The Art of Conflict Management

By: Norm Howe
BASF Corp.

Solomon, the legendary king of ancient Israel, set a standard for conflict resolution that managers have been trying to emulate ever since. When two women each claimed to be the mother of the same baby, he ordered that the child be cut in two and then be divided between the two women. By observing each woman’s reaction to the prospect of the death of the child, Solomon was able to identify the real mother. The narrative grips us in suspense all the way to the conclusion, when we hear the real mother give up her baby rather than have it suffer harm.

The seduction of superiority
As managers, we are attracted to such stories. We may well imagine ourselves resolving conflicts by handing down decisions that are revered for their wisdom, and get passed down through generations of employees long after we have been promoted into the clouds of upper management.

But unfortunately, no manager today has the legion of assistants that Solomon had. I’d also bet that Solomon did not have nearly so many emails to answer, safety audits to prepare for, and project deadlines to meet as you do. You do not have the time that Solomon had to spend solving the problems of the people who report to you. And even if you did, you would be better off if you did not spend it resolving your subordinates’ disagreements for them.

As a manager, you probably run into squabbles between employees virtually every day. In fact, most new managers say that one of their biggest consumers of time is conflict resolution within their departments. It becomes so much of an effort in some departments that there is little time to get other work done.

Experienced managers, however, know how to convert intradepartmental conflicts into growth opportunities for the employees, and in the process they save time and preserve their own sanity. They know that they should not let their employees seduce them to play Solomon all the time.

Too often, when two of your people are fighting they will tend to take the easy way out and get you to declare a winner. It’s an easy trap for them to fall into, for three reasons.

First, most people hate confrontation. They will complain to their coworkers for days on end about someone else’s transgressions before they will talk to that person face to face. They will launch emails at each other forever, copying many coworkers, long before they will sit down together and work out a compromise.

Second, they will declare that resolving interpersonal squabbles isn’t their job. “You’re the boss,” they will tell you. “That’s why you’re paid a lot of money.”

The third reason, which pertains to you rather than the quarrelers, is the most insidious. You probably became a manager in the first place because you are good at solving problems and telling people what to do. And because you are good at it, you enjoy it. When there’s a problem that you can fix you like to dive right in. Again, you are being seduced.

Resist that temptation like the plague. Here’s why:

* If you make it easy for employees to come to you to solve their minor spats, you’ll never have time to get your own work done.

* Unless you challenge your employees to solve their own problems, they are never going to grow. They will always be dependent on you. That may make you feel good for a while - until you are passed over for a promotion because you’re considered indispensable.

* If you declare a winner in a conflict, then no matter how sage your opinion, there must also be a loser. The loser is a demotivated employee and that demotivation costs the company money.

Insist on resolution
Let’s assume that, having read this far, you have bought into the idea that you should not solve your employees’ problems for them. That does not, however, mean that you should remove yourself from the conflict resolution process entirely. In fact, the opposite is true. The difference lies in the way in which you intervene.

Instead of taking over the process, you must become a catalyst for action. You should set up a system that will channel the conflict through to a resolution, as discussed below. You should guide the resolution process. And although you challenge the employees to solve their conflict rather than solving it for them, do be prepared to take a more active role if the process goes off the track.

Like most problems, conflict is more easily resolved the earlier it’s treated. As you circulate through your department, be on the lookout for subtle changes in personal relationships. You will always be pressed for time, and it may seem to be far easier to wait and see if incipient arguments just go away on their own. The chances are, however, that they will only fester and take up even more of your time later. Better to get involved sooner, before attitudes become entrenched.

When you talk to the employees about an argument, they will immediately explain their side of the story. You must make it clear to them that you are less interested in the substance of the disagreement than the process that will be used to resolve it. This approach helps you to communicate how concerned you are with reaching a mutually acceptable conclusion, and how unconcerned you are about who wins the argument.

Ask the person whether he or she sat down and talked this over with the other party. You will receive answers like, “Oh, she’ll never listen to me.” Your response should be that you’ll make sure that the other person listens.

Define the boundaries of the solution, such as cost or timing. Lay down the ground rules of the debate, such as the common rules of courtesy. Make clear to both parties that resolving such conflicts is very much a part of their job; that although you will willingly provide the time and resources necessary to reach a conclusion, it is their responsibility to find some common ground.

Metrics can bond
Measurement can be a huge asset in the conflict resolution process. Often, disputes arise over issues that are potentially quantifiable, such as a particular work habit of one employee that causes additional work for another employee.

When you ask how big the problem is, of course, the answer will depend on which antagonist you ask. Typically, it will not be easy to quantify the problem parameter, but the solution to the conflict is critically dependent on its magnitude.

Do not be daunted by the difficulty of this measurement. Assign your two antagonists to devise a means of making it. This task may be quite time consuming, but the payoff will be great because the two people will have to redirect their energies away from each other to focus on a technical goal. And they will be working together to achieve it.

In the end they will jointly complete the measurement project, and, in the process, they will have in the process developed a common understanding of the impact of the questionable behavior. Most of the time they will have decided on an action plan to resolve the conflict by the time the measurement project is complete.

Finally, set a schedule. You’ve discovered the conflict early; you’ve brought the two combatants together and made clear to them that they need to resolve their differences; you’ve provided them the resources they need but refused to solve the problem for them; you’ve given them tools to use, like measurement. Now you should set a schedule for resolution. Tell the two when you’ll check back with them, and then find yourself some other duties that need your attention.

Here is an example of a metrics?related problem and its solution. Our safety people and office personnel were at each others’ throats. The issue was how to reroute car traffic into the plant around the receiving dock, and thereby eliminate a potential safety problem when trucks and passenger cars were trying to get past each other. The safety people wanted the office personnel to take a longer route using existing roads; the office personnel wanted. a shortcut that would involve spending some money. I suggested that they first decide how much additional travel time would be acceptable, then go measure the travel times involved.

Strikingly, the tone of the meeting turned from acrimony to thought. The office people decided that nobody would notice if it took five extra minutes in the morning to be at their desks at starting time. When they timed the new route, it met that criterion, and all the members of the study group felt comfortable supporting the decision to their peers.

This example demonstrates that most people would rather solve problems than butt heads. When you give them a tool that allows them to take the easier path, they will do so. In this case the easier path is also the more productive one.

It gets easier
Few managers are naturals at this approach. Conflict resolution is painful at first, and it may take quite a bit of time initially to guide your employees through the process. But it gets easier the second time.

Eventually you will develop a cadre of employees who work better together without dragging you away from your work every second of the day. Not only will productivity rise in your department, but you will improve your employees’ personal lives as well.

Edited by Nicholas P. Chopey
Source: Chemical Engineering; March 2003