Innovative Conflict Resolution

This week has been very interesting, between President Obama’s comments and Congress “grilling” BP CEO Tony Hayward over the Gulf oil disaster.  I don’t intend to get political here at all, but comment on the situation from a conflict management perspective.  An excellent summary of the situation comes from MSNBC’s H. Josef Hebert, whose column today begins:

Congress was given a chance to vent its frustrations. And BP’s top executive, the target of the rage, did what he hoped to do — deflect the most probing questions and avoid any serious gaffes.

While outrage filled the air, the much-awaited grilling of BP CEO Tony Hayward by a House of Representatives committee produced good theater but little new information about what caused the catastrophic oil spill that has wrought economic havoc and environmental devastation across the U.S. Gulf Coast region.

Listen to the list of conflict words used: vent, target, rage, deflect, probing, avoid, outrage, grilling.  Now consider the language that the President himself has chosen to use. First, he declared he was looking for “someone’s ass to kick.” In the first few seconds of his Oval Office speech this past Tuesday, he referenced “the battle we’re waging against an oil spill that is assaulting our shores.” A bit later on he stated, “We will fight this spill with everything we’ve got for as long as it takes.  We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused.”

Almost universally, politicians of both political parties have done whatever they could to appear strong, tough, and in charge—the classic “director” posture. Only one dared take a different approach, and those of his own party were quick to turn on him, lest they, too, be seen as weak. And almost universally, those involved have engaged in finger-pointing, as if finding someone to blame would somehow solve the problem.

While all this may be wise from a political point of view (although the polls seem to disagree), how does this play from a problem-solving, conflict management perspective? For one thing, it is one more example of how pointing fingers takes the emphasis off the real problem and focuses instead on the parties. Agreeing on the problem and the need to find solutions should be the first step in problem-solving. There is plenty of time to point fingers once a plan is in place. Also, there are different ways of appearing strong and in control, if this is the politicians’ goal. You can hop around and beat your chest, or you can take charge and lead a problem-solving mission.  Collaboration is the strong thing to do, if collaboration is what is called for.

It seems to me that this situation makes it evident that there is a great need for leaders who understand how to problem-solve, and how to make conflict—inevitable in politics—productive. Do we have any mediators out there interested in running for office?

Each of us is a unique individual, with differences in background, education, religion, and so on, that impact how we communicate. As good communicators, we do our best to make the information accessible to the other person so they can interpret it as close to our intended meaning as possible. The proper exchange of information is, after all, one of the primary purposes of communication.

Besides the obvious cultural differences which impact our communication, we have different thinking styles that can have a great impact on our ability to communicate with others. As with conflict styles, we are predisposed to a certain style, but we are not necessarily limited to that style. It may take a bit of work, but we can learn how to package what we want to say so that the other person can better receive it.

Example: Carla and Susan

A couple of weeks ago I met with Carla (not her real name) concerning a communication issue she was having with her boss.  Carla was an obvious external processor, and recognized that fact. She needed to bounce ideas off other people, and even more than that, needed to verbalize her thought processes for others.  There’s nothing wrong with this; it is simply how Carla processes information.

She went on to explain that whenever she met with her boss, Susan, she had the feeling that her boss was becoming irritated with her, and she didn’t understand why. From what she had already told me about Susan, I gathered that Susan was quite the opposite from Carla in how she processed information. I commented that Susan appeared to be a “bottom-line” kind of person, and Carla readily agreed. In fact, Susan often used that term when talking to people.

I then pointed out that to a “bottom-line” thinker, having to sit through someone else’s thought processes was indeed irritating, and at times tortuous. It becomes a kind of information-overload; the bottom-line thinker isn’t trying to be rude, they just can’t deal with all of that information, especially if they are busy and don’t understand the purpose of the meeting.And, external processors run the risk of seeming to be “needy” and therefore someone to avoid.

This was all new information to Carla, who hadn’t considered that Susan simply wasn’t able – at least in the context they had been working in – to assimilate the information that Carla was sharing.  I suggested that Carla do 3 things:

1. Whenever possible, present Susan with a bottom-line summary whenever possible. When more information was needed, summarize everything in short bullet-points.
2. Find someone who is also an external processor to talk to.
3. When Carla required some external processing with Susan, ask for a meeting specifically for that purpose. If Susan understood the purpose of the meeting and what Carla needed, she could prepare herself accordingly.

Bottom-Line

If you are having difficulties connecting with someone, whether a boss, a co-worker, neighbor or spouse, take some time to try to recognize what kind of a thinker they are. Are they an extrovert, energized by others, or an introvert who can be quite outgoing, but who needs to suddenly retreat to recharge?  Are they internal or external processors? Do they make quick judgments, or perhaps can never seem to make a decision?

Try to match the other person’s style, or at least be sensitive to it. If that starts working, then let them know who you are, too. Don’t deny your own communication needs, or you’ll soon run dry. But, be aware: not everyone will be capable of meeting your communication needs. Hopefully, though, at least you’ll be able to connect on a better level than before.

Conflict—that is, conflict which is unrecognized or ignored—is costly; in fact, it could be robbing you blind.

When many people talk about the costs of conflict, they mention things like lawyers, court costs, and time lost in meetings, and they are right; a rather small court case can involve costs running into six figures, and trying to stay out of court can also be expensive.  But, most businesses don’t realize how much “normal” conflict—the day to day disagreements, misunderstandings and frustrations that are a part of everyday life—are costing them.

Taking a positive, proactive approach to conflict can save you money, and sometimes actually make you money. However, conflict which is left on its own is like dry-rot; it grows and it’s destructive.

Many managers will fail to recognize much of the conflict that exists in the workplace, because for the most part it remains internalized or manifests itself in other ways. It is conflict, nonetheless—and it impacts relationships, performance and profitability.

Conflict exists whenever there is disagreement or where there are unrealized expectations. It could be a disagreement with company policy, a co-worker, or a manager’s tone of voice. It could be a perception of being unappreciated, or that someone else is over appreciated. I have heard it said that ambiguity—where employees are forced to guess about expectations and attitudes—is actually the largest single source of conflict in the workplace. Sometimes this hidden conflict will grow into an overt conflict between people, but often they lead to other problems not immediately associated with conflict: absenteeism, lower production, employee theft, or turnover.

In a recent study attributed to CPP, Inc., it was estimated that “U.S. companies spend more than 2.8 hours per week addressing workplace conflict, which equates to approximately $359 billion in paid hours in 2008.” The study further reported that 33% of employees have suffered “personal injury or attacks” while resulting in illness or absence from work for 22% of employees.  In the UK, the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR) estimated that conflict costs companies £33 billion every year.

And I don’t know that these figures even begin to include losses due to undetected conflict.  Just consider the cost of turnover due to unhappy employees: I’ve seen estimates that turnover costs range from 75-150% of the employee’s annual salary. And here’s the thing: all employees leave due to some kind of conflict. Granted, some things you can’t change (like the need to relocate for non-work reasons, career changes, etc.); however, many things you can change, or at least talk about. Then there are those who don’t leave—but spend their time quietly poisoning everyone in the office with gossip and complaining.

What about the work that suffers because of bad attitudes, communication failures, or ambiguity about what or how things should be done? What about illness due to job stress?

The question that business owners and managers need to ask themselves is this: How much is undetected conflict costing me? The follow up question should be, What can I do to reduce this negative conflict? Survey results indicate that only about 1/3 of managers feel able to deal with conflict; and employees’ view of managers’ abilities is even lower.

The good news is that studies show a correlation between a reduction in negative conflict (not all conflict is bad) and training in how to handle conflict.

Now, rather than get stuck in thinking that training can merely reduce the hidden costs related to conflict, what if conflict training could actually produce positive benefits?

What is conflict training worth to your organization?

The first step in avoiding problem conflicts and building better relationships is to understand that people have very different responses to disagreements, and that some of these conflict styles clash quite dramatically.  Some styles seem to work well together, but in the long run are quite problematic.  If you have to choose between the two scenarios, I think I’d choose the “clashing” styles.

“An element of conflict in any discussion is a very good thing. Shows everybody’s taking part, and nobody left out.” -Elwood P. Dowd, in Harvey

The “No Conflict” Zone

In my prior post, I mentioned that there are some church boards where conflict is almost nonexistent.  There are a variety of causes, but often this is by design.  There are a number of Pastors and Leaders who are so insecure in their role that they cling to their positions (unlike the attitude in Phil. 2:6), and construct a culture where disagreement is discouraged (or outlawed).  You can often spot these cultures by a leader’s use of the phrases “getting on the same page” and “getting people to take ownership,” or referring often to “God’s call on their life.”  Even worse are claims that “God told me,” which is designed to end any discussion, and talks about the evils of “critical spirits.”

The situation isn’t always the pastor’s fault. In many church cultures, pastors and others in positions of authority are put on pedestals or given some sort of special treatment. This creates a desire in many other to be in leadership positions, making them susceptible to compromise or resulting in the suspension of some aspects of critical thinking.  This, obviously is a dangerous situation: An insecure, manipulative (e.g. weak) leader surrounded by co-dependent (weak) wannabe leaders who will agree with the leadership – even if they are wrong – in order to gain or maintain their positions.  Failure in these cultures is seen as a lack of faith or a personal failure, not the failure of the system.

While these cultures may give the impression of being a conflict-free church, nothing is further from the truth.  Conflict still exists, but it is internal conflict within the leaders as they continue to operate in states of cognitive or spiritual dissonance.  These boards then operate without any real critical thinking going on, and faulty thinking (or worse) will not be exposed.

Safe Conflict Zones

I think church board and committee meetings should all be openly declared “safe conflict zones,” where people are encouraged to speak their mind, challenge the wisdom of the Pastor/Leaders, and at the same time be willing to be challenged and proven wrong.  Yes, it’s scary, but it’s growth!

And sure, board meetings will take longer, because there will be more discussion.  But, isn’t the point to arrive at good decisions, and accomplish something positive?

Unfortunately, discovering truth does not seem to be a common human trait – at least it doesn’t appear to be as strong as the need to appear to be correct.  Even scientists, who value skepticism as part of the scientific process, have been shown to ignore evidence that controverts their thinking.  Real truth and a healthy process for growing into truth must be a proclaimed and modeled value in order for people to risk voicing opinions and possibly being wrong.

With a stated and shared goal of finding truth and making the best decisions, rather than being right, Safe Conflict Zones can result in a multitude of benefits.  But this raises the question, “How can this possibly work without every board meeting turning into a free-for-all?”

But, How…

In order for a Safe Conflict Zone to work, people must be trained to understand conflict and how to use it effectively.  Conflict isn’t evil, it’s a tool – it’s only bad if it goes out of control.  Most Pastors should have some idea of how this could work, if they’ve done any premarital or marriage counseling.  It’s all about communication and communication styles.

As people have different styles of communication, people also have different conflict styles.  Some people tend to be more combative/competitive, and others tend to avoid any sort of conflict like the plague.  And, when things hit emotional nerves or get too intense, many people experience a style shift.  Someone who is typically very congenial can suddenly turn into Genghis Khan.  If the board is trained to understand and recognize their own tendencies as well as how to sense others’ styles, problems can be avoided and the discussions can become quite productive, both to the group and to the individuals.

Given a little practice, people will become more aware of their own tendencies to react inappropriately to differences of opinion.  Frank will realize that sarcasm is not helpful and start to catch himself more often, Susie will not play “tortoise” and venture to offer opinions, and Jim will stop agreeing with whatever the Pastor says (when he really disagrees).  As a result, there will be far less hurt feelings and hidden resentment, better decisions will be made, there will be true “buy-in” by the board to the decisions, and this will trickle down to the congregation.

The Key is at the Top

As with any type of business or organization, the key to making conflict productive lies with the Pastor / Leader.  It takes a certain amount of security to allow productive conflict to happen.  Also, the pastor/leader must believe that he/she does not have the only access to truth, and that there is value in others’ opinions.  The pastor must also see that there are long-term benefits to productive conflict that outweigh the initial training and the new process.

The Case for Conflict

We all agree that bad conflict is destructive.  An apparent lack of conflict is also destructive, because there really is no lack of conflict. It’s either open and obvious, or it’s hidden; and hidden conflict is, in my opinion, far more destructive.  How many people disappear from churches for no apparent reason?  Truth is, there’s always a reason, and typically it’s an issue of unresolved conflict (although certainly that’s not always the case).  As someone once said, “wherever two or more are gathered, there is conflict.”  Conflict is a fact of life, as long as we are imperfect beings. Rather than ignore this fact, as many churches tend to do, the best case scenario would seem to be to put conflict front and center, but make it good conflict rather than bad.

In my experience, there are two general categories of church boards:  The first type is essentially democratic; board members are nominated and voted on by the congregation, and they serve for a specified term.  The second is where the members are hand-picked, either by the Pastor or through a process involving the existing board.  I have had had the privilege of serving on both types of boards. While they differ, they are similar in one very important aspect: They both involve conflict between the members. (There is one type of board where there is no apparent conflict, and I’ll deal with that later.)

A new way of looking at conflict

My definition of conflict might be a bit different from yours. I recently read an article by a mediator who went to great lengths to explain how ordinary differences of opinion are not conflicts.  I think he couldn’t be more wrong. The point he was making is that only real conflicts require a mediator; however, anyone who has served on a church board for any length of time can testify that these seemingly small differences of opinion can be quite costly in terms of both time and relationships. I can’t count the number of times that a board meeting has been “hijacked” by a small difference of opinion, sending the meeting into overtime. Of course, the author was correct in that not all disputes require a mediator – especially if boards and committees are trained in how to approach such differences of opinion and use them to become more productive, not less.

By my definition, conflict is merely what happens when two different points of view meet.  At its most benign, conflict is what we know as communication.  When we communicate, we encode both factual and emotional information into words, facial expressions and body language hoping that others will be able to decode the information appropriately.  Communication could be described as the process of overcoming any differences that exist between people.

Depending on these differences and the complexity of the information being conveyed, this process could be rather effortless (almost seeming like mind-reading), or it might prove to be quite difficult.  Factors impacting the success of communication include culture, age, sex, education, interests, personal tastes and the thousands of experiences each of us has had.  All of these impact how we interpret information, and explains why people can draw very different conclusions from the same information.

A Matter of Scale

Any time we try to communicate a thought to someone who doesn’t share a necessary frame of reference, we have conflict.  There is a barrier – perhaps quite small – that we must overcome.  The more complex the issue being discussed, and the more diverse the participants are from one another, the more conflict we will experience.

The difference between a friendly conversation about the weather and a heated argument over church policy is for the most part an issue of scale.  The problem is the same – differences in perspective – but the barrier(s) change.

However,  the inherent qualities of some relationships can also impact the type of conflict that will be experienced.  An issue which might ordinarily be an interesting intellectual exercise for two recent acquaintances might turn into something quite emotional in the context of a marriage.  Likewise, discussions between members of a church board can become quite emotional because they can involve issues of theology, Biblical interpretation, and personal conviction, all things about which people tend to feel quite strongly.  Conflict, it seems, is in the mind of the beholder.

The Importance of Conflict

There are many Christians who, in trying to follow Christ’s admonitions to turn the other cheek and forgive our enemies, have come to believe that any sort of disagreement and conflict among Christians is wrong.  However, there are New Testament examples of conflict indicating that not all conflict is wrong.  In 1 Corinthians 11:18-19, Paul writes

For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it,  for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

Some translations imply that Paul was being sarcastic here, and he might have been; however, Paul himself was no stranger to conflict.  Acts 15:36-40 tells the story of Paul’s “sharp disagreement” with Barnabas over John Mark; they apparently didn’t employ the services of a mediator, and the matter was resolved by Paul and Barnabas splitting up. In Galatians 2:11-14, Paul tells of another conflict, this time with Peter:

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. …

And, according to Paul, there’s even a place for anger in the church:

Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body. “In your anger do not sin”: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold. Eph. 4:25-27

There are a couple of things we can learn from these passages. First, it is clear that even Apostles can have differences of opinion; and if they can, so can church leaders and board members.  Second, an open, frank discussion of the issues is beneficial – and even essential. If differences of opinion are not discussed, there are consequences:

1. The truth will not be revealed
2. Error will be allowed to continue
3. Anger, bitterness and resentment can take root

Furthermore, Church history shows us the benefits of a healthy approach to conflict (as well as many wrong approaches to conflict).  The Nicene Creed is a great example: if it were not for the dispute argued by Arius and Athanasius in 325AD, we might not have such a concise expression of the Christian faith.

The Conflict Conversation

The process of working through differences of opinion in a church board setting is not difficult from a technical viewpoint; it is really just a conversation.  Once again, the main difference is in scale.  For example, you might meet someone from a different culture at one of your church functions. Knowing that they will have very different frames of reference than you do, you go out of your way to understand them, and help them to understand you.  You try to use context clues to define words they use, and you ask questions to clarify what they are saying. You also choose your words wisely, and make sure that they are understanding what you are saying.

This is essentially what we need to do in conflict situations.  The key word is understanding.  People hold opinions for reasons; the stronger the opinion, the more important it is that we make an effort to understand why they hold that opinion.  We may find that the real issue is something else entirely.   It has been said that an obstacle can either be a stumbling block or a stepping stone; we should learn to approach conflict as a learning and growing opportunity, a chance to progress rather than as an obstacle to progress.

Reality and Church Boards

The reality of church boards is that they are usually comprised of ordinary people, most of whom have no training in managing conflict. They may be skilled in various aspects of business, and they may be managers and CEOs – but that doesn’t mean they are skilled at dealing with conflict.  The reality is that even in the business world, including experienced managers, have very little if any understanding of how to deal with conflict.

The good news is that it’s not difficult to learn how to work with conflict. With a little understanding of some basic elements and how different people respond to conflict, and some work in building a collective approach to working with conflict, a team can learn to use differences of opinion – conflict – to build each other up and strengthen relationships, not to mention saving time and making better decisions.

Next: Some free tips about conflict management, and the dangers of no conflict.