People Often Express Content Conflict Relationally
The influence team members have through their arguments, ideas, and advocacy is very important to them. So is the common ground they share with colleagues regarding their values, beliefs, and opinions.
When, for whatever reason, they feel their influence is diminished by a leader or team member, they act out and express their dissatisfaction, but not in the way we would expect.
When people don’t have the influence they would like, can’t win the argument, or get upstaged by superior ideas or advocacy, they take issue with the person, not the substance. In other words, they express conflict over content relationally.
They avoid those people, listen but refrain from engaging, say their personalities clash, tell others the other party bothers them or is not their cup of tea, and create a general feeling of dislike for the other party. Not because they truly have a problem with who people are, but because they can’t compete with them on the battlefield of influence.
This pattern is quite common, yet often goes unrecognized even by the party who feels substantively inadequate or diminished. This makes working through the conflict nearly impossible, which is why so many so-called personality clashes sometimes keep the fires of conflict going between colleagues for years.
That conflict over content and substance is often expressed relationally is important for leaders to recognize. Leaders who understand and appreciate this pattern can help themselves or others get to the heart of the conflict and better work through the struggle without wasting time on what only appears as a clever dodge.
The tendency for people to express content conflict through dissatisfaction about the relationship is so strong it should become a leader’s first conclusion when trying to understand why two colleagues have such distaste for each other.
Helping the parties achieve more parity regarding their influence with others will usually take the temperature down and allow for a more harmonious relationship between the colleagues.
Just understanding what is really going on is enough to help leaders manage the conflict and not fall into the trap of attending to the wrong issue. Once again, when it comes to expressing conflict, the opposite is often true. Good leaders remember that.
An excellent counterpart to yesterday’s post!
Good morning,
This topic is simple yet complex. Yesterday, I finished a post for class, that fell in this category. It was directed more towards the individual, rather than the group dynamics. Both posts reminded me of HABIT 5: SEEK TO UNDERSTAND, THEN TO BE UNDERSTOOD (Covey. 1989). Professor Covey's book, THE 7 HABITS OF HIGHLY EFFECTIVE PEOPLE, is still the best self-help work I have come across.
Your post definitely dives into the human part of the organization and teams. While from a balcony view, a leader can often see what is wrong (as we have previously discussed). This doesn't mean they have necessarily gotten to the root cause. One of my rules is: "investigate a situation, before I draw a conclusion." The resistance (Pressfield. 2002.) I have faced in implementing this rule to my model is it isn't always the fastest approach. Though this is one of those hills I am willing to die on (Sample. 2002.).
One thing (I have learned much of my ways of operating from Eastern and Western Philosophies) I learned from recovery circles is: "principles over personalities." This can be difficult. If we implement this way of thinking, as long as we share the same vision and/or mission statement, we should be able to work professionally together. Who knows, we may even grow to like each other...
Thank you for your time.