How Not To Step On Each Other'S Toes

According to an article in the July-August 1997 issue of the Harvard Business Review, authors Kathleen M Eisenhardt, Jean L Kahjway and L J Bourgeious III say, the trick is to keep constructive conflict over issues from degenerating into a dysfunctional interpersonal conflict. How does one do that?

There are six tactics for managing interpersonal conflicts:

Team members work with as much information as possible and debate on the basis of facts; develop multiple alternatives to enrich the level of debate; should have a commonality of goals; should be able to have light conversations in the middle of serious debate; maintain a balanced power structure; should get out of the habit of insisting for consensus as a precondition to resolution of issues.

The task, therefore, before the team leaders then is one of making sure that the above become a part of their team's culture.

The significance of large amounts of information objective and up-to-date data is that it helps people focus on issues, not personalities. The absence of good data leads to pointless debate over opinions. The top management needs to have commitment to generate current data, both internal and external.

Terms plagued by interpersonal conflict rely more on hunches and guesses. Even while considering facts, there is tendency to lay greater store on a past measure, such as profitability, which is both historical and highly refined. This leads to planning based on extrapolation and intuitive attempts to predict the future. Also, absence of facts can also cloud an individual's motives.

Contrary to what many managers believe, higher the number of alternatives, lesser the interpersonal conflict. In fact, it is not uncommon for smart team leaders to introduce an option which they do not support to promote debate.

And, it pays to involve team members in the evolution of options. It helps enhance the teamwork within the group. Plus, the team can combine several elements of several options in a way that was more robust than any of the options individually.

Multiple alternatives tend to give more room, to the individuals to vary their choices over a range of issues. And managers can more easily shift positions without losing face.

Generating options itself leads to concentration of energy in identifying and solving problems. Also, the managers do not stop at obvious solutions, rather they continue generating more usually more original options. The process in itself is creative.

Teams hobbled by conflict, lack common goals. There is a nagging feeling among team members that they are in competition with one another. The attitude becomes negative, a reaction to a perceived threat.

However, the competition element cannot be wished away. Nor is there a need to. Instead, the focus should be on identifying elements of collaboration. It is the responsibility of the team manager to drive home the fact that getting to the best possible solution is in the interest of everyone. Hence, say the authors, emphasise that it is the outcome of the debate that matters and not the debate itself. Working towards common goals reduces the likelihood of people looking upon themselves as individual winners and losers.

But even with common goals and objectives, some tension is bound to be there. The vagaries of modern world ensure that. Therefore, a 'pressure valve' is a must. A team that handles conflict well is the one which sees fast-paced competition as a stimulant, rather than a stress factor.

While at times, attempts at humour may be contrived, yet they help release tensions. It is a sort of defence mechanism that protect people from stressful and threatening situations that are common in the course of strategic decision making. It also shifts decision making into a collaborative frame rather than a competitive one. A positive mood not only makes one more optimistic but also contributes to creativity. Significantly, it makes people more forgiving of others. People in good mood relax their defensive barriers and so can listen more effectively.

The faith of the leader in the final decision often depends on his faith in the decision making process itself. Therefore, it is critical to create a sense of fairness by balancing power within the team. Both autocratic as well as weak leaders increase conflict. Ideally, while the leader should have more power, he should, at the same time be accommodating of member's views, especially in their area of responsibility.

However, that's not enough. There should be appropriate ways of handling and resolving conflicts. There is a tendency to associate consensus with harmony. That leads to avoidance of conflict resolution. Consensus is welcome, but not a precondition. A decision has to be made, and quickly in most business situations. In such a case, the senior executive should step in, take the decision based on inputs from team members, and get on with it. The advantage of such an approach is; it is quick but at the same time does not leave team members with a feeling that they were left out of it.

In today's hyper-competitive world, successful strategic decisions are likely to be made by teams whose members challenge each other's thinking, to develop a better understanding of choices, create a richer range of options without sacrificing speed. The key to doing so is to mitigate interpersonal conflict.