Managing Interpersonal Conflict

Transcription

1 Harvard Business School Rev. November 20, 1985 Managing Interpersonal Conflict History is largely the record of conflict. Kenneth Boulding Few managers enjoy dealing with conflicts that involve themselves, their bosses, peers, or subordinates. Whether the conflict is openly hostile or subtly covert, strong personal feelings may be involved. Furthermore, there are often valid viewpoints on both sides, making the process of finding an acceptable solution mentally exhausting and emotionally draining. Yet the ability to productively manage such conflict is critical to managerial success. Interpersonal differences often become sharpest when the organizational stakes seem to be high, but almost all organizations include their share of small issues blown into major conflicts. The managerial problem is to build on human differences of opinion, while not letting them jeopardize overall performance, satisfaction, and growth. This note explores the nature and sources of interpersonal conflict, helps the reader understand its determinants and dynamics, and discusses several specific approaches to managing conflict whether as an adversary or as a third-party mediator. Some Assumptions and Definitions Interpersonal conflict typically involves a relationship in which a sequence of conditions and events tend toward aggressive behavior and disorder. Conflict can also be viewed, however, in terms of its background conditions, the perceptions of the parties involved, their feelings, their actual behavior, and the consequences or outcomes of their behavior. Conflict is an organizational reality that is inherently neither good nor bad in and of itself. It can be destructive, but it can also play a productive role both within a person and between persons. Problems usually arise when potential conflict is either artificially suppressed, or when it escalates beyond the control of the adversaries or third-party intermediaries. Whereas most managers will seek to reduce conflict when it occurs because of its negative repercussions, some will seek to use it for its positive effects on creativity, motivation, and performance. The management of conflict usually entails maintaining a delicate balance between these positive and negative attributes. There is no one best way for managing interpersonal conflict, either as an involved adversary or as a third party. Rather, there are a number of strategies and tactics involving the external conditions, differing perceptions, internal feelings, behavior, and outcomes. The relationships of the parties involved (superior-subordinates, peers, representatives) and their past histories as adversaries, allies, or relatively neutral third parties, pose other key variables. The relative power of the parties involved Assistant Professor James Ware and Professor Louis B. Barnes prepared this note as a basis for classroom discussion. Copyright 1978 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call , write Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the permission of Harvard Business School. 1

2 Managing Interpersonal Conflict is another factor to consider in deciding whether to withdraw from conflict, compromise, work toward controlling a conflict within certain boundaries, seek constructive confrontations, force conflict into a win/lose pattern, smooth it over with friendly acts, or try to enact a variety of other subtle or forceful approaches. Conflict experienced as an involved participant is emotionally very different from conflict seen as a relatively objective third party. One strength of involving third parties lies in their potential to add a different perspective to the perceptions, feelings, and behavior of the involved adversaries. In this note, the management of conflict will be viewed from the vantage point of both the involved adversaries and the outside third party who might be a boss, colleague, friend, or even subordinate. Each of these different roles poses its own unique strengths and weaknesses. Some Questions on the Management of Conflict A manager may become concerned about conflict when it leads to lower productivity, satisfaction, or growth, be it individual or organizational. In analyzing the management of conflict, he or she might start with such consequences or outcomes. A second area that captures attention includes the behavior patterns manifested by the parties involved. A third area entails differing feelings and perceptions. And a fourth looks for underlying or background conditions that help to initiate and perpetuate the conflict. It is important for a manager either as a participant or third party to appreciate that any one of these four areas provides an appropriate point for dealing with a conflict situation. A manager might pose the following four questions, which are discussed in the sections below. 1. What are the important personal and organizational outcomes or consequences of the conflict? What of future outcomes? 2. What behavior patterns appear to characterize the conflict? How do these patterns highlight the substantive issues, perceptions, and underlying causes of the conflict? 3. What substantive issues are involved? To what extent are they colored by each side s perceptions? To what extent are the perceptions further colored by feelings and involvement? Where in the organization is there potential for relative objectivity on the part of a third party? 4. What are the apparent underlying or background conditions leading to the conflict s feelings, perceptions, behavior, and outcomes? Outcome Considerations Conflicts generally have both positive and negative consequences. An increased awareness of both outcomes complicates the diagnosis, but can lead to more effective intervention decisions. Positive outcomes The competitive nature of conflict can increase the participants motivation and creativity. A manufacturing manager who gets angry at being pushed around by a sales vice president, for example, may respond by trying harder to produce a workable production schedule ( just to show that I can do it ). The same competitive dynamics the urge to win often lead to innovative breakthroughs, because of the effort and willingness to consider new approaches. Interpersonal conflicts frequently clarify persistent, underlying organizational problems. Furthermore, intense conflict can focus attention on basic issues and lead to the resolution of longstanding difficulties, since the problems can no longer be smoothed over or easily avoided. 2

3 Managing Interpersonal Conflict Being involved in a conflict can also sharpen an individual s personal approaches to bargaining, influence, and competitive problem-solving. In addition, the participants often increase their own understanding of personal values and positions on important issues. Conflict will often force a manager to clarify an idea more effectively by explaining it to someone who clearly disagrees with it. Thus conflicts can be useful, or at least can lead to positive outcomes, for the organization and for one or more of the individuals involved. There are often negative consequences, however, and conflict can escalate to a level where negative outcomes outweigh the positive ones. Negative outcomes Interpersonal conflicts are often unpleasant emotional experiences for the individuals involved. A subordinate who suppresses anger with a boss; a pair of managers who exchange angry words with each other; two colleagues who avoid each other because of previous tensions and jeopardize a department s productivity as a result; two other associates who play games by not sharing relevant and important information all of these patterns penalize the organization and have an emotional impact on the people involved. The organizational landscape is littered with managers who could not get along with their bosses, colleagues, or subordinates. In one sense, they were not good people managers, but we could also say that the firm had failed to help them develop effective procedures for dealing with conflict. When a person is involved in a conflict relationship, these negative outcomes spill out as emotions of anger, frustration, fear of failure, and a sense of personal inadequacy. Careers can be sidetracked or ruined. The stress of conflict relationships can make life miserable for people, disrupt patterns of work, and consume an inordinate amount of time for those involved as well as for those affected or indirectly concerned. The direct loss of productivity is but one negative business outcome; the danger of continued poor decision making because of withheld information is yet another. The irony is that the parties determined to win their own limited battles often cause major losses for themselves and the organization. Short-term negative outcomes can also lead to patterns of worsening relationships unless some remedial action is taken, and both the involved and third-party managers have the problem of deciding when the time for action has come. Although managers will sometimes maintain tensions over time for their positive outcomes, most managers will seek to change the situation before the schisms become too great. Before they can take appropriate steps, however, managers need to understand the behavior taking place. Behavior Patterns Interpersonal conflicts tend to develop patterns. That is, the two parties first engage in open conflict over a particular issue, then separate or gather forces before coming together and going at each other again. Often an organizational procedure like budgeting, scheduling, or work assignments will precipitate the conflict and serve as part of the background. Sometimes an apparently trivial issue will set off one party against the other. There may even be periods of time when two people seem to work relatively well together or are effectively buffered from each other. Then, once again, some event or change in circumstances sets them off. Although these triggering events are not always predictable, they often follow an identifiable pattern. Poor listening, one-up-manship, power-plays for resources, perceived putdowns, and overcontrolling comments can all serve as triggering devices that kindle the fires of distorted perceptions and feelings. The initial triggering behaviors can set in motion reactions and reciprocal behaviors that start a conflict cycle. Careful attention to when and how a conflict heats up is an important part of developing a conflict management strategy. It is equally important to note how the principals involved express their differences. When the conflict is open and active, the conflict behaviors are usually obvious: shouting, sulking, repeated sniping, heated debate, unwillingness to listen, hardening of positions, and so on. When the conflict is 3

4 Managing Interpersonal Conflict latent, however, or underground, the signs are not so evident. Then the conflict behavior is usually more subtle: writing memos to avoid face-to-face contact; delaying decisions to block the other party; interacting through subordinates or third parties; avoiding direct exchanges; or changing times of daily arrivals and departures to avoid meeting. Detecting such suppressed conflict requires great sensitivity, but it is important to do so since many conflicts are expressed indirectly. Developing an understanding of behavior patterns in a particular conflict situation is an important prelude to planning how to manage that conflict. If particular events trigger open conflict, then those events may either be stopped, or actively constrained. This kind of understanding can also lead participants or third parties to make more effective choices about when and where to enter the conflict. Finally, the patterns of conflict can provide important clues to the underlying reasons for the conflict. Substantive Issues, Perceptions, and Feelings Most conflicts include two distinctively different kinds of issues. Substantive issues involve disagreements over policies, procedures, decisions, use of resources, roles and responsibilities, or other organizational practices. Emotional issues, in contrast, involve the highly personal perceptions and feelings that people can have about each other and about the substantive issues in contention. Because social customs and the norms of most organizations discourage the open expression of negative personal feelings, intense emotional conflicts are often expressed and rationalized as substantive issues. People often drum up substantive disagreements on trivial issues to provide justification for what has become basically an emotional conflict with another individual. This tendency to distort and magnify differences means that conflicts often escalate rapidly in intensity and importance. Each person builds a grievance list of real and perceived problems. People seek support wherever they can find it, repeatedly citing evidence to justify their feelings as a means of gaining sympathy. Worse yet, people attribute all kinds of negative motives and intentions to other persons, while thinking of themselves as the injured good guys. Conflicts also escalate because each time the two people interact they may try to score points, and each interaction then becomes part of the conflict s history. Any time a person thinks that he or she lost one round, the effort to win the next one can become that much more intense as the following example demonstrates. A product manager and an inventory control manager had to meet regularly to review and update product line sales forecasts. Their interests conflicted somewhat since the product manager wanted to minimize unit costs and avoid stockouts, while the inventory control manager wanted to minimize total purchasing costs and inventory levels. When their forecasts became inaccurate, the two managers had several substantive disagreements over the forecasting procedures and their divergent goals. Gradually, the two managers lost sight of each other s different basic assumptions and organizational needs; rather, they began to personalize their differences. Each felt threatened and attacked by the other, and these feelings intensified each time they interacted. Their growing distrust and lack of respect spilled over into personal antagonism with each manager seeing ulterior motives and unpleasant personality traits in the other. It worsened with personal threats, namecalling, and accusations being made of stupidity, self-interest, and dishonesty. Thus, a legitimate set of substantive differences became transformed into the vicious cycle of an emotional battle. Some managers involved in a conflict dispute are determined to work it out with the other party by themselves, through bargaining, control procedures, confrontation, or other forms of negotiation. Still other managers will see conflict as something to avoid, withdraw from, or smooth 4

5 Managing Interpersonal Conflict over as though it were not there. Colleagues and bosses are probably more willing to take the first approach than subordinates, who may feel forced to fall back on the second approach, and all parties may prefer a third-party mediator. A manager s choice has much to do with individual tolerance for conflict and the uncertainties that surround it. With experience, a manager can get a sense of how much to trust his or her own perceptions and feelings during such stressful times. Even though there is evidence that a certain amount of stress may indeed be a productive motivator, most people have difficulty remaining open-minded and flexible during times of high stress. In addition, performance shortcomings may challenge one s assumptions about personal abilities and self concept. The most natural response is to look elsewhere for a scapegoat If only they would give me more accurate sales forecasts, then I wouldn t be stuck with all this excess inventory. It is much easier to change perceptions about someone else s ability ( she just doesn t know how to forecast ) or motives ( he s deliberately feeding me false data to make me look bad ) than it is to admit personal failure or the need for help. Scapegoating is thus another personal characteristic that contributes to escalation in conflict situations. The advantage of third parties, trusted by both adversaries, is that their outside perceptions and feelings can serve as a reality check for both adversaries. If the third party can help work out a procedure for coping with the conflict, then that may be a major step toward further agreement or resolution. A boss acting as a third party has the added power of being able to arbitrate or tip the power balance one way or the other, but even this apparent advantage can have negative effects in the long run if the boss is perceived as taking sides too often. One of the hardest yet most important challenges for the third party is to stay in touch with the perceptions and feelings of the two adversaries, while simultaneously maintaining his or her own views, thus dealing with the conflict relationship rather than getting pulled toward either adversarial viewpoint. Underlying and Background Conditions The underlying causes of interpersonal conflict are just as numerous and varied as the ways in which conflicts are expressed. The difficulty of assessing the factors causing or reinforcing a particular conflict is that there are usually multiple forces involved. Separating out the primary causes is often impossible, since most serious conflicts become self-reinforcing: They have such a powerful history and have become so personalized that their original sources are irrelevant to the present conflict. Nevertheless, attempts to understand a conflict must consider the forces behind the adversary s actions. Managing the conflict then means changing the situational factors surrounding it, or altering the ways in which the adversaries respond to the situation and to each other. These causal factors are divided into two categories: (1) situational or external characteristics, and (2) personal or internal characteristics. These distinctions are somewhat arbitrary, however, and will be treated more distinctively here than they usually are in practice. Situational-external characteristics This category includes all of the external conditions surrounding the two people the pressures of time and deadlines; competition for budgetary funds, staff, organizational influence, and other scarce resources; performance pressures from bosses, peers, and other departments; promotion opportunities; and the organizational rules and procedures that affect their interaction. When two people from different departments (such as the market analyst and inventory control manager described above) must interact, they often represent and reflect their own reference group s differences in goals, values, and priorities. Thus interdepartmental conflict frequently becomes interpersonal conflict unless the two representatives can rise above the special interests of the groups they represent. But even two people from the same department can become competitive for scarce resources, whether it be budgetary funds, subordinates, control over key procedures and decisions, office space, 5

6 Managing Interpersonal Conflict or the boss s time or job. The pressures to perform can make the personal stakes so high that individual managers become very inflexible and defensive. These stakes are particularly important when middle managers are placed in competition for promotion opportunities that stress individual responsibilities and rewards. Since most organizations reward managers who succeed both formally (promotions and salary increases) and informally (influence, status, credibility), the social pressures to compete and win can be extremely intense. Personal-internal factors The personal goals, styles, and abilities of two people in conflict can also have a powerful effect on their behavior and their relationship. Personal career goals and ambitions can develop in response to the organizational pressures just described. People often experience feelings of rivalry and interpersonal competition, however, even when there is little external basis for such emotions. Sometimes there is a poor fit between a person and the job requirements, and his or her poor performance may indeed create serious problems for someone else. More frequently, however, conflict erupts and escalates because one manager sees another manager as actively blocking a personally important goal. Whether that perception is accurate or not is almost irrelevant. The resulting feelings of anger, frustration, and anxiety contribute to the emotional escalation of conflict. These kinds of feelings are often strong among ambitious, competitive, achievement-oriented individuals. Bad chemistry between two people is also spoken of as a cause of conflict. If people have different personal values, styles, or basic assumptions that affect their work habits, then they may also disagree over how to accomplish important tasks. Consider the possible tensions between an aggressive, high-energy manager and a careful, methodical analyst, for example; or between a talkative, easy-going plant manager and a quiet, reserved manufacturing manager. Sometimes personal styles are complementary, but sometimes they are basically incompatible. When the people involved feel strongly about their ways of doing things, conflict is almost inevitable. One of the most critical personal characteristics feeding a conflict is a capacity for coping with stress. When personal and organizational stakes are high, people may develop short fuses and become intolerant of others mistakes or even of their legitimate needs. When two people are under extreme pressure and must interact frequently, it is very difficult for them to avoid blaming each other for the problems they experience. By the time the external conditions of a situation get fueled by each person s internal anxieties and stress levels, it is easy to see how conflict can surface in the areas of perceptions, feeling, and behavior. Confronted with these conditions and with the outcomes of a conflict situation, either as an adversary or an onlooker, a manager is faced with a series of choices. The first is whether to avoid the conflict or try to manage it. Although the choice may seem clear-cut on paper managers should manage many managers are better at conflict avoidance, or smoothing over, than they are at conflict management. The skills and strength for managing a conflict, either as an involved participant or as a third party, do not come easily for most people. At the same time, there are instances when avoidance or smoothing over negative outcomes and stress makes sense, if satisfaction is valued more highly than either performance or growth. This is true in many family business situations, in close partnerships, or in businesses that have settled into conflict avoidance patterns. But in other situations, where management is trying to optimize the balance of the three outcomes performance, satisfaction, and growth there is a greater need for managing conflict. Managing the Conflict If a manager chooses to manage a conflict and not withdraw or smooth it over, he or she must first of all take stock of their place in the situation: An adversary or third party? Boss or subordinate? Representative or free agent? With power and dependencies or, relatively speaking, without them? Any one of these roles poses its own set of demands and choices. Some of these demands and choices 6

7 Managing Interpersonal Conflict also depend upon personal attributes how a manager feels about using his or her power in this fashion and willingness to take on this conflict. The following sections briefly discuss three general approaches to conflict management and then raise several questions that a manager might ask before taking one of these or another approach. 1 The three approaches can be roughly categorized as (1) bargaining, (2) controlling, and (3) confrontation. Bargaining behavior is probably most prevalent under conditions of required interdependence and a rough balance of power. Controlling behavior is more apt to be used when one party or the other (including the third party) has relatively higher power, but where the interdependence requirements are more flexible. Confrontation behavior may be used under either of the above conditions, but appears to depend more on the personal attributes of the parties involved and on the assumptions they make about the setting and time pressures. As each of these approaches is discussed, the assumption is made that the acting manager understands the conflict situation s outcomes and consequences; the behavior, the perceptions and feelings related to the substantive issues; and the underlying background conditions. Each of these dimensions offers an entry point for either an adversary or a third-party mediator, but the choice of an approach depends on the individual s position, skills, and personal preferences. Bargaining For a manager involved either as adversary or mediator in a conflict, negotiating or bargaining with the other party on the substantive issues often appears to be the reasonable approach. The assumption here is that the conflict involves a win-lose situation in which one party would gain or lose at the other s expense. If two parties come to the bargaining table in unionmanagement fashion, however, they would signal that they wished to consider and seek new ways to resolve or compromise the conflict. The alternative presumably means win-lose warfare or withdrawal into a stalemate condition. The advantage of a bargaining approach is that the goal of compromise is a step beyond the goal of conflict. In approaching such negotiations the two parties, with or without a third-party mediator, usually prepare to lose as well as to win some points. The goal is to get an acceptable solution in a way that appears to be rational for outside consumption. At the same time, many bargaining situations involve games such as bluffing, behind-the-scenes negotiations, an attempt to marshal outside power sources, a tendency to overstate one s initial demands, and the heavy use of legalistic procedures which preserve the appearance of a rational process. Each of these bargaining tactics can involve risks as well as rewards. Another problem with a bargaining approach is that the parties often place a higher premium on acceptable compromises than on sound solutions. A manager who engages in a bargaining approach, either as an adversary or as a third party, can lose sight of the organization s well-being and get consumed in the limited goals of getting an acceptable solution. Controlling There are four general ways to control interpersonal conflict. They usually appear when there is a power imbalance when one party can exert pressures to make something happen. Conflict control can also be a temporary approach used until the crisis is over or conditions improve enough to permit bargaining or confrontation. Other times, two adversaries will get tired of the controls or a third party appears who gains the trust of both adversaries. The four controlling behaviors open to either adversaries or mediators are: (1) preventing interaction or reducing its frequency; (2) 1 Ideas in this section are drawn from the following sources: Richard Walton, Interpersonal Peacemaking (Boston: Addison-Wesley, 1969); Louis R. Pondy, Organizational Conflict: Concepts and Models, Administrative Science Quarterly (vol. 12, no. 2, September 1967) pp ; Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton, The New Managerial Grid (Houston: Gulf Publishing Co., 1978). 7

8 Managing Interpersonal Conflict structuring the forms and patterns of interaction; (3) reducing or changing the external situational pressures; and (4) personal counseling to help the two parties accept and deal with the process and realities of the conflict. This last approach, counseling, involves a kind of third-party help different from mediation, and it can also be used with bargaining and confrontation approaches. Preventing interaction or reducing its frequency This strategy is often useful when emotions are high. It controls conflict by reducing the possibility of triggering events. If the two people are physically separated and no longer need to interact with each other, then there is little opportunity for them to express differences. Although the differences continue to exist, the intense feelings are likely to dissipate without recurring run-ins, or at least to cool down enough to permit other approaches. There are many ways to reduce or eliminate interaction. Sometimes operating procedures can be modified to eliminate the necessity of two people working together. If that option is impossible, then peers or subordinates can substitute for one or both parties. If the conflict stems from an underlying conflict of interest, however, it is just as likely to flare up in the new relationship. One or both of the people could be transferred to a new job or even to a new physical location. Several of these options are relatively expensive and time-consuming. They may be useful, however, if there is no other way to work out the differences, or if the hostility has reached a level where confrontation would be either impossible or inordinately drawn out. Separating the two parties may create more serious long-term problems or only delay an eventual necessary confrontation. When adversaries are separated, their hostilities sometimes merely go underground and may become more rather than less intense because of the absence of any opportunity to express them. When that happens, the eventual confrontation may be even more serious, as the pent-up emotions finally come tumbling out. In these instances, trusted third parties can help judge whether reducing interaction makes sense. Structuring the forms of interaction The separation options listed above are sometimes not feasible. When the two parties must continue to interact, the conflict can be controlled by adopting clear guidelines of behavior. These procedures can be as specific and narrow as the parties wish. For example, they might specify the time and place of meetings, the allowable discussion topics, the specific information to be provided by each individual, or even the types of questions or comments that are not allowed. Alternatively, the imposed procedures might specify or imply new channels of communication: meetings could be replaced with memos, messages, or telephone calls. How these ground rules are established depends on the specific situation and on the relationships between the people involved. A manager can generally impose these kinds of procedures on subordinates or other adversaries with less organizational authority. In the absence of such a clear mandate, however, the ground rules are often arrived at by negotiation, mutual agreement, or the help of a third party. This approach permits the continued exchange of vital information, while preventing the exchange of hostile and judgmental emotions that would interfere with needed communication. Like physical separation, this strategy should be a temporary strategy, since the suppression of strong emotions can easily lead to more violent and destructive flare-ups later on. Involved adversaries may find that their own perspectives need the objectivity of outsiders to reduce distortion in making judgments and to help learn when to use and when to abandon this approach. Reducing or changing external pressures Instead of focusing on the interactions that characterize the conflict, a strategy of changing the conditions that are feeding the conflict is often more effective. When the diagnosis of the conflict suggests that situational factors are largely responsible for the problem, then dealing with those factors directly can control the conflict or even eliminate it completely. 8

9 Managing Interpersonal Conflict The factors that should be changed will depend on the specific circumstances, each manager s power to affect the critical factors, and the organizational consequences of the changes (sometimes a change that might control the conflict would not be appropriate for other, more important reasons). Situational factors that could be changed include: extending deadlines; adding new project personnel; modifying organizational policies, or making temporary exceptions; setting up periodic informational meetings; increasing budget allocations; and protecting the principals from harassment by peers or even organizational superiors. Sometimes these mechanisms are in the hands of one of the adversaries and can be acted upon; at other times they need actions from outside or above the conflict. Personal counseling In contrast to the other control strategies, this approach does not address the conflict itself, but focuses on how the two people are reacting to it. The underlying assumption here is that providing counseling, reassurance, and emotional support will help make their conflict more tolerable. In addition, the process of ventilating feelings about an adversary to a colleague or friend usually releases pent-up tensions and may become a first step toward personally discovering new ways to deal directly with the conflict. Alternatively, talking out the problem with the third party can lead an individual to invent new procedures or personal goals that make him or her less dependent on the other party, thus reducing the inherent stress in the conflict. Controlling a conflict situation whether it be self controlled or third party in origin is useful as a short-term strategy, since either the situation or the parties can be changed. Where this approach is not likely to succeed, or when interdependence needs are high, managers should think about ways to constructively confront the conflict. Confrontation Either as adversaries or mediators, managers can make choices in confronting a conflict. One major choice lies in his or her intent. Is the manager confronting the differences in a constructive, getting-beyond-the-conflict manner, or confronting them in a way that is more destructive and attacking? The problem with adversarial confrontation is that although one adversary wants to be constructive, the other party may perceive the initial attempt as an attack. Consequently, constructive confrontation should begin with a serious and well-communicated attempt to understand and explore the other party s perceptions and feelings. This process can be aided by a third party, who helps to build an exploratory climate while going beyond the initial temptations to support one of the two adversaries. It is important to remember that a constructive confrontation does not usually begin with a confrontation; rather, it begins with an attempt to understand. Constructive confrontation has the advantage, once a climate of exploration has been introduced, of conveying the possibility of a winwin solution. It seeks an exchange of information substantive as well as perceptions and feelings that provides new definitions of the problem and new motives for a common solution. These processes require not only skill and patience, but also persistence and an effort to help each party listen to the other while constantly looking for ways to move out of a deadlock. This is true for adversaries and mediators. Each operates under considerable stress at times, but a crucial expression is often the simple question of What if? as a way of searching for new alternatives. At the same time, a confrontation may initially have to move carefully while the two adversaries seek ways to release their emotions and feelings. Once again a third party can help legitimize these expressions while channeling or policing the ways in which negative or hostile feelings are expressed. For example, the third party or even one of the adversaries may suggest that the parties agree to express and explore feelings that result from the actual behavior of each adversary, rather than venting feelings based upon inference and speculation of the other s motives and perceptions. Without these ground rules for the expression of feelings, confrontation can easily become more destructive than constructive. With such ground rules, it is usually easier to move to new stages of exchanging information and problem solving. 9

10 Managing Interpersonal Conflict Some Relevant Action Questions Acting to help manage a conflict as opposed to avoiding it, smoothing it over, or using power to suppress it an involved or third-party manager could pause and raise the following questions. These questions are more important when considering a confrontation strategy, which is potentially both the most difficult and the most rewarding, but they are also applicable to other approaches. 1. To what extent is there a productive level of tension and motivation in the conflict relationship? Or has the conflict become highly destructive in nature? If conflict resolution is to be successful, there typically must be enough stress in the situation for the participants to desire a resolution, but not so much that they are unable to deal with the issues or each other. Too little tension may require someone calling attention to the personal or organizational outcomes that make the latent conflict dangerous or dysfunctional. Too much tension may require cooling-off steps or temporary controlling measures. By the same token, interpersonal conflict often persists because only one party is motivated to do anything about it. When this happens, little can be done until the tension level is again high enough for both adversaries to at least say they want to work toward a resolution. Such stated motivation can serve as a starting point. 2. What are the balances of status and power positions among the two or three parties? The balance of power configurations can play a big part in determining appropriate paths to conflict resolution or avoidance. For example, there may be less chance for successful resolution when one party in a two-party relationship is much more powerful or influential than the other. It is often harder to get third-party involvement in such situations, particularly when the power imbalance involves a superior and a subordinate. At the same time, these are instances when third-party mediation can be most helpful, for the third party can help rebalance the power equation. Conflict resolution advantages are clearly on the side of the higher-status person, whether that person be an adversary or a third party. 3. To what extent are time and flexible resources available? Conflict resolution in almost any form can require considerable time, new procedures, off-site meetings, outside help, painful adjustments, restructuring of relationships, and tolerance for uncertainties. As conflict conditions develop and change, so might the participants need for time and resources. It may be easier to change situational or external variables, such as new procedures, than it is to change the internal perceptions of all parties in the conflict arena, particularly those who are reference-group members or advocates for the two adversaries. Under these conditions, active counseling by a number of managers may be useful to provide new perspectives throughout the conflict arena. Changing the feelings and perceptions of the two adversaries may not be enough if their reference groups won t allow them to relinquish the conflict. It may take more time to work on all involved parties. Conclusion Interpersonal conflict can be both a constructive and a destructive force within an organization. More importantly, managers must recognize that such conflict is inevitable in any human organization. A manager s first choice is whether to ignore or avoid such realities, or whether to find ways of managing the complexities of the conflict. The first alternative is quite often easier in the short run, but more costly over the long run. At the same time, the management of conflict requires some understanding of its outcomes, its destructive behavior and reciprocity patterns, the perceptions and feelings that drive the behavior, and the underlying and background conditions that 10

11 Managing Interpersonal Conflict help to perpetuate the conflict. Each of these approaches provides entry points for managing the conflict in either bargaining, controlling, or confronting fashions separately or in some combination. Although these approaches are rough in concept, they can help a manager explore his or her options in dealing with the realities of a conflict situation. Almost every manager will have ample opportunity to view such situations from both the outside and as an involved adversary. Although the objective tone of this note may capture some of the issues found in interpersonal conflict, it cannot capture the emotional qualities that pervade such situations. Fortunately, or unfortunately, most readers can do that for themselves. If not, they are the ones who may be in the most future difficulty. 11