By Kate Pierson
Freedom of association is not an expression many naturally associate with the work environment. And while the reality of a productive office demands civility, discipline and co-operation, there’s no doubt there are many of us that can recount occasions when, behind the façade of a ‘diplomatic’ smile, we have entertained quiet thoughts of tearing our, or our colleague’s hair out, in order to soothe building frustrations.
Conflict in the workplace is by no means a contemporary issue. In fact, the fragility of relationships between colleagues around the world has long been studied under the industrial psychology microscope. From these investigations, two paradigms of workplace conflict have emerged — latent (when the conflict is felt, but not expressed), and active (where the conflict is obvious and specific, verbally or non-verbally).
Classifications aside, whether the conflict is public or surreptitious, the result of antagonism or direct bullying, grievances between men, women, or representatives from both sides of the great gender divide, are costing our businesses — literally.
Catalysts for conflict
It’s no secret that ambition runs high in the workplace, but the classic pyramid structure of the traditional business institution means it’s unlikely everybody’s goal of climbing the organisational ranks will be realised.
So when an opportunity to move up in the professional world is at stake, existing recruits can feel territorial with the arrival of fresh faces, or they may have a bee in their bonnet over a conflicting opinion. What results is employees abandoning their workplace etiquette and resorting to high school politics.
Like it or not, the reality is most workplaces are comprised of leaders and followers and the commanding hierarchy or matrix management models present within organisations, means there are few chiefs and many Indians.
In the April 2010 report Dealing with Conflict in New Zealand Workplacesby Andrew Harris and Charles Crothers from the Department of Social Sciences at the Auckland University of Technology, the authors acknowledge that workplaces breed conflict.
“What makes the workplace such a ‘ripe breeding ground’ for conflict is that there are more sources of conflict in the workplace than in others areas of our lives.”
In response to workplace conflict research conducted and published in the CPP Global Human Capital Report in 2008, which found that full-time employees across nine countries in America and Europe spend approximately 2.1 hours every week dealing with conflict, Harris and Crothers prepared a study via an online questionnaire. Participant involvement was facilitated with support from the Employers and Manufacturers Association.
Survey results revealed that, “Fifty percent of respondents reported 0-50 minutes of destructive conflict each week and 30 percent reported 50-150 minutes. Of the time engaged in latent versus actual conflict, Harris and Crothers found that similar amounts of time are spent on latent conflict as are spent on actual conflict.
“Forty-four percent of respondents reported 0-50 minutes of latent conflict each week compared with 50 percent reporting 0-50 minutes of actual conflict. Forty-four percent also reported 50-150 minutes of latent conflict each week compared with 30 percent reporting 50-150 minutes of actual conflict.”
Burying the hatchet
As well as productivity loss, the financial costs imposed on a company and the emotional cost to employees, spell out all the reasons why workplace conflict needs to be addressed and resolved.
Because while extroverted and introverted employee types ensure diversification within an office, when unique identities are not complementary to each other, the personality clash between these individuals can rock the democratic foundations on which the workplace has been built.
Personnel Psychology NZ Limited director and registered industrial psychologist, Keith McGregor says nine times out of ten the underlying driver behind dysfunctional or aggressive employee behaviour is fear.
“Managers that are difficult to work with often have a fear of failure and making mistakes. They are perceived as micro-managers, when in fact it is that need to feel in control that is a part of their personality, but is interpreted by the employee as a lack of trust,” he explains.
In order to bury the hatchet when it comes to conflict, or avoid employing personalities that are likely to challenge each other negatively, McGregor offers four key ideas:
How to bury the hatchet
- Practise listening skills
People very seldom engage with good, reflective listening skills and some employees have a tendency to talk across each other. Conflict can arise from a breakdown in communication, or when employees feel they are not being heard or are misunderstood. Good listening skills are a must for all employees.
- Remember, people don’t complain about things they don’t care about
When employees voice concern or frustration, McGregor says often they are revealing the values and morals that are important to them. Recipients of voiced concerns need to stop and reflect and ask themselves if they are preventing someone else’s values being achieved.
- The other person is not always the problem
Understanding how the subconscious works is often a part of understanding conflict. Sometimes conflict arises as a result of the way we talk to ourselves about how others perceive us, which may provoke unsubstantiated concern and worry. Rewiring the brain on how we talk to ourselves is helpful for overcoming this.
- Picking the right person
A recipe for conflict can be brewed right in the preliminary stages of an employee’s recruitment when competency based interviews are conducted and employers neglect to assess the attitudes of a potential candidate and whether these will be complementary to existing staff members.
McGregor says it is important for employers to remember how one person in a team with behavioural manifestations, or personality disorders that affect one percent of the New Zealand population, can have a significant affect on those around them.
In his, “I can’t work with that idiot!” presentation made during an HRINZ conference, McGregor elaborates on point three ‘the other person is not always the problem’, explaining how the subconscious can be reprogrammed.
“The only reason we behave the way we do is because of neural pathways in our brain. These are formed over our lifetime and we come to see them as who we are. But the brain is ‘plastic’, it is constantly changing… so, if I start to repeat ‘I love working with Fred’, my brain begins to weaken the existing nerve connections and form new pathways.
“As a result I develop different feelings towards Fred, he ceases to be seen as a ‘threat’, my stress levels start to drop and I gain access to the full power of my subconscious mind. Ideas begin flowing and before I know it, working with Fred becomes a breeze.”
There’s no debate that debate in the office breeds professional dysfunction and is not conducive to a productive workforce — a critical catalyst for company growth and success.
Fact is, an unresolved grievance is self-sustaining and self-defeating and can result in ongoing absenteeism, a high staff turnover and financially draining training costs when disgruntled employees resign.
For advice on resolving conflict in your office contact an industrial psychologist or the Employers and Manufacturers Association through www.ema.co.nz
