Conflict

When people are under a lot of stress, discussions that start off as peaceful and respectful can quickly devolve into conflict. Conflict tends to arise whenever people have strong opinions, and then become defensive or even aggressive when their opinions are challenged.

Conflicts can sometimes be difficult to recognize, because they often sound similar to a debate, especially if the participants in the debate are passionate about the topic they are debating. Further confusing the issue is that conflicts often evolve from healthy debate.

There are three questions that you should ask yourself when trying to decide if people are debating, or if it has become a conflict: are arguments logical or emotional; is language personal or impersonal; and are statements assertive, or aggressive?

Imagine we have two colleagues named Sam and Jessie, and we are trying to decide if they are in a debate, or in a conflict. Sam says, "This design won't work as we don't have the budget to purchase all the materials we need." Jessie replies, "We won't need to purchase everything all at once, only enough to get started, which we can afford." Sam counters with, "Eventually we'll need to purchase everything we need, at which point we won't have the money." Jessie responds, "Provided we show progress, we can make the case for more budget if that happens." Sam then asks, "How would we demonstrate that we were making progress?" to which Jessie replies, "By establishing milestones in advance, and giving product demos at each milestone to gather feedback."

So far, this is a debate, without a hint of conflict: arguments are logical, language is impersonal, and statements are assertive.

However, as the debate continues, Sam says, "No one is going to approve a budget increase based on a demo of something that's not finished," to which Jessie replies, "I don't know why you're so worried about money at this stage, it's really not that big a deal." Sam then says, "I'm worried about money because the last time you proposed a design it went way over budget, and if it happens again our whole team will have our budget slashed," to which Jessie responds, "If you have a problem with my designs you should say so - it's not like you're contributing to them anyway." Sam then yells, "How can I contribute to something when all you want to do is add a bunch of features no one asked for just so that you can do what you want?"

If we pause here, it should be obvious that the debate has become a conflict, as the arguments are no longer logical; the language has become personal; and statements are no longer assertive as they have no diplomacy whatsoever.

At this point, it is tempting to want to assign blame, and to try to figure out who started the conflict. Was it Sam questioning Jessie's design? Was it Jessie accusing Sam of being worried about money? It is human nature to want simple answers to complex questions, and to say that if two people are involved in a conflict, one must be to blame while the other is innocent. The reality is that human communication is nuanced, and the true source of a conflict is rarely easy to identify.

Instead of trying to assign blame, it is more important to recognize that there is a conflict, and then work to de-escalate the conflict back into a debate.

In our example, either Sam or Jessie can de-escalate the conflict at any time, and return to a debate. This is a critical point to remember: if you recognize that you are in a conflict, you can choose to de-escalate anytime you want. As a professional, that means you should begin to de-escalate the instant you are in a conflict, as while there are huge benefits to a healthy debate, there are no benefits to a conflict.

It could be argued that Sam should not have used the phrasing, "No one is going to approve a budget increase based on a demo of something that's not finished," but should have instead said, "It will be difficult to get a budgetary increase with only a demonstration of incremental progress." For whatever reason, however, this is the phrasing that Sam chose, but Jessie has full control over how to respond. Instead of saying, "I don't know why you're so worried about money at this stage, it's really not that big a deal," Jessie could have chosen to say, "It is fairly common to have a budget increased after sufficient progress is demonstrated, the only question is how much progress has been made over what period of time."

This illustrates one of the most important approaches to de-escalation: if someone says something that lacks diplomacy, it doesn't mean that you have to do the same. Instead of following them into a downward spiral of aggressive communication, you can instead remain levelheaded, and maintain assertive communication even if they are becoming increasingly aggressive.

Even if the situation has gotten to the stage of Sam and Jessie yelling at each other, either of them can still choose to de-escalate anytime they please. For example, Sam could say, "I'm sorry for what I said. I'm just worried about making bad decisions so early in the project. Let's reset the conversation and retrace our steps. The last thing I remember you saying is that we should establish milestones to demonstrate progress. What do you think we should deliver at each milestone?"

To de-escalate a conflict, someone will need to make the first move towards de-escalation. As people will tend to regard the person who initiated de-escalation as being the more mature, responsible, and professional of the people involved; as soon as you realize you are in a conflict you should immediately make the first move to end it. This will not only help build your professional reputation as a productive team player, but will also save the organization from wasted time, broken relationships, and the undue workplace stress that often results from conflict.