Choosing An Effective Response to Conflict

Got conflict?  Many good leaders do.  Our response to conflict determines both its impact and our willingness to continue to lead, innovate and raise the bar in new ways.  

Thomas and Kilmann found that we're better able to respond effectively when we're comfortable using several conflict strategies, and match the strategy to the situation.

They identified five conflict strategies that incorporate different levels of assertiveness (focused on meeting your concerns) and cooperativeness (focused on meeting other's concerns).  

Each can be a valuable social skill in certain situations, so let's take a quick look:

Competing is a power-oriented strategy - useful when winning is what's important.   High assertive/low cooperative.  "I'm standing up for my rights."

Collaborating searches for a solution that meets everyone's concerns.  High assertive/high  cooperative.  "Let's find a creative win-win."

Compromising finds a solution that's "good enough."  Moderate assertive/moderate cooperative.  "Let's split the difference."

Avoiding sidesteps or withdraws from the situation.  Low assertive/low cooperative.  "I'm choosing my battles."

Accommodating sets aside your concerns to help someone meet theirs.  High cooperative/low assertive.  "This is more important to you than me."

So which one to use when?  Considerations to guide your choice include:  

Importance of the issue:  Not that important to you?  Consider accommodating, avoiding or compromising.  Very important?  Consider competing or collaborating.

Importance of the relationship: Very important?  Accommodating, collaborating and compromising become more attractive.  

Time:  The less you have, the more attractive compromising, accommodating, and avoiding become.

Trust:  The lower the trust levels (and the higher the stress levels), the more challenging collaboration becomes.

Complexity:  one-dimensional issues lend themselves to competing, accommodating and compromising.  Multidimensional issues lend themselves to collaboration.

  

This kind of conflict literacy creates a practical and powerful advantage.  Happily, Kilmann has a tool and many more insights to share.

Straight Talk from Singular Stars

Working as a coach at a conference on "Mentors, Sponsors and Breaking the Glass Ceiling Through Our Allies," I met a lively group of smart trailblazers.  

  

Reginald Van Lee, EVP at Booz Allen Hamilton, was a memorable one.  Warm and witty in person, he accomplished what many struggle with once they reach the podium:  making his points in a concise, consumable way. 

  

He recommended that ground breaking leaders of all types cultivate their 

"4 Cs":

COURAGE:  to excel, to be different.

  

COMPETENCE:  you need to be exceptionally competent when you're trying to accomplish what few that look, act or think like you do.  Accept this and press on.

  

CONFIDENCE:  to attend excellent schools, vie for new roles, pursue powerful relationships.  Don't wait for permission - show up and lead.

  

COLLABORATION:  you can't do it alone - consciously create alliances.  Talk to someone new often.  Your network expands your value.

  

Paula Madison, CEO of the Los Angeles Sparks, was equally forthright and compelling.  Some of her comments echoed similar themes:

• Be bold.  "Courage and comfort are not in the same room." 
• Be an expert, and claim your accomplishments. "I'm proud to be a different kind of leader, a different kind of woman."
• Advocate for yourself.  No one will care more about your career than you do - you can't expect others to do more for you than you do for yourself. 
• Attend carefully to feedback.  Feedback tells you how you're showing up.

The audience was energized by these kinds of unvarnished, hard-earned perspectives. If you were to give your own "straight talk" on pointers for pioneering leaders, what would you include?

In-the-Moment Strategic Thinking

What's your first response in situations like  -  when an employee suggests a new, and somewhat risky, approach -  or a colleague is late with materials you need  -  or a customer requests a cut in rates? To stack the odds in your favor, don't respond to the situation.   Instead, think about the impact you want to create with your response,  and then choose your response. To paraphrase Peter Bregman, this means moving from the typical pattern of:        situation > response > outcome to:        situation > outcome > response. For example, when that employee suggests the new and risky approach (situation) if you want more of the status quo (outcome),  shoot the idea down (response). But if you want to encourage new and better ideas (outcome), have a PPCO conversation (response):             Plusses:  note what you like about the idea,             Potentials:  find ways to extend or build upon the idea,             Concerns:  only then - identify the drawbacks,             Opportunities:  and discuss ways they might be overcome. Responding to the outcome you want, rather than the situation itself, can help you amplify positive events and redirect less positive ones.        The more you practice a situation > outcome > response approach,  the more natural this in-the-moment strategic thinking will become, and the more time you'll spend on creating the outcomes that matter most.