Is There Such a Thing as Good Conflict in the Workplace?

Many people think all conflict is bad, something to be avoided. While it's true that many conflicts are unproductive, unnecessary and consume valuable resources such as time, energy, attention and money, do these apply to all conflicts? I say no. 

Conflict can be likened to a physical state of discomfort. While a toothache is unpleasant, it might be a sign that you need to visit the dentist. A headache might be a sign of dehydration. Muscle pain might be an aftereffect of a hard workout. 

Similarly, an intrapersonal conflict about how to handle a situation might be unpleasant, but it might also be a sign that a decision needs to be made. Difficulty in relating to a co-worker might be uncomfortable, but it might also be a sign that one or both of the people involved need to learn more about each other’s culture, generation or work habits. A tense meeting might represent a constructive clash of ideas about how to resolve a critical issue. 

However, some physical situations have no apparent upside. There might not be a silver lining to a broken arm, a cracked molar or an illness. Similarly, if conflicts in the workplace are hampering people’s ability to accomplish the mission of their organization, the downsides might outweigh the upsides, and there might be little or no upside in some workplace arguments or fractured relationships.

THROWING OUT ONLY THE (DIRTY) BATHWATER 

How can a manager know when conflict is the good kind and not the bad kind? Here’s a simple diagnostic tool that requires answering just one question: 

Is the conflict about getting a task done or about the relationship between the people in conflict? 

“Task conflict” is positive, if handled well. “Relationship conflict” is generally not positive, at least in the workplace (it can be very important in one’s interpersonal life but is generally not welcome in one’s professional life). Let’s do a slightly deeper dive. 

When Abraham Lincoln formed his so-called “team of rivals” (William Seward, Salmon Chase and Edward Bates), he thought that interested parties—stakeholders if you will—who have different perspectives and interests would create a more robust array of options to address a need than would like-minded people, who might engage in “groupthink” or “premature consensus.” This diversity of perspectives and interests should culminate in a more thorough vetting process than would be the case in a homogenous group. It’s good to assemble a team that argues hard in service of an optimal solution to a shared problem. 

However, if conflict is mishandled and leads to members of the group shutting down or harboring ill will that bleeds over into other projects or tasks, it becomes a problem. For example, if Seward had insulted Chase personally and Chase took to the 1800s version of social media and “canceled” or “flamed” Seward and that caused Seward to refuse to attend any future meetings, the conflict would be counterproductive.

TWO REASONS WHY IT’S HARD 

We aren’t just task-doers; we are “whole selves.” People don’t check their interpersonal selves into a storage locker when they go to work. They bring their whole selves. When a colleague engages them in a task discussion, there’s also an identity component, a belonging component and a person-who-gets-evaluated-based-on-performance component. It’s hard to segregate one self from another, and when hearing something negative about an idea, it’s hard not to feel like the person beneath the idea was negatively critiqued along the way. 

Not everyone in the workplace is particularly sensitive. Some are better at empathy than others. A comment about an idea or a task may be phrased in clumsy or hurtful language; for example, “Any idiot could see the flaws in that line of thinking.” In a world in which neurodiversity is valued, a colleague might be on the autism spectrum and have relatively poor abilities in couching critiques in ways that aren’t incidentally bruising. A person offering a critique of an idea might just be having a bad day and might say things in ways that aren’t a product of their best self.

The culture within a workplace can cause some to feel unsafe. Psychological safety is an easy concept to understand. People should feel comfortable offering critiques and new ideas, giving and receiving feedback, and socializing in person and in virtual meetings with peers, supervisors and supervisees, and other colleagues. At JAMS Pathways, we are often called in to help workplaces create and maintain psychological safety. We use conflict management techniques to help foster a safe and productive work environment. There are unfortunately many workplaces that are less than 100% psychologically safe.

THE BOTTOM LINE 

A great manager can nurture situations and environments where the right kind of conflict can lead to exciting and engaging decision-making and a vibrant, psychologically healthy workplace. Great things can happen in those places. 

That same great manager can help their teams avoid the pitfalls and negative outcomes associated with unchecked and unhelpful interpersonal conflict by employing conflict resolution approaches. 

And most importantly, that manager will know the difference between the two and structure interventions accordingly. 

Finally, for managers who want to become great, training and education, as well as the intervention of a skilled conflict resolution/prevention professional, is an excellent place to start. JAMS Pathways offers comprehensive training programs and facilitation services for leaders seeking to improve their conflict resolution skills. Our customized solutions enable your organization to transform conflicts into opportunities for growth and collaboration.

Understanding conflict styles and choosing the best conflict style for each situation are critical skills that JAMS Pathways can help you and your teams develop.