When lecturing in commerce at the Eastern Institute of Technology last year I included a segment on how to reduce conflict in an organisation – and in doing so minimise political disturbance. This knowledge was well received by students, and after seeing recent advice published by an experienced consultant which suggested that people should stop talking to each other in a bid to avoid conflict (which invoked a reaction of disappointment and disbelief in me upon reading this advice), I thought I’d share this same knowledge here…
Firstly, it is important to understand that conflict is a natural part of human relationships. Why ? Because each individual/ person is equipped with senses and a brain which is different to that of all other people. Consequently, it is then an indisputable and unavoidable fact that each person on earth views life differently. The phrase “perception is reality” is therefore an apt expression to define how people see the world/ life.
So the first lesson (fact) to learn is that no two people will ever wholly agree on anything – mostly due to the fact that each person’s perception of a situation/ opportunity/ issue/ physical item, etc can’t help but be different to that of all other people.
The second lesson (fact) to learn and accept is that most people tend to consider that their perception (and therefore opinion) is more correct that anyone else’s. In short many people want to be seen as being “right”. And this stance is what causes friction in relationships – that often leads to conflict if not nipped in the bud early.
Those people who want to be considered as having the “right” opinion tend to end-up in positions/ roles which allow them the opportunity to “control” others. When appointing senior managers in particular, my strongest advice is be wary of appointing people who show a tendency to want to be right – often a display of such behaviour is symptomatic of a “control freak”. Control Freaks do not make effective managers !
One of the most valuable lessons to learn in life as a human being is that when people can come to understand and accept the “differences” in people, and not pursue a position of being “right”, more problems become easier to solve. And to take this important lesson up one more level, if people can then not only accept but embrace the differences in others this is the beginning of collaboration and cooperation. Effective leaders know how to embrace the differences in the people they are responsible for leading – and in doing so draw out the strengths of each person in their team.
So here’s the third lesson (fact) to understand if you’re interested in minimising conflict within an organisation…
Rather than take a strong stance/ position on a particular issue, or put forward an idea that you want to be known as the “owner” of, see yourself more as a “contributor” to aid the decision-making process – and quash the urge to want to receive kudos for your contributions. In addition, maintain an open mind and allow your ideas to be shaped by the opinions of your colleagues. This is the art of “giving and taking” in order to arrive at a consensus outcome (i.e. one which at least most people agree with).
Also (and this should really be the responsibility of an effective Chairperson), invite the opinions of all relevant parties who are involved in the decision-making process as being equally valid points of view. Remember, every person on earth has a “valid” view of the world/ life – perceived as being such through each person’s senses and brain processing. Efforts should be made to reassure each contributor that there are no “good” or “bad” (or “right” or “wrong”) ideas; and that if relevant people want to influence the decision/ outcome in question then they should contribute their ideas.
What matters most in collective decision-making (and a democracy is the epitome of collective decision-making) is that all those who are entitled to have input into decisions provide their honest views/ opinions and do so in a manner which is unaffected by the expectations/ views of other people. Over the years I have seen the refusal of shareholders to speak their minds frustrate the evolutionary course of the organisations in question. Stakeholders simply must speak-up – and speak their truth when they do – if the right change is to come into effect.
And the final lesson to learn to help minimise conflict in an organisation is to challenge the “idea” and not the person/ individual who communicated the idea. Failure to do this will result in political volatility – particularly if the manner in which the idea contributor is confronted is aggressive/ malicious/ personal. Personal attacks are always damaging to relationships – and more often than not cause the attacked person to stop contributing constructively to the organisation !
When challenging an “idea” do so in a constructive manner – openly recognise both the commendable and questionable elements of it in the process. Challenge while being as objective as possible (i.e. a ” constructive critical examination” approach) versus communicating blatant criticism. Keep “the idea” as “the idea” and not “so and so’s (i.e. a specific individual’s) idea” throughout discussion/ debate; and when a final decision is arrived at, irrespective of your stance/ position (degree of support felt) in relation to the given resolution, make sure that you show your support of “the decision” when it is communicated wider afield. The quickest way to unravel a democratic decision is to undermine it by communicating (discreetly or otherwise) your opposition to it to individual stakeholders who the decision affects.
The greatest skill to learn in a democratic situation/ environment is the art of compromise. If you can master this skill, conflict in your life should be minimal and goals should be readily achieved.