CONFLICT COMPETENT LEADERSHIP

1 46 LEADER TO LEADERC onflict is at the root of many leaders best ideas,as well as at the core of their worst failures. Whenit is handled poorly it can cost organizationsheavily in terms of wasted management time, turnover,lawsuits, and in extreme cases violence and it is addressed effectively, it can stimulate creativ-ity and lead to better decision making. With all this atstake, it would seem natural that leaders would seek tohone their CONFLICT management skills. When we talk toexecutives and managers who attend our programs,though, they almost always say that they have never for-mally learned how to handle CONFLICT either in school orduring their career. They tend to rely on their instinctsor to use skills they ve seen in others, and this is exactlywhat gets them and their organizations in Is CONFLICT So Difficult?

2 When asked to share words they think of to describeconflict, most leaders use negative terms such as anger,frustration, and stress. When they are asked how theygenerally deal with CONFLICT , most say that they try toavoid it, forget it, or get back at the other person. Whenwe ask them how well this combination works, theyadmit that it doesn t work a few describe CONFLICT with words like opportunity,energizing, or resolution. They usually approach conflictby engaging with the other person using constructiveapproaches. These leaders actually suggest that theyoften achieve betterresults when faced with with a positive attitude and a constructive ap-proach, CONFLICT is complex and challenging. Generally,we define CONFLICT as situations where people believe theyhave incompatible goals, interests, principles, or don t need to be actually incompatible; just theappearance is enough.

3 Have you ever experienced a con-flict that arose from misperceptions? Most people this definition, it is clear that CONFLICT is will constantly face situations where members of ourteam or individuals in the organization will have ideasabout how to address issues that seem incompatible withour own. People in organizations have many differencesin preferences, style, outlook, knowledge, values, andbackground. Leaders will experience these differencesand the CONFLICT they induce on a regular of ConflictThere are also different kinds of CONFLICT some ofwhich seem to lead to better results than others. OneEXECUTIVE FORUMCONFLICTCOMPETENTLEADERSHIPC raig E. Runde and Tim A. FlanaganWINTER 200847kind, called taskor cognitive CONFLICT ,focuses on issuesand can result in open and rigorous debate of Lencioni in his Five Dysfunctions of a Team sug-gests this is a critical area for team success.

4 In the ab-sence of this kind of CONFLICT , you will miss out on thecreativity that comes from discussing different ap-proaches and the commitment that results from activeparticipation in developing an answer, even one thatdiffers from the participants original ideas. This is ex-actly the type of CONFLICT that is described by the leaderswho use positive terms to describe second type of CONFLICT is called relationshipor affec-tive CONFLICT , and it focuses on finding out who s to blamefor a problem more than (or instead of ) how to solveit. Relationship CONFLICT results in heated emotions, badfeelings, and unresolved issues. It is the kind of conflictdescribed by people when they use negative has shown that task CONFLICT can help teamsachieve better results through increased creativity andimproved decision making.

5 On the other hand, rela-tionship CONFLICT has been shown to lead to poorer teamresults and morale. So the answer seems clear use taskconflict and avoid relationship CONFLICT . Unfortunately,this is not so easy. Discussions that seem like produc-tive debate can, in the blink of an eye, devolve into per-sonal bickering and finger-pointing. In other words,task CONFLICT morphs into relationship you ever had someone criticize or question yourideas and then gotten mad at them for attacking you?This is the essence of what happens when task conflictgoes astray. We perceive someone saying or doing some-thing that we take to be incompatible with our inter-ests, and we get angry at them. Our emotions are oftentriggered by motivations that we attribute to the otherperson.

6 For instance, we may believe someone is tryingto make us look bad for political gain or opposing ourapproach in order to get more resources for their MotivationsWe know of a very volatile CONFLICT between a Na-tional Hockey League head coach and a star playerthat illustrates the insidious power of attribution. Thehead coach joined the team in mid-season after theprevious coach had been fired. The coach made it clearthat playing time would be earned and there would beno favorites. One of the first of many decisions madeby the new coach was to move the star player s reservedparking space at the team s facility. The star player feltdemeaned and was angry. He interpreted this as a wayfor the new coach to demonstrate that he was the coach intended only to make decisions that wouldhelp create a team climate of fairness and the course of the next few weeks, the player grewmore convinced of the coach s devious intentions whilethe coach grew more dismayed with his star player s at-titude.

7 The CONFLICT grew to such intensity that the gen-eral manager of the franchise intervened. There s a muchlonger story to tell, but suffice it to say that the coachand the player are still together and the team has won aStanley Cup in the time since the initial attributed motivations may make perfect senseat the time, they are mere speculation. We don t knowfor certain what the other person s motives are. Typi-cally, we attribute worse motivations to others than theyactually have, as well as better motivations to ourselvesthan we actually debate can, inthe blink of an eye, devolveinto personal bickeringand motivations aremere TO LEADERE motions stem naturally from these attributions. If wefeel someone is purposely out to frustrate our objec-tives, it is natural to get angry, especially if we have hadrun-ins with them in the past.

8 At that point we are facedwith a choice of how to emotions are running high, people typically re-spond with classic fight-or-flight types of behaviors. Ifthey are angry, they may lash out at the other person,demean them, or retaliate against them in various one strikes out at another, it usually triggers a re-taliatory response from that other person. The conflictescalates and the problem grows. Worse yet, the partiesoften appeal to others to support them, and what onceinvolved two people grows to involve who is frightened of or disturbed by conflictmay try to stay away from the other person or give in tothem to avoid having to deal with the issue. Our re-search suggests that this avoidance or flight pattern isthe most frequently used, even among leaders.

9 Avoid-ance cannot lead to resolution of the problem. Further-more, the emotions involved are not addressed emotions left unattended tend to fester untilthey come out at a later time. Once again the partiesoften talk to others to get their support, and flight and fight types of responses lead to relation-ship CONFLICT and the destructive impact that it has onproblem solving and morale. When leaders use their in-stincts to deal with CONFLICT , they generally end up re-sorting to fight-or-flight behaviors and experiencing thedownsides of relationship CONFLICT . Worse yet, they loseout on the opportunities that can come from well-man-aged CONFLICT EffectivelyAfter analyzing the processes that lead to ineffective con-flict management, we recommend leaders use a phasedapproach that emphasizes cooling down, slowing down,and engaging constructively.

10 Cooling down focuses onstaying balanced so that emotions that trigger destruc-tive behaviors do not get out of hand. Slowing downprovides time to apply a backup plan for when thingsbegin to spin out of control. Engaging constructivelymoves CONFLICT toward a search for solutions and awayfrom an exercise in DownCooling down starts with increasing your self-aware-ness about what gets you angry in the first place. Weuse the CONFLICT Dynamics Profile assessment instru-ment to measure people s hot buttons. Hot buttons arebehaviors in others that can upset you enough to throwyou off balance. They can cause you to say or do some-thing you later regret and that will probably escalate theconflict. Whether you use an assessment instrument orPeople in CONFLICT oftenappeal to others to supportthem, and what onceinvolved two people growsto involve leaders use theirinstincts to deal withconflict, they generally endup resorting to fight-or-flight 200849just reflect on the kinds of situations and behaviors inothers that irritate you, greater self-awareness is an im-portant first step in learning to cool have different hot buttons.