Productive Conflict At Work, Part 3 – Thesis Results & Reflection

In the previous posts on productive conflict I’ve looked into a theoretical overview on conflicts at work, and the point of view from the LinkedIn network on the impact of productive conflict at work. In this third part of this blog series I focus on the approach to conflict from Norway, with a basis in the results of my own master thesis on the subject.

Thesis Scope

The area of study for the thesis came as a result of interest in the subject, and was fueled by findings in the Healthy Change Processes project at NTNU showing that an openness to constructive conflicts seems to be an important factor when leveraging organizational change.
My focus was on how teams approach conflict situations, with a goal in identifying whether constructive conflicts are actively used, as well as identifying how teams manage to work with conflict productively when they are in disagreement. The teams that were focused on were from the area of consulting and advertising.

Findings From The Study

“We don’t have conflicts”

This is one line that came up in many interviews. This could be for the simple fact that having conflicts at work may feel as a taboo for many businesses. Challenges are fine, and companies love to take them on and solve them, but conflicts don’t exist. The reason for this answer, however, and this may be a Norwegian thing, is that the word conflict is negatively charged. The idea that conflicts can be constructive didn’t seem to come natural for the people that were interviewed. When asked how they would define “constructive conflicts” on the other hand, almost everyone gave a similar explanation: A situation where people are in disagreement, but where they are focused on the outcome of the project, and therefore don’t resort to personal attacks against the other team members. However, there were other views as well, such as the following answer from one person, “Constructive conflict… well, to begin with that sounds like a contradiction. I probably make a distinction between discussions and disagreements and conflicts”.

In essence, the people I interviewed saw conflict as something very different from any form of collaboration. Something worse, wrong, and definitely not constructive.

Conflict Management Approaches In Consulting Teams

One of the most interesting sides to the study was the difference in approach from the consulting teams and the advertising teams. The consulting teams were far more likely to choose what I’ve called “choosing your battles” and “quick-fixing” when there was a potential for a conflict situation. In choosing ones battles I got the impression that whether or not you engaged yourself in a conflict depended on whether there was the chance that your way would be the preferred strategy. It became a question of whether it was worth the argument or not (in ones personal opinion). Inherent in this approach is also a certain amount of disclaiming ones responsibility. What if raising your point of view would have resulted in a better solution? What would that mean in the eyes of your customers?

Quick-fixing a situation relates to a strategy where upper management is called in to solve the situation. Though necessary in some instances, I got the feeling that this was an all to easy solution for “getting rid of the trouble maker”. What if that “trouble maker” was the element that would have led to the best possible result on your project? In other instances of quick-fixing team members would also resort to strategies where they either dropped out (mentally), or took control of the project and did it all by themselves, leaving the rest of the team with insignificant tasks.

The Value Of Diverse Compentence In Advertising Teams

Interestingly, teams working in the advertising industry had a very different approach to teamwork. In the consulting teams they had the team structure in order to share the work load, though most team members could do all the of the work. In the advertising industry the common response was “we have to work in teams. It’s the only way”, as well as statements like “without my team doing their tasks, it’s impossible for me to do mine properly. I’m absolutely dependent on the team”. The simple reason for this difference is that the work areas in the advertising industry are so diverse that no one team member is able to properly do all tasks. In other words, they have to work together.

The strategies I found to be employed by the advertising teams I’ve Facilitating Ideas, and Killing Your Darlings. The first relates to the process of getting all the ideas on the table to make sure the best ones would be up for discussion. As one person said “everything has to get out, right. If you think of something that might be too stupid, at least you get it out of your head and it no longer blocks other ideas”. Another very important reason for this facilitating of ideas is that one thought, good or Also, in the advertising teams the ability to let go of your own ideas, even if you’d gotten attached to them, was a clear strategy. You have to be able to kill your darlings. With the amount of ideas coming up during brainstorming sessions, the majority are bound to go nowhere. This mindset in the advertising teams seemed to help them achieve what
constructive conflicts, even though this term was unknown to most of the people I talked to. It’s simply their way of working.

The Danger of Allergies And Safe-Teaming

Earlier I mentioned how many of the team members I talked stated that they really didn’t encounter conflicts. For the most part this came from the consulting teams. Based on this study, I found two reasons that might explain this. I call these allergies and safe-teaming. The latter refers the process of always teaming up with the same “safe” people, or having a team coordinator that always puts the the same people on a team. Sort of like a winning team. As explained by one person “You always know what you’re going get, but then again, you never get any surprises”. The chance that a conflict, productive or not, will occur, is minimal.

Allergies refers to what happens when team members are in conflict, and don’t know how to deal with the situation. What I found was that these situations often lead to an “instant allergy” toward the other person. The result is that the two are rarely put on a team together again. I was told that in many instances people will go the their managers and ask specifically to not be put on a team with a person they have developed an allergy against.

Conflict Management Or Conflict Mastery?

Looking back at the results of my thesis, I believe there’s a difference between conflict management and conflict mastery. I see conflict management as the process of creating the best possible environment for conflicts to occur, as well as solving conflict situations that have become destructive. Conflict mastery, on the other hand, I see as the ability to take any conflict situation and either keep it constructive, or take it from a destructive to a constructive path. I also believe that conflict mastery is achieved through proper conflict management, though this means there needs to be a focus on training and willingness to take the time needed to get there. Not taking the time for this seems to easily lead to “allergic” situations where organizations lose flexibility unnecessarily, as well as the need edge to find new solutions be safe-teaming, rather than exploring new “team territory”.

Got some thoughts on the matter? Share them with me.