I see many conflicts created when people frame a problem as a matter of irreconcilable opposites. These same people, assisted by skillful exploration, are able to shift their perspectives to see the differences merely as tensions to be managed. Shifting our perspectives from opposites to complements is a powerful way to resolve differences and unite for common good.

Here’s an example. I was recently called into a situation in which a group of lawyers were claiming that they were being overly and unduly managed. They wanted freedom and autonomy, claiming that their professional reputations were at stake. They did not want their superiors to have the ability to overrule their decisions. The supervisors saw these lawyers as renegades who were not sensitive to how the decisions they were making affected the organization as a whole. They wanted final review rights on all work.

These two groups had created a strong “us-them” culture with autonomy and accountability seen as irreconcilable differences. When we examined the two perspectives, however, they were able to reframe the dilemma as a tension between independence and interdependence. They realized that each side had the same objectives. The supervisors realized that they had to give the lawyers some freedom and autonomy but also build in accountability mechanisms to ensure the organization’s ultimate success.

Once the two groups saw the problem as a tension to be managed and not a set of opposites with no bridge, they were able to move into finding mechanisms that would satisfy each group.

Another wonderful example is a mediation I did in a racially charged situation. When I administered the Myers-Briggs indicator, the parties at first saw they were “opposites” on most of the scales. Then I shifted them to look at the differences as a continuum of strengths. Each aspect had its benefits, and using both temperaments made them stronger. Once they embraced the notion that this was not an either-or choice but a “we can have both,” they were able to begin respecting the others’ attributes and use them not as wedges, but as supports.

The next time you find yourself looking at a situation and seeing it as a collision of opposites, look for:

1. The underlying unifying goal. What does each party want??
2. Play out the opposites until you see the other side of it. For example: too much autonomy leads to…, too little autonomy leads to…; too much control leads to…, too little control leads to…. The extreme of the poles is usually what is scaring one of the parties.
3. Play out the upside of each pole. What is the benefit of each pole?
4. Then ask “how do we get the benefits and manage the downsides?” This is the shift to seeing the opposites as a tension to be managed, not a choice between one or the other.
5. Finally, ask “what do we need to do to get the best of both?”

Recently I was working with two colleagues, Joe and Daniel. They had been friendly and had worked well together for close to two years, but their relationship had suddenly turned sour and was affecting the entire office. Their boss called me to ask if I might help.

I embarked on a fairly typical process to help the two parties work this out, starting with individual conversations.

Daniel claimed that all was fine and there was no need to get in a room and talk.

Joe said that Daniel was temperamental and had frequent outbursts, but that he had come to live with it. Joe also said that he wanted to talk about Daniel’s performance—and went on to cite numerous incidents of work not being done as instructed. Joe readily admitted, however, his tendency to have high standards and to get upset when things were not done exactly the way he wanted them done.

I was not at all sure how the mediation would go, as Daniel was so reluctant to get in a room with Joe. The meeting started slowly with them both tentatively acknowledging the value of working this out and articulating each other’s strengths. As they got closer to talking about “the problem” they started arguing in great detail about each step of their standard operating procedure (SOP).

In the midst of the debate, Joe said, “I told Daniel to own his work.” This was an accusation that Daniel was somehow responsible for the errors because he was not talking responsibility.

I asked Daniel if he recalled Joe telling him “to own” his work. Daniel said, “Yes.” I then asked Daniel what owning his work meant to him. His response was to do his work the way he thought it should be done even if it varied from the SOP.

Next I asked Joe what “owning” his own work meant. Joe replied, “Doing the work the way I said it should be done.”

Ah, a small word—“own”—but a huge difference in interpretations!!

In that moment they saw their problem. Though they both heard the same word, they had sent and received very different messages. Neither actually cared about the SOPs, but they both cared about getting the work done efficiently and effectively. They were colliding, if you will, over who got to decide how the work got done on a number of occasions. Joe thought he had permission to do things his way, and Daniel thought Joe was to do it precisely the way Daniel wanted it done.

Now you might think that the decision on who makes the call about process was the issue, but it was not. They easily cleared that up. The ultimate problem was that Daniel often gave vague instructions when telling Joe how he wanted it done. The words we use count. This was their biggest learning—that when they discuss work togther they have to be sure they are communicating well. They agreed to simply restate their understandings when they finished planning so that they both could agree to what was decided.

This is not an unusual problem. It happens in two-way conversations and it happens in meetings. People assume they all have the same information because they all heard the same words. Not always true! Here are a few tips:

1. At the end of every conversation or decision, someone in the room should be asked to restate the conclusion. This allows everyone to hear the message once again. If there are just two of you, you both should say what you heard. Be careful to be as specific as possible.

2. Use a flip chart and make a point of writing the decisions, agreements and next steps. A visual will help people notice if they have misunderstood.

3. At the conclusion of a meeting when there have been several conversations, always review the major points, decisions and next steps.

4. When summarizing or giving directions, paint a picture. Describe exactly what it would look like if it were done as agreed. Be as concrete and specific as possible.

As per the study mentioned earlier, many employees attribute most of the conflict they experience to personality clashes and egos. This attribution is echoed in my experience as an organizational development consultant, mediator, and coach. Unlike a study, my work has allowed me to delve deep into situational conflicts and explore the dynamics at work. What I’ve learned is that most conflict is not caused by personality differences, but as a result of:

1. Misaligned or misunderstood goals (working at cross purposes)
2. Unclear roles
3. Unclear processes or procedures

In my 34 years of working in and with organizations, never have I seen personalities as the root problem. Someone’s behavior may be troublesome, and people often ascribe behavior to a personality problem—but this may or may not be true.

Moving from observing behavior to analyzing someone’s personality is dangerous, inappropriate and beyond most of our skill sets. Furthermore, we have almost no control over someone’s personality, so the endeavor to label it as problematic puts us in a no-win situation.

Rather than look at personalities, we need to look at the situation. As a mediator and consultant, I start to dig deeper when people say that the problem is “the other person’s personality.” I ask them to go back to observable behaviors: “What is happening in concrete, specific terms?”

I often ask people to laboriously detail events and processes. 99% of the time, people discover that it is not the other person’s personality that’s the problem but rather a misunderstanding, confusion, or a difference of opinion about goals, expectations, roles, or processes. These are easier to remedy (though not always) and much less likely to be emotionally loaded.

It behooves us, as managers, to not only resolve conflict but to prevent it. Each of us—whether we are leaders, managers or co-workers—can help. Here’s how:

1. Increase time spent on start-up processes. When a new project begins or a new hire is on boarded, spend the upfront time to be clear about the job, including goals, expectations, roles, authority level, decision making, reporting lines, communication requirements, and troubleshooting processes. Be meticulous about the start-up process. It’s a big investment of time, often resisted by busy managers, but it’s well worth it if it increases trust and productivity, speeds the learning curve and prevents problems later. And it will!
2. Deal with problems quickly. As soon as a problem surfaces, long before it becomes a conflict, deal with it. It should be managed quickly. The earlier you intervene the easier it will be to straighten out.
3. Keep your eye on the facts. Do not start analyzing or attributing motivation. Assume good intentions if anything. Delve into the situation, asking questions to discover people’s understanding of the goals, of their roles and the role of others, and review work processes. Get details and keep it objective. Focus on the problems and dynamics, not the people.
4. Get people together. Listening to one side or the other sets up triangulation. Bring the parties together and help THEM talk this out. Guide them, help them communicate well. With all parties in the room you have more details and more perspectives, and people are held responsibility for what they are saying. Co-workers need to learn how to talk through issues together. (You can use Step 3 as your guide for topics.)
5. Take ownership. We all have a part in any situation in which we are involved. Look for your contribution and be willing to do something about it. If you are a manger don’t back off from saying what you want or stating that a decision is yours to make. Sometimes employees are clashing because you have not been clear or decisive. Step up and ask others to do the same.

Here are some of the findings:

• 85% of employees at all levels experience conflict to some degree
• In the U.S., 36% of employees report dealing with conflict always or
  frequently
• U.S. employees, on average, spend 2.8 hours per week dealing with
  conflict‹which adds up to 385 million working days per year
• In the U.S., time spent on conflict costs $359 billion in paid hours in 2008
• 27% of employees report that they have been in a workplace
  disagreement that led to personal insults or attacks; 25% have seen conflict
  result in sickness or absence
• Almost half (48%) of employees in the nonprofit sector reported being involved in a conflict that led to sickness or absence

There is no doubt from this study and many others that conflict is endemic, and that it costs individuals and our organizations. It is seen at all levels and in all types of organizations. And unmanaged conflict has a real, negative impact on our health and our productivity.

So what’s the good news?

The study also revealed that:

• Training is the biggest driver of quality outcomes from conflict
• 95% of people receiving training said it helped them
• 76% said they had seen conflict lead to a positive result
• 41% said that conflict led to a better understanding of others
• 29% found that conflict led to a better solution to a problem
• 27% said training made them more comfortable and/or confident about
  dealing with conflict
• 81% of U.S. workers reported seeing positive results from well-managed conflict
• 27% of the workers surveyed reported feeling good about the conflict as they felt the issue had been well aired and dealt with
• 62% of the respondents felt conflict was everyone’s responsibility

What does this tell us?

Conflict is inevitable, but it can be healthy. Well managed, it can lead to more productive workplaces and healthier relationships. Armed with the right tools, people are willing and able to step into difficult conversations and come out stronger.

Because the study makes the case that training is a major contributor to supporting good conversations, it¹s important to start finding ways to build your skills and the skills of your coworkers. Here are some ideas:

• Look for a dispute resolution or mediation center in your area and ask if they offer any training programs
• Review management and business literature. Two excellent books are Crucial Conversations and Difficult Conversations.
• Look at your local community college and other continuing education programs for short courses
• Ask your employer to bring in a workshop
• Search the Web. There are some great resources out there.

• National Institute for Advanced Conflict Resolution
• Center for Dispute Settlement
• Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR)
• National Association for Community Mediation (NAFCM)
• American Bar Association Section on Dispute Resolution
• The Conflict Resolution Information Source
• Ask your professional association for recommendations
• For a fast, practical read, pick up: Reboot! Your Working
  Relationships.