How do I handle conflict?

The term conflict usually is associated with warfare. And that’s a reasonable association. When two nations, states, or non-state actors disagree about something, they often end up fighting it out.

But conflict isn’t always violent. In fact, most cases are nonviolent, especially if you look at the commonality found in all definitions of conflict: disagreement.

If you’re old enough to read and understand this sentence, I’d make a large wager that you’ve disagreed with someone before and therefore have been in conflict.

You may have disagreed with a supervisor about how to approach a work project. In school, you may disagree with a grade a teacher gave you on an assignment. In sports, you may disagree with your coach about the position you’re playing or how much you play in games. At home, you may disagree with family members about what television show to watch or what to have for dinner. While seemingly trivial, these are all examples of conflict: two people (or entities) in disagreement.

Of course, this has been happening and will continue to happen all your life. You will constantly be a party to disagreements with those around you. It is inevitable. Most of the time, the conflict and its aftermath will be minimal and isolated, but that’s not always the case. For example, yelling at a teacher for giving you a bad grade on an essay may result in a lower grade, slightly impacting your overall grade point average. But yelling obscenities at your workplace supervisor could get you fired, after which your life may change immensely.

That’s why one of the most important questions you can ask yourself is: How do I handle conflict?

First, it’s important to determine very common places for conflict to occur. The first situation is when becoming part of a group, or what is called “group dynamics.” The second is an acronym coined by former US Army Chief of Staff, General Ray Odierno: VUCA, meaning things that are volatile, uncertain, complex, or ambiguous.

Conflict as a Result of Group Dynamics

Bruce Tuckman, a psychological researcher in the 1960s and professor at The Ohio State University, published a theory that led to the creation of what is now known as the Four Stages of Group Development: Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing. All groups go through these stages, he argued, no matter what, and they break down like this:

The Forming stage is the initial phase of group development, where team members come together and start to get to know each other. During this stage, individuals are often polite, positive, and somewhat reserved as they try to understand the group’s purpose, structure, and leadership. There is a sense of excitement and anticipation, but also uncertainty and anxiety about how the group will function and what roles each member will play.

The Storming stage (the second stage) is characterized by conflict and competition as team members begin to push against the boundaries established in the Forming stage. Personalities may clash as individuals assert their opinions, challenge authority, and vie for positions within the group. This stage can be turbulent, as members may feel frustrated or overwhelmed by the lack of progress or the power struggles that arise.

In this stage, conflicts arise over leadership, roles, and responsibilities, and team members may challenge the group’s mission, goals, or established processes. It’s likely that subgroups or cliques may form, and alliances might be created, which strains communication and leads to misunderstandings. All of this is the perfect recipe for disaster.

That’s why successfully addressing the challenges of the Storming phase (learning to intentionally deal with conflict) is crucial for moving on to the Norming and Performing stages, where the team can develop stronger relationships, clearer roles, and a more effective working dynamic.

Conflict as a Result of VUCA

The second common situation where conflict occurs is VUCA, the acronym increasingly used to describe the 21st century world: volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous. As a Harvard Business Review article states, VUCA is a “catch all for ‘Hey, it’s crazy out there!’”[1]

The article’s authors seem right. The world is crazy…and might be getting crazier…even more VUCA than it already it. The next few decades could be the VUCAest in the history of the world!

If things truly are more volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous than they have been before, imagine the opportunities for conflict.

Volatility can make it difficult for teams to find stability, which can fuel disagreements over strategies, decision-making processes, and roles. The constant change might also lead to a lack of clarity and communication breakdowns, further intensifying conflicts.

Uncertainty can amplify conflicts as team members may have differing opinions on the best course of action. Without clear information, individuals may rely on assumptions or personal biases, leading to disagreements. The pressure to make decisions under uncertainty can also strain relationships and increase tensions within the team.

Complexity can lead to conflict as different individuals or departments may have varying interpretations of the same issue, or different priorities and interests. The difficulty in finding simple solutions can lead to frustration and disagreements over how to proceed, particularly when decisions require cross-functional collaboration.

Ambiguity can lead to conflict as individuals may have different interpretations of the same information or event. When roles, responsibilities, and goals are unclear, it can lead to confusion and disagreements over expectations and outcomes. Ambiguity also makes it challenging to hold people accountable, further complicating conflict resolution.

What can you do? How do you break emerging from the Storming phase of group dynamics stronger than when you entered it? How do you deal with inevitable conflict that comes from things that are volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous?

You learn to manage conflict by dealing with it intentionally.

Learning How to Manage Conflict

In the 1970s, psychologists Ken Thomas and Ralph Kilmann teamed up to focus their research on a mutual interest: conflict. They conducted a series of experiments that gathered data on conflict in the workplace. After years of trials with various groups, they developed a robust assessment called the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Management Instrument that helped people learn their preferences for how they dealt with conflict. The assessment’s results show your tendencies for the five different ways you can deal with conflict. Thomas and Kilmann based these five styles on the convergence and frequency of two primary dimensions: assertiveness (the extent to which a person tries to satisfy their own concerns) and cooperativeness (the extent to which a person tries to satisfy the concerns of others).

Here is a breakdown of the five styles:

1. Competing (sometimes called Forcing) – High Assertiveness/Low Cooperativeness

This is a power-oriented mode where individuals prioritize their own concerns over the concerns of others. They often use whatever means necessary to win the conflict, which can include authority, persuasion, or power. This style is most useful in situations requiring quick, decisive action or when an unpopular decision needs to be made.

2. Collaborating – High Assertiveness and High Cooperativeness

This style involves working together with the other party to find a solution that fully satisfies both sides. This approach is the most time-consuming but can lead to the most satisfactory outcomes, as it involves addressing the concerns of all parties involved. It's particularly effective in complex situations where the interests of both sides are too important to compromise.

3. Compromising – Moderate Assertiveness and Moderate Cooperativeness

This style aims to find a middle ground where both parties give up something to reach a mutually acceptable solution. It’s faster than Collaborating but might not fully satisfy either party. This style is often useful when the conflict is of moderate importance, and both parties are equally powerful.

4. Avoiding – Low Assertiveness and Low Cooperativeness

This style involves sidestepping the conflict, postponing it, or withdrawing from it altogether. This approach is useful when the conflict is trivial, when more important issues are pressing, or when the potential risks of confronting the conflict outweigh the benefits. However, it can also lead to unresolved issues and further conflict later on.

5. Accommodating – Low Assertiveness and High Cooperativeness

This style is characterized by putting the other party's needs and concerns above one's own. This style is often employed when maintaining harmony is more important than winning, or when one party realizes that their own position is less important in the grand scheme. It can be useful when the other party is more knowledgeable or has a better solution.

Each style has its appropriate use depending on the context of the conflict, the relationship between the parties involved, and the desired outcome. While you can read much more about each style through a variety of resources that Thomas and Kilmann published (and I encourage you to do so), the explanations above should give you the gist of the five styles.

It is important to note that none of the styles is “good” or “bad” and none is inherently better than another. Rather each can and should be used at different times, depending on the situation. The purpose, Thomas and Kilmann argue, is to know your tendencies and preferences and use the appropriate style depending on the situation. Your style doesn’t control you, rather you control your style, and when you control your style, you increase your chances of making the best decisions at the right times and preserving and strengthening important relationships. \

In the end, you and your team are able to move on from conflict and emerge stronger and more connected than before the conflict began. And you’re able to more quickly and effectively work through the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous things the world will throw at you. And that all happened because you learned how to effectively and intentionally deal with conflict.

[1] https://hbr.org/2014/01/what-vuca-really-means-for-you