Thoughts on Managing the Top Ten Types of Conflicts
Conflict: It’s a reality of life-working-with-others and generally healthy for people and organizations interested in stretching and growing. But there are conflicts that are positive and productive, conflicts that are unproductive, and conflicts that may not be resolved. You can learn from the conflicts you have with others – about yourself, your company, and your fit with your company and with others. The top ten types of conflict patterns we see are below.
Conflicts of Reality are all centered on how we gather, see, and use data (or not) to make choices proactively.
1. Data is not considered
The most effective managers and leaders understand not just the bigger picture of their decisions but also the facts, logic, and data behind them—the reality of the circumstances described in measurable, quantifiable terms. If the data is not considered, and two parties are in conflict, then factors such as politics, favoritism, nepotism, and other non-merit-based factors will determine how a conflict is resolved.
2. Data is slanted in one direction
Data is just facts, and facts can be intentionally or unintentionally slanted. In evaluating the data referred to during a conflict, ensure that the data measures the right things, that you’re comparing apples-to-apples, and that the people producing the data are ethical people without ulterior motives. Other measures should also be taken to ensure that the data is pure, impartial, and informative.
Or risk that the conflict would get resolved in the wrong direction, leaning on the misinformation of tainted, slanted data.
3. Emotions cloud the data
Sometimes, the most stressful types of conflicts come when one party or both (all) parties are so emotionally charged that the facts and the data are ignored, disregarded, or slanted. It’s difficult to resolve this type of conflict when deep, long-term relationships are involved. The best thing to do is to separate the emotions from the facts, difficult as it might be, particularly if *you* are the person experiencing those deep emotions. Making the conversation about the data and information in front of you is the logical approach to resolving this type of conflict. Waiting until the emotions can be managed on all sides might be the most practical thing to do.
Accept that if the emotions run deep, there may be too much resistance to resolve the conflict. If the data and information aren’t considered in making a fact-based decision, it would be difficult to resolve a conflict as there’s a danger of agreeing to something illogical, nonsensical, unfair, and/or short-sighted.
Conflict of Goals Conflicts center around the thinking and objectives of two differing parties with different priorities and realities.
4. Abundance vs. Scarcity Mentality
When resources are scarce and the pressure is on, many people develop a scarcity mentality and think that others are jockeying for the budget, influence, relationships, etc. that they have. There are others in the same group or organization who naturally think more collaboratively, despite the immediate circumstances. Their mentality is that of abundance: the more we cooperate and share, the larger the resource pool is for all.
Conflict naturally occurs between people with these differing schools of thought. Those with a scarcity mentality might take offense to those from the abundance mentality and vice versa. Focusing everyone on how to work collaboratively and how to share tight resources cooperatively will help to resolve immediate conflicts, and creating circumstances where resources aren’t as scarce and collaboration is rewarded will help resolve these types of conflicts before they start.
5. Short-term vs. long-term goals
Sometimes, two parties who are both right can conflict, with one party focusing on the short-term needs of the person/group/organization and the other on the longer-term needs of the same. Consider how you can have it both ways in these cases, addressing the greatest short-term and long-term needs. Fold the perspectives and objectives of the other party into the short-term and long-term plans for all. Invest in the relationship through transparent, direct communications and collaborative long-term and short-term strategies.
6. Individual vs. Group vs. Company
Sometimes, two parties put their priorities behind single individuals, individual groups, or the company as a whole. Identifying who’s out for themselves as an individual, the group's total needs, and the company's overall needs can help resolve these types of conflicts.
In general, parties that put individuals/themselves first are far less likely to be doing the right thing for the group or company, by definition. Spelling out the objectives of the larger group or company may be all that’s needed to shift the goals of these people. The same goes for parties that are more group than company focused in their priorities.
Second-degree conflicts arise when one party or the other represents someone else's position without necessarily reflecting their own perspectives and goals.
7. One representing many
Sometimes, the person in conflict shares the opinion and position of the person, group, or organization he/she represents, but not necessarily all the nuances of why that particular position is taken. Working with his or her to fully understand and shift their position and helping them or her lobby those other parties would be necessary to resolve the conflict. Identifying whether this is the case and the nuances of the goals and tactics will increase the likelihood of conflict resolution.
8. Masked representation
Sometimes, the person in conflict is not representing his or her own perspective, but that of another person or group or organization, yet doesn’t directly and communicate these motivations transparently. Their behavior and goals may be puzzling; a missing piece may appear to be missing. Discovering the deeper motivations of all parties would help identify whether this is happening to one or both parties and may lead to conflict resolution.
A Conflict of Values is difficult to resolve, and agreeing to disagree may be the only option.
9. See differently about right and wrong
For cultural, moral, and other reasons, sometimes two parties may disagree on the right and wrong thing to do. Sometimes, it’s the circumstances that split two parties; sometimes, they would disappear no matter the circumstances. But if there’s a fundamental disagreement about what ‘doing the right thing’ is, and sufficient measures have been taken to enlighten both parties on the other’s perspective, it’s time to agree to disagree and move on.
10. Different perspective on what respect is
How respect is shown to someone varies greatly between individuals and cultures. Sometimes, behaviors one party might find innocuous is highly offensive to the other party. And sometimes there’s no getting over that perceived lack of respect. Identifying when this happened and why is your only chance toward a positive resolution.
The bottom line is that understanding why the conflict is occurring and the underlying motivations of both parties is a big step forward to resolving them. Communicating directly and transparently will help ferret out motivations and goals on both sides and identify a win-win resolution/the best course of action.
Bringing it back to *you*: What types of conflicts often characterize your relationships with specific people, and what does it say about what you’re doing now, and what new behavior patterns would be more productive for you?