3 Things Organizations Get Wrong About Conflict

I've seen conflict rip organizations apart, derail careers, and corrode energy, creativity, and performance. Here are the three mistakes I see most often within organizational conflict processes - and what to do instead to create the thriving organization of your dreams.

1. Treating conflict like it's a disciplinary issue.

Punishments don't fix problems. And, when the problem is interpersonal conflict, punishment really won't fix it. Opaque disciplinary processes that are slow (multi-week to multi-month investigations) and ineffectual (verbal warning, anyone?) don't build trust in the organization or anyone acting on its behalf.

While people who really don't want to deal with conflicts roll their eyes and restrain them selves from yelling at people to "act like adults and talk it out" because there's a process that they need to follow to adjudicate the situation and decide on an appropriate "disciplinary action" (aka punishment) to shame someone into "acting like an adult," psychological safety has already left the station at the first "I'll file a report."

Traditional disciplinary processes will not resolve interpersonal conflict because they are designed to use punishment as a deterrent and a response to behavior that harms the organization, not to address harm among people within the organization. It won't even patch over interpersonal conflict - disciplinary processes will waste time and energy while conflict festers like an infected wound.

A more interesting question is: what do people need to "act like adults and talk it out?" How can the entire process shift so it's not someone's job to "discipline" people when they don't (or won't) get along? The answers to these questions are unique to your organization (I can help you find them).

2. Acting like conflict is not personal.

No, it is. Conflict is personal and specific to the personalities involved and their histories (and the story they tell themselves about those personalities and histories). We can see trends and often predict where conflict will blossom, but that doesn't make it a generic issue that can be resolved with a single one-size-fits-all solution.

Using a single solution for all conflicts (are we really still talking about verbal warnings? Yes, yes, we are - that and other "I'll talk to them" "solutions") dehumanizes the people involved and accelerates toxicity within the organization. When we treat everyone exactly the same way, using the same conflict response, we disregard the unique aspects of each person that are deeply relevant to the cause and possible resolutions. (Not to mention that treating everyone "the same" is biased toward the people who are well-resourced and inherently oppressive of folks who approach the situation in need of support.) 

This is the point where those harried people who get the conflicts dumped in their lap and are expected to deliver an impersonal (dehumanizing) "solution" that does little to nothing but "that's what the process says," lose their mind at the thought of the staggering amount of energy needed to do something unique and specific for each conflict that arises. 

I can confidently tell you that creating a more personal and just response to conflicts does not require more time or energy (it is usually faster and always more effective). It requires shifting from a dehumanizing system to one that centers on addressing the relationship at the root of the problem. This is possible. A well-built conflict response process that operates at the relationship level is a self-fueling system that grows more robust over time as more people engage in it and learn to apply it with less and less support from within the organization.
 
 

3. Trying to contain a toxifying high producer.

It's fine because no one notices their toxic behavior, right?

It's not, and everyone does notice.

They do so much for the organization, so it's ok?

Nope.

But they're in a leadership role, so...

Oh, no.

Too many organizations keep a toxic high-producer around because they're the only one who can do their job, or they're the best at what they do, or they make a lot of money for the organization. The fallout of this choice is immense because everyone knows what is going on.

Toxic team members who are celebrated or elevated to leadership roles exact a heavy price. Costs include: high-quality people leaving, lower-quality work, decreased creativity, lack of buy-in, and dwindling investment from other team members. I've seen historic organizations collapse and splinter when people think they can contain a toxic personality.

The deeper problem is a system that amplifies the toxic behavior of one person within the organization. This is the one-two punch: difficult behavior that spews disrespect across the team, and a system that loses team members' trust because it supports the person delivering it.

Thinking that you can contain that toxic behavior is foolhardy and a toxic behavior in itself. Teammates know when toxic behavior is given a pass (whether or not it affects them directly), and they grow to resent the use of organizational resources to contain or clean up after a toxic person who is kept around.

It's difficult to build a thriving organization when toxic behavior is tolerated and even rewarded - but only for some people. We can't change people, but we can work to shift their behavior choices. That kind of shift takes intention and dedication to do when energy has been supporting toxicity. Still, it's worth trying if you're not ready for a bigger change AND you're willing to address the behavior rather than sweep it under the rug (again).

Also, even high producers might not be a good fit for your organization - it can be scary to let someone go who seems to be such a key piece. Do an honest calculation of what their behavior (and what supporting/trying to hide it) costs to see if it's really worth it. Even if they take team members with them when they go (which is a concern I've been told in this situation), how will things be 2 or 3 months (or weeks or days) from now when the toxifying personality and their toxifying supporters are gone? You may find that the bounce-back is faster and higher than you were expecting.

If you see any (or all!) of these three problems in your organization, it's past time to take action. You've likely been dealing with the shrinking trust that comes with diminished psychological safety for quite some time. High turnover, poor leadership, low buy-in, flagging creativity, and minimal accountability, which lead to poor performance, are all symptoms of the trust deficit caused by mishandling interpersonal conflict. Learn from the mistakes of others and make a change!

****

Iggy can help you build the community of invested, accountable teammates and leaders you want within your organization. Learn more and drop a line: www/wslleadership.com/the-process.