When I entered the workforce more than 20 years ago, I never imagined it would come with the pettiness of conflict found in a collegiate sorority.
Gossip and clique-based alliances could turn one well-intentioned, though misunderstood, young woman into a pariah. The core of the problem usually wasn’t hard to ascertain: Social judgement was frequently rendered without ever bringing the subject of the “conflict” into the conversation. I put conflict in quotation marks to signify that the person deemed responsible for the conflict frequently had no idea there was a conflict at all.
Fast forward many years later into the corporate world, and not much has changed. I have witnessed people whose lives were turned inside out by toxic work environments and job loss related to “conflict” they were never directly brought into the conversation to address.
Verifying that There Is, Indeed, a “Conflict”
It’s darkly humorous that at least one conflict I experienced myself would have been a surprise to me if anyone had asked me about it. “What conflict?” I would have quickly responded. “I did everything she asked me to do and am currently working productively with her.”
Step one is confirming that all parties agree they are at an impasse. It may turn out that the offending party had an initial disagreement or hesitation, but at the time the issue was escalated, had already agreed to go along with whatever was supposedly causing the conflict.
It also may be that they will go along with what they are being asked to do if they understand the stakes—if they understand that their income and health insurance coverage are at risk of being lost.
An easy solution to avoid a conflict determining an unwitting employee’s fate is to require that the employee be brought into the conversation.
“Sara, your manager, Elizabeth, says you have pushed back and been resistant to her new work processes. Is that correct?”
“I think there’s been a misunderstanding,” Sara might say if she wanted to put it in a diplomatic way. “I had some initial misgivings and questions about some of Elizabeth’s new work processes, but since that time, I have been going along with all of it.”
The mediating executive, Joe, then would ask Elizabeth: “Can you identify exactly which tasks Sara is not doing that you would like her to do?”
Elizabeth then may become shifty and change tactics, calling into question the existence of a real issue. “It isn’t one thing; it’s larger behavioral issues—it’s attitudinal.”
Joe then should push for specifics. “Please be more specific. What specific behaviors or attitudes are creating a conflict for you?”
When all affected parties—including the person who stands to lose the most—are brought into the conversation, it quickly may become apparent that due to misunderstanding, or intentional misrepresentation, there is no real conflict at all.
Be Wary of Quick Escalation
In a sorority or other informal social group consisting of immature adults, an outraged person sometimes will run directly to the executive board, or even a chapter adviser, to put in a complaint about a member without ever having spoken to that member first. Emotions may not be well managed, so that the offended member is not able to take a deep breath and say to themselves, “Let me speak directly to my fellow member about this before I escalate things.”
I once witnessed a manager who was just a couple of months into a new position escalate a “case” against an employee who had worked successfully at the company for more than a decade.
The correct protocol would have been for the executives she had immediately looped into the conversation to push back on her: “Elizabeth, this issue is not ready for escalation yet. Try working it out directly with Sara.”
When Elizabeth says that she did already try, savvy executives should be skeptical and ask for confirmation from the affected employee that the conversation(s) Elizabeth referred to truly took place.
Trust but Verify
Think about the things your organization trusts its managers to execute. In reality, you aren’t blindly trusting; your trust is based on evidence. You “trust” them to do their jobs well because your executives saw for themselves how well they did a prior job, or because they spoke to references who provided proof that they did a prior, related job well.
Conflict resolution should be no different. You trust your managers in the complaints they make about employees, but you should only do so with proof. The conversation should never be from one executive to the other who signed off on a termination or other measures: “Did you speak directly to Sara about this?” And the rubber-stamping executive responds, “No, I trust Elizabeth.”
Executives, managers, and employees should be trained on essential conflict resolution protocol so it becomes what athletes call a muscle memory reflex: bringing all parties—including the person who will be most affected by the “resolution”—directly into the conversation.
In your conflict resolution training, do you teach and enforce a protocol of including all affected parties?