“Try as we might, we can only see the world through our own lens.”
There is immense depth in this statement, and significant ramifications in failing to appreciate it. It feels especially pertinent when I think about conflict. To that end I recognise that this article is going to fall flat for a group of people who, unlike me, may consider the points I’m about to make somewhat banal. Some people welcome conflict. Indeed, they flourish in it, marching forth to hammer home their beliefs and inviting challenges to be made against them, ripe for rebuttal. I am not one of these people. If, like me, you can’t help but attach feelings of aggression to the idea of conflict, it becomes understandable that you might want to minimise or avoid it. For you then this article will, I hope, prove valuable. Perhaps it will for others too, but I make no assumptions.
To move forward though, because I’m now embarrassingly aware of the distortions my own lens creates around the subject, I feel the need for a definition. So let’s level the land with a nice, safe, Cambridge dictionary definition.
“Conflict (noun): An active disagreement between people with opposing opinions or principles.”
That’s better. It feels marginally disarmed to me now.
How we think about and handle conflict within teams, either as a team leader or member, is a rich subject for discussion. Securing a greater handle on it can help us be at our best in teams, and help teams unleash their full creative potential. Working to understand the lens through which we view conflict can open up a world of new opportunities for learning and development, and bring us closer to our goals, faster. For those who, like me, shy away from conflict, you are on occasion doing yourself and your team a disservice. More often than not, resolving conflict isn’t just a roadblock or barrier to overcome in pursuit of the current task, but rather an opportunity for great learning; a chance to develop and improve future events.
How we view conflict is, like all things in life, hugely influenced during our formative years. The way conflict was handled between siblings, parents, grandparents and any other influential individuals during our early years has a guiding impact on how we respond to conflict later on in life; a lens which we will forever struggle to circumvent. The Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument, a tool for assessing our preferences in responding to conflict, offers a peep behind that formative curtain, measuring responses along two axes; assertiveness and cooperativeness. Through a series of questions, it seeks to assess our preference between five different modes of dealing with conflict; accommodating, avoiding, compromising, competing and collaborating. Measured against 40,000 (US) respondents, the instrument helps us get a sense of the modes we use more frequently than most, as well as those we rarely utilise, unveiling our subconscious preferences. Every mode has its place in different circumstances. Indeed, we often develop patterns of progression through the different modes, suited to different situations. Looking at each of these modes in turn, my hope is that you’ll get a better sense of your own predispositions and how each mode might fit different circumstances for you. Perhaps you’ll even manage to discern your own patterns and know what to look out for in future.
Accommodating is a healthy mode to utilise when you’re seeking to preserve harmony and avoid disruption, perhaps because of a tight deadline. High on cooperativeness, low on assertiveness, it might also be useful if you’re humble enough to recognise that, heaven forbid, the opposition have a point. Of course, jumping to accommodate because you’re drawn to creating harmony, or put more simply, you like people to be happy, means you and your team will more frequently miss out on opportunities to learn, failing to allow valid points to be aired and debated. If this is your subconscious predilection, be sure to pause for a while to ask whether you’re being driven by a ‘need to please’.
...your team will more frequently miss out on opportunities to learn, failing to allow valid points to be aired and debated
Sometimes it’s perfectly valid to ‘avoid’. Low on cooperativeness and assertiveness, clearly avoiding is never going to lead to learning, but it too has its moments to shine. Sometimes the potential costs of confronting conflict far outweigh the benefits in its resolution. Again, do you have the humility to admit that your opposing views have little value in being expressed in some situations? Sometimes it's best to start with avoidance, wise to the situation where emotions are running high and conflict is best delayed. It’s worth taking time out to reflect better on your position, so you can prime yourself for when the time comes where there’s adequate mental space for both parties to address the conflict.
Compromising feels like the answer to all situations, right? We’re taught at school, and in broader society, that compromise is always a good thing. It’s a balanced response, intermediate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness, but actually it can often lead to neither party getting what they want, with dissatisfaction all around. Compromise can sometimes be sought because of a believed requirement for expedience (requiring far less effort than competing or collaborating, reaching a compromise is usually quite a swift affair) but is that need for expedience real or imagined? Could it be that the team is being impatient, or perhaps there’s a chance that sensitivities or embarrassment are driving the pursuit of a compromise, when actually the effort required to collaborate or compete is wholly worthwhile?
Competing is an assertive, power-oriented, uncooperative mode, and put in those terms I find it distasteful (damn my own lens!), but it’s worthy of a reframe. Sometimes we’re right to be assertive. Sometimes we’ve really given things a lot of thought; far more than the party opposing us. A quick assessment of other positions helps us appreciate that others have not yet scratched the surface of a problem we’re well placed to make a decision on, and quickly. To not drive the position forward would be to waste everyones’ time; the most precious of commodities. Sometimes, situations do require expediency and sometimes you are the best placed to be decisive and get the team to a conclusion...except when you’re not, and it’s your ego at play. Are you reflective enough to know the difference? Even in the heat of the moment?
Sometimes we’ve really given things a lot of thought; far more than the party opposing us.
Finally, collaborating, the gold standard of conflict modes, or so I thought. I did the test and found myself in the low 7th percentile with most people spending more time than me collaborating. I can’t help but feel a little despondent about that, but what’s important here is to be reflective and better understand our own dispositions, increasingly gaining a stronger handle over them. Collaborating is the most time-consuming of all the modes. It takes a lot of energy, and sometimes the issues just don’t warrant that time. Minor issues don’t require major investment, and not everything is an opportunity to appreciate the sensitivities (or neuroses) of others. Sometimes the joy of getting wrapped up in a problem is a sign of procrastination, rather than due diligence. Are you really collaborating, or just delaying the inevitable? It’s too easy to say that we should pursue collaboration wherever possible. The truth is, the greater the degree of cooperativeness and assertiveness, the more energy and time you’ll need to reach a resolution. Some situations just don’t call for that effort. To expend it would be to waste it. Sometimes the right thing to do is to avoid, right from the start.
Taking Kilmanns’s theory further, you find that we all establish patterns of using different modes in different situations, in a given sequence. I, for example, will typically look to accommodate (sitting at the 94th percentile), but then feel despondent because I gave away more than I would have liked. I go back to pursue a compromise. Lacking patience, I then jump to competing. Then, having realised the intensity of the force I’m opposing, I run away, avoiding the situation altogether. Hey, look, I know that sounds awful, but nobody’s perfect! At least I’m honest enough to reflect, admit, and then reflect on it further.
The trick here is to be reflective enough to unveil your own preference - the lens you view conflict through, understanding the contexts that drive your behaviour, as well as the preferences of the other party. Can you see patterns repeating themselves? In yourself and in others? With enough wisdom and patience you’ll be able to assess what approach is best suited to the circumstances, allowing rationale to guide you, rather than emotion. You won’t get it right every time, because you’re human, and that’s fine. But if you can increase the frequency with which you rationally consider your own lens around conflict, you’ll either save precious time, or create new opportunities to learn, two of the most valuable things in life.
With enough wisdom and patience you’ll be able to assess what approach is best suited to the circumstances, allowing rationale to guide you, rather than emotion
Should you consider doing the test yourself? Well, if the above has got you thinking and you believe you have a sense of your preferences, but are humble enough to accept that your own lens may be distorting that appreciation, then here’s a link. You’ll need 30 minutes and about £40/$50.
Alternatively, or indeed on top of that, I’d like to offer three questions that will encourage you and your fellow team members to reflect more deeply when confronted with conflict.
Is the conflict simply an obstacle to be overcome in the moment, or is there value here as a longer term learning opportunity for the group? (There’s usually always value!)
How might your personal lens be distorting the situation?
How might the opposing party be distorting the situation?
Perhaps add on, how might those you admire (create a virtual boardroom of advisors in your own mind) view this situation? Having that virtual board inside your mind is a powerful way to offer depth to your rational thinking, drawing you further away from your own distorted lens and emotional tendencies.
The best results for any team rely on the parties in conflict choosing to take the time to answer these questions. How much time are you willing to give to understanding conflict? How much time might that save in the long run? What kinds of ideas have been lost because conflict was handled poorly, or not handled at all. But then, perhaps you were right to run a mile! Regardless, that’s got to be worth pausing for a moment and reflecting on just a little, hasn’t it?
If these thoughts have both made you think about conflict in your team, but also anxious as to how the conversations might unfold, perhaps a team coach could prove valuable! Why not set up a chemistry call with me, and we'll unravel the conflict together.
A great article. I note that it does not address the issue of authority and leadership in resolving conflict. When teams don't have clear decision making processes this can create an ambiguity that is the source of anxiety. Good processes and good leadership can makes sure that the business moves forward together.
Very absorbing topic this one. Managing conflict is something I am all too familiar with and it is fascinating. I tend to avoid confrontation but in later years I've realised that sometimes you have to calmly explain how you see the 'situation/challenge/disagreement' in the cold light of day, whilst being aware, open and accepting of your own possible prejudice.
When faced with a tyrant, there has to be a point at which you say No! often with your opponent's best interests in mind. It reminds me of that well worn piece about keeping your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming you for it. Fortunately I have the patience of a saint. I also tend to return…