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.

• Summarizing: Recapping the conversation. “This is where I think you are…”
• Normalizing: Describing the situation as a normal part of the process. “This is exactly where you should be…, all groups go through this…”
• Gatekeeping: Maintaining a balanced conversation. Helping reluctant participants to get heard and reducing the airtime of “over-talkers.” “We haven’t heard from a few people in the room yet—I’d like to ask them if they have something to add.”
• Acknowledging: Recognizing a contribution or effort. “Thank you for offering that comment”, or “I understand how hard that must have been for you.”
• Giving context and locating the conversation: Stating the overall goal and how a conversation fits into the bigger picture. “Remember that we are discussing X; this conversation is connected in this way…”
• Paraphrasing and connecting: Repeating back what was said in your own words and helping the participants link what they are saying to the conversation at hand. “Is this what you mean? How does that relate to this conversation—or is it another topic?”
• Questioning: Actively exploring or asking questions to assist the group or an individual in contributing effectively. “Can anyone summarize where we are? Is this conversation important?”
• Interrupting and reiterating ground rules: Interceding to ask someone to abide by the agreed-upon rules of conduct. “Excuse me; I believe we agreed to one topic at a time” or XYZ…
• Naming the topic, the behavior: Simply stating what you are seeing or hearing. “Here is what I see happening…”
• Theming / taking a meta-view: Summarizing a series of related comments and finding a common theme, then tying the theme to the overall conversation. “Here is how what we are talking about relates to a bigger issue…”
• Locating lost threads: Noticing what topics or comments have been lost or ignored. “A minute ago you were discussing XYZ; are you done with that conversation?”

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.