‘What is it I want to achieve here, what are the issues I am having, what is it that I would like to see?’ and then to have a conversation that’s very, very skill based that moves that forward.

Peter Glaser: And always with the mantle, even when we are raising delicate issues, always with the mantle of, ‘I am still hear to listen and to understand’, and so to pause, to really hear what the other person is saying, because I’ll tell you, in 90% or more of the conversations that we are called in to assist with, people simply aren’t getting it. They hear something, it strikes a negative chord and immediately their mind goes into defending themselves, to constructing their verbal response that will be coming up in a moment, but listening tends to go out the window and it’s the one balm that’s really going to affect positive change.

Susan Glaser: Balm as in B A L M.

Peter Glaser: Correct.

Susan Glaser: So I would agree that listening is so important and if I were to break that down into its simplest kernels, it would be, number one, paraphrase what I believe the person is trying to get through to me so they can say, ‘Yes, that is what I mean.’ To ask clarifying questions so that I understand more deeply what it is that they are trying to get me to see. And then to really look for agreement, to try to find even micro points or small almost imperceptible issues around which we agree and throw that out. If I am looking for agreement, it’s a much better chance that I will find it. So that’s one set of skills, the sort of listening approach.

I would like to suggest another set that are more related to, now I want you to understand some of the issues I am having around you and behaviour change I would like to request. That’s not an easy thing to do, especially if our commitment is so that the other person doesn’t feel defensive along the way. So some of the things that we would recommend for that would be number one, to edit out accusative language. It is so often when we hear people engaging in conflict that words escape their lips like, ‘You are being unprofessional’, it shows poor judgement, ‘You were rude, overbearing, micromanaging.’ Those kinds of words are just toxic to the human ear.

So we need to edit them out and instead pinpoint details so that instead of saying ‘You sabotaged me, you undermined me’, I would need to give a specific example of that. I might say, ‘When you spoke with one of the employees who reported to me about why they were unhappy with me and didn’t bring me into that conversation, I felt like an outsider to my own group, and I would have wanted to be able to be part of that dialogue too.’ That’s so different from saying ‘You are undermining me, you are sabotaging me, you are talking behind my back, you are gossiping.’ So one of the things we would recommend is to edit out those accusation words and replace with pinpointed details.

Peter Glaser: And here’s a very counterintuitive but very, very potent move, and that is to talk about your part, that is your contribution in the very issue that you are raising with this other person. It is our belief, because we have seen it tens of thousands of times, that there is virtually no issue that we might raise with another person, regardless of the level, where there isn’t a piece of the action that we own. And the act of identifying that is very illuminating and the act of communicating that to the other person gets them to drop their defences like no other communication we know.

Susan Glaser: So even if it’s as blatant as, you made a decision in your area that affected my department and you never mentioned it to me ahead of time. Even a statement of that kind of blatant disregard, I might be able to say, ‘And I know I have been part of this problem too because I really haven’t come to you to talk about the importance of how our departments link together, I never really mentioned to you that when you made a decision that affected my work, I didn’t come to you, I didn’t tell you, I didn’t let you know how important it was.’ And so the act of saying, I am part of this problem too.

Peter Glaser: It’s very, very powerful. And then the final step is the solution phase and we believe that every solution should have several moves.

Susan Glaser: One of the problems I think when people are raising an issue is they say to the person, ‘And so in the future I would like you to do this, in the future I would like you to consult with me if you have, if you are making decisions that affect my work, in the future I would like you to send employees back to me if they come to you complaining about how I have treated them.’ That’s not enough. I need to begin my solution by saying, ‘Here’s something I think I could do better, here’s something I think I could do different to make this situation better’, and I need to share with the person how I might change and then I need to ask them how they would like me to change. In a nutshell, in order to have a solution that works immediately and also lasts long-term, we both need to create it and we both need a job to do when the conversation is over.

Peter Glaser: It’s based on the maxim, people support that which they help to create. It’s an absolute truism of human behaviour and this model is designed to reflect that truth.

Female interviewer: As a final takeaway for our listeners, what would you say are the absolute dos and don’ts when managing conflict situations?

Susan Glaser: Let’s give you three dos. Number one do, is to prove that you absolutely understand their side, demonstrate that you know what they are trying to say by paraphrasing it and asking questions. But in any way you have to, number one, prove you get it, you understand what they are trying to say to you.

Number two, I would say whatever else happens, do acknowledge you are part of the problem. If it’s an ongoing conflict, both people are heavily engaged in something and the act of my being willing to share how I have contributed releases you to acknowledge how you have and that’s the basis for a solution.

And my final do is, try again if the conversation doesn’t go well. There’s a myth that if we have a bad conversation with someone it’s over. I know most people have had the experience of, ‘Ah, I wish I had said that’, or, ‘Oh I can’t believe I said it that way.’ I think it’s important that people understand, do overs are powerful. People have said to us some of the best conversations around conflict that they have ever had begin with, ‘I was thinking about that conversation we had yesterday or last week or a few weeks ago, and I’d like to try it again because I am not happy with how it went’, and then you just do it all over again.

Peter Glaser: Alright, let me see if I can come up with some don’ts. I would say don’t engage when you are under the influence of anger; we are bound to say something stupid. Better to cool down, collect ourselves, sometimes we say, give it the 24 hour test, sometimes we come up with the notion that maybe this was more about me than about the other person. But in any event, do not engage when you are under the influence of anger.

Another don’t I would say is, don’t argue endlessly. When you find yourself getting into a point, counterpoint, ‘Well, the reason I did this is because this, well I did that because of this’, and we find ourselves going back and forth like that, break out of that endless arguing. And there are a couple of ways to break out of it. One is to paraphrase to prove that we have really heard them, that breaks that back and forth and another is to find points of agreement.

Susan Glaser: A really important way to get out of that endless arguing is to be able to say, ‘Hey listen, I don’t want to give you the impression that I don’t know that I am involved in this too, I know I have contributed to this problem and here’s how.’ And the two ways to get out of it are number one, to paraphrase this person’s intentions so they know you get it and number two, to agree to the part of the issue that you have.

And finally, don’t react emotionally. If I stay clear on my intention and very, very conscious about why am I here, what do I want to achieve, which of these skill models would be most useful and I keep the conversation conscious, I think that’s a very important part of it too. So don’t react emotionally. Stay conscious through it all.