Managing Interpersonal Conflicts

Interpersonal conflicts occur from time to time in every organization. If left unresolved, they can result in lower productivity, employee turnover, morale problems and sometimes lawsuits. Early intervention and clear communication are two key factors in addressing interpersonal conflicts. It is also important to acknowledge emotional issues surrounding the conflict and to ensure that the way work duties are organized is not contributing to the problem.  

Any official city actions (e.g., discipline) must be based on the work-related behavior of the employees involved in the conflict, not on the thoughts, beliefs or feelings that they express. Generally, the best results are obtained when a solution is negotiated with all of the parties involved, rather than dictated from the top-down. Unfortunately, some conflicts cannot be resolved and in those cases, the goal may be to minimize the city’s liability and any other “fallout” from the conflict.

 

 Why get involved?

Interpersonal conflict is involved to one degree or another with almost every type of employment claim or grievance. Even if there is no formal complaint, it can result in lower productivity, employee turnover, and morale issues (gossip, backstabbing, e-mail wars, physical altercations, competing “camps” of employees). In some situations, interpersonal conflict has resulted in the loss of key employees. Interpersonal conflict is also sometimes associated with absenteeism, workers’ compensation claims, and group health insurance costs. Employees who are involved in an interpersonal conflict may take “mental health” days off, be more likely to get injured at work, become clinically depressed or develop stress-related medical issues.

Why are people unable to constructively resolve conflict between them?

There are many reasons why conflicts don’t get resolved immediately:

1. Incompatible interests (e.g. both parties want the same job assignment).

2. A fundamental difference in values or a fundamental disagreement about “how” to resolve the conflict (“I’m the boss; therefore, I win.”).

3. Different versions of the “truth” about the cause of the initial conflict (“You stole that job assignment from me” vs. “You dropped the ball on that assignment.”)

4. Both parties are too angry to speak constructively to each other.

5. One or both parties deny responsibility for the conflict and expect a higher authority to resolve it by telling the other party he or she was wrong.

6. Different views or desires about the nature of their relationship (e.g., “We’re basically ‘equals’.” vs. “I’m the boss.”)

 

Resolving Conflict/Solving the Problem

How to resolve the conflict depends to some extent on your role. If you are in a position of authority (City Administrator or elected official), it may be your responsibility to make sure conflicts are resolved so employees can get their work done. A co-worker who really isn’t involved in the conflict may have little or no role. Regardless of your role, there are some basic methods and ideas that are common to most conflicts:

1. Acknowledge the emotions of the parties involved and address their fears. If a conflict

occurs between the City Clerk and the Deputy Clerk over duties, there may be some

emotional baggage that needs to be addressed. The Clerk may fear the Council is thinking

about forcing him out and giving the job to the Deputy Clerk. In this case, the Council

may need to find a way to address the Clerk’s fear of losing his job before they can

resolve the conflict.

2. Communicate Clearly. Sometimes conflicts can be alleviated by clear communication.

Consider a situation where the City Council doesn’t feel that the Administrator is keeping

them informed and the Administrator feels the Council is micro-managing. Clear

communication about the expectations of both parties is crucial to resolving this type of

conflict. Holding annual performance evaluations and quarterly “check-in” sessions

provides scheduled opportunities for communication and may help resolve or avoid the

conflict.

3. Take Action Based on Behavior. In all conflicts, there is a great temptation to react to the

emotional component of the conflict. However, it is important that any official actions

taken by the city or its supervisors are based on behavior. An organization cannot control

what people think and feel; it can only control what they do. If one employee states that

he really dislikes a coworker, the city should probably not take action based on that

statement alone. On the other hand, if the employee refuses to talk to the co-worker even

when it is necessary to get job assignments completed, then the city can take action based

on the refusal to communicate on work-related matters.

4. Intervene Early. It is a very human tendency to want to minimize and ignore conflicts.

However, this sometimes allows a conflict to fester and grow until it becomes

unmanageable. As a guideline, it is better to address a small conflict directly and

immediately.

5. Organize the Workflow. While overlap of duties and cross-training is generally good for

the organization, it may not feel good or “comfortable” for the individual. Most of us feel

secure when we have job duties that are unique to our position; this makes us feel

“needed” by the organization. When others are given overlapping assignments or crosstrained in our jobs, we feel less secure and more expendable. Analyzing workflow and duties to determine ways to address “security needs” vs. the needs of the organization for back-up and cross-training may alleviate the source of some conflicts. Another related issue is unclear reporting structures. An employee who has to keep more than one boss happy is likely to run into conflicts when the bosses disagree with each other. This type of supervision is generally challenging and should probably be avoided unless absolutely necessary.

6. Negotiate Solutions. Basically there are three ways to resolve a conflict:

a. Compromise;

b. Win/Lose; or

c. Win/Win.

 

While it is sometimes necessary to use the first two methods, the third method is the only

one that meets the needs of both parties. There are several ways to employ the third

method (i.e., find a mutually acceptable solution):

 

• Expand the Pie. Find ways to create more of the resource that the parties are fighting over.

For example, if two employees are having a conflict because both want to use the same

funding to attend a conference, one way to resolve the conflict is to “expand the pie” by

finding additional funds so both can attend.

• Compensation. Find a way to compensate one of the parties for yielding on an issue. In the above conference-funding example, perhaps the employee who “yields” and lets the other employee attend the conference gets to attend their conference in the next fiscal year.

• Goodwill-Building. Each side concedes on issues of lesser importance to build goodwill, trust and agreement. In any conflict, there are usually a few issues of central importance and a few “kitchen sink” types of issues. If the two parties can find agreement on the smaller issues, it can build the foundation for agreement on the central issues. This can work well in negotiating a labor contract. For example, if health insurance contribution is a big source of disagreement, the two sides may be able to agree on smaller issues in order to build trust and goodwill. This may make it easier to tackle the health insurance contribution issue later.

• Bridging. Create new options that satisfy critical underlying interests/needs. Consider a

Councilmember who is at odds with the City Clerk. In this situation, the underlying issue

may be the Councilmember’s need for more information than the Clerk has been providing.

The conflict may be resolved by requiring the Clerk to provide weekly updates to the City Council on various aspects of the city’s management.

 

What if we’ve tried everything?

Some conflicts cannot be resolved or at least cannot be resolved given the amount of time, money or effort the city can afford to expend. In this case, the focus may switch from resolving the conflict to minimizing liability or other issues. If two employees cannot seem to work together despite the city’s best efforts, the city may decide to establish “ground rules” for the employees’ behavior towards each other and then closely supervise the interactions between the two employees to enforce those ground rules. Or, the city may rearrange work duties and assignments to minimize the interaction of the two employees. These “work-arounds” are not ideal and usually will not solve the problem in the long term, but at times may be the only realistic option available to the city. Sometimes, the only answer to an interpersonal conflict involves removing one party from the workplace. Determining how to do this and when it is appropriate probably should not be attempted without substantial legal advice and input.

 

source : www.lmcit.lmnc.org