Conflict Mitigation

Why do your meetings and conversations consistently end in conflict? Different perspectives, various stakeholder interests, stress level, difficult personalities . . . the reasons are endless. While many reasons are valid, it is important to look internally before placing the blame elsewhere.

Recently, I observed a meeting of senior management where the discussion devolved from “where do we want to be” to “whose fault is it that we are here.” At the end of the hour, the meeting outcomes included mistrust, lost respect, and no path forward. Not being familiar with any history of the people in the meeting, I asked why the behaved in that manner. The responses astounded me…stress, competing priorities, etc. Did you assume senior managers attained their position because they were deft at handling these issues? I did…and I was completely wrong.

The results of conflict are well known and well documented. But the root cause of most conflict is often glossed over or misstated in an attempt to ignore the real problem. Stated another way, pretend you are the supreme ruler of Yourland, and you are at war with Theirland. You are about to begin the process to negotiate a truce. You have two negotiators to choose from – one that has a legendary temper and short fuse and one that remains calm regardless of surrounding tumult. Who would you send and why? For most of us interested in a peaceful resolution (major, but crucial assumption), the answer is obviously the calm negotiator. We don’t want someone’s temper to ruin the negotiations.

But what really separates the two? One word sums it up – emotion. We disguise emotional reactions and their sources with several code words – stress, priorities, lack of understanding, and personality. For reasons beyond my comprehension, responding with emotion instead of critical thinking is acceptable in many corporate environments where the stakes are extremely high. When decisions are critical, management should be at their best. No...