Conflicts prevail widely in the world – within the person, between individuals, in families, institutions, and even countries. Workplace conflicts are common and according to one workplace conflict study, 85 percent of employees experience some kind of conflict at work. Can conflicts be resolved constructively through conversations?
All conflicts start in the human mind. In 1995 Daniel Goleman, the well-known psychologist and science journalist, first used the term ‘amygdala hijack’ in his book Emotional Intelligence. The Amygdala is in the pre-frontal cortex of the human brain and, figuratively,it gets hijacked when it perceives an emotional threat leading to an out-of-measure, overwhelming emotional response. The mind drives action and conflict ensues.The typical causes that trigger an amygdala hijack are fight for scarce resources, a clash of values and perspectives, or a threat to one’s status.
Artful conversations have the potential to convert conflicts into positive forces of change. Over the years in Human Resources and now Communications, Sudheesh Venkatesh, Chief Communications Officer at Azim Premji Foundation shares that he has seen some people who are exceptionally good at this.
Here are a few approaches:
They prepare for constructive optimal outcomes and plan for the consequences while dealing with a conflict. Suzy Welch former Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Business Review in her book,10-10-10: A Life-Transforming Idea, says, ‘Every time I find myself in a situation where there appears to be no solution that will make everyone happy, I ask myself three questions: What are the consequences of my decision in 10 minutes? In 10 months? And in 10 years? The answers usually tell me what I need to know not only to make the most reasoned move but to explain my choice to those who will feel its impact’.
They listen with a genuine desire to know the others’ point of view. They value other people’s uniqueness and work with them for mutual benefit. They demonstrate compassionate curiosity and empathic listening, not indulging in the charade of listening only to rebut. Equally, they believe it is essential to talk. They know that when communication lines break, the possibility of misunderstanding and miscalculation can lead to further conflict.
They separate the issue from the individual; the idea from the identity. They are hard on the problem while being soft on the person. In heated discussions, they can listen beyond the attack. This is extremely hard to practice and often separates the experts from the dilettantes, the statesperson from the rest.
They are wise, generous and have the sagacity to see that future outcomes need not be based on current realities. They are willing to lose a few battles to win the war. They enter the conversation with a willingness to work it out knowing fully well that there will be a give-and-take. They are open to reconciliation, keep pride and ego aside and value trust and relationships more than petty immediate gains.
Leaders, knowingly or unknowingly, intentionally, or otherwise, adopt a few dominant styles of conflict resolution within their teams.
Competitive style: This style leads to a winner-loser situation and celebrates the last person standing. It leaves everyone worse off and is on its way out of modern-day organisations.
Avoiding style: Here the leader believes that time will resolve the issue. Butthe conflict festers.
Compromising style: The leader emphasises give-and-take, meeting halfway, and is willing to live with sub-optimal outcomes in the interest of harmony.
Accommodating style: Here the leader is willing to cede considerably hoping to live to fight another day.
The best leaders adopt a collaborative style. Sudheesh Venkatesh, further shares, “They confront issues methodically, adopting some of the approaches I outlined earlier. In meetings, I have seen them state the issue, be specific, allow for short rebuttals, ensure there is no personal attack, and end it constructively with clear, agreed, next steps. They lean into the discomfort that surrounds the conflict, are perceptive to how the energy moves in the room, and ensure win-win outcomes. I sometimes wonder why some people habitually attract conflict; the seekers as opposed to the avoiders.They are conflict magnets. The causes are obvious – ego, bad temperament, poor judgment of people and situations, and a compulsive need for justification. They are aggressive in their arguments, retaliate at the slightest dissent, and relish shutting down others.”
Then, there are those who masterfully resolve conflicts. They display emotional regulation, the ability to disagree without becoming disagreeable, hold two opposing ideas,and yet have the clarity to decide, while placing relationships paramount. They dig in their heels when they need to and compromise when required. They follow the well-known philosopher Thich Nhat Hanh’s advice to fight conflicts by ‘transforming emotions’.
