| What is Conflict? Definitions and Assumptions
We define conflict as a disagreement through which the parties involved
perceive a threat to their needs, interests or concerns. Within this
simple definition there are several important understandings that emerge:
Disagreement - Generally, we are aware there is some level of
difference in the positions of the two (or more) parties involved in
the conflict. But the true disagreement versus the perceived disagreement
may be quite different from one another. In fact, conflict tends to
be accompanied by significant levels of misunderstanding that exaggerate
the perceived disagreement considerably. If we can understand the true
areas of disagreement, this will help us solve the right problems and
manage the true needs of the parties.
Parties involved - There are often disparities in our sense
of who is involved in the conflict. Sometimes, people are surprised
to learn they are a party to the conflict, while other times we are
shocked to learn we are not included in the disagreement. On many occasions,
people who are seen as part of the social system (e.g., work team, family,
company) are influenced to participate in the dispute, whether they
would personally define the situation in that way or not. In the above
example, people very readily "take sides" based upon current
perceptions of the issues, past issues and relationships, roles within
the organization, and other factors. The parties involved can become
an elusive concept to define.
Perceived threat - People respond to the perceived threat, rather
than the true threat, facing them. Thus, while perception doesn't become
reality per se, people's behaviors, feelings and ongoing responses become
modified by that evolving sense of the threat they confront. If we can
work to understand the true threat (issues) and develop strategies (solutions)
that manage it (agreement), we are acting constructively to manage the
Needs, interests or concerns - There is a tendency to narrowly
define "the problem" as one of substance, task, and near-term
viability. However, workplace conflicts tend to be far more complex
than that, for they involve ongoing relationships with complex, emotional
components. Simply stated, there are always procedural needs and psychological
needs to be addressed within the conflict, in addition to the substantive
needs that are generally presented. And the durability of the interests
and concerns of the parties transcends the immediate presenting situation.
Any efforts to resolve conflicts effectively must take these points
So, is it still a simple definition of conflict? We think so, but we
must respect that within its elegant simplicity lies a complex set of
issues to address. Therefore, it is not surprising that satisfactory resolution
of most conflicts can prove so challenging and time consuming to address.
Conflicts occur when people (or other parties) perceive that, as a consequence
of a disagreement, there is a threat to their needs, interests or concerns.
Although conflict is a normal part of organization life, providing numerous
opportunities for growth through improved understanding and insight, there
is a tendency to view conflict as a negative experience caused by abnormally
difficult circumstances. Disputants tend to perceive limited options and
finite resources available in seeking solutions, rather than multiple
possibilities that may exist 'outside the box' in which we are problem-solving.
A few points are worth reiterating before proceeding:
- A conflict is more than a mere disagreement - it is a situation in
which people perceive a threat (physical, emotional, power, status,
etc.) to their well-being. As such, it is a meaningful experience in
people's lives, not to be shrugged off by a mere, "it will pass
- Participants in conflicts tend to respond on the basis of their
perceptions of the situation, rather than an objective review of
it. As such, people filter their perceptions (and reactions) through
their values, culture, beliefs, information, experience, gender, and
other variables. Conflict responses are both filled with ideas and feelings
that can be very strong and powerful guides to our sense of possible
- As in any problem, conflicts contain substantive, procedural, and
psychological dimensions to be negotiated. In order to best understand
the threat perceived by those engaged in a conflict, we need to consider
all of these dimensions.
- Conflicts are normal experiences within the work environment. They
are also, to a large degree, predictable and expectable situations
that naturally arise as we go about managing complex and stressful
projects in which we are significantly invested. As such, if we develop
procedures for identifying conflicts likely to arise, as well as systems
through which we can constructively manage conflicts, we may be able
to discover new opportunities to transform conflict into a productive
- Creative problem-solving strategies are essential to positive
approaches to conflict management. We need to transform the situation
from one in which it is 'my way or the highway' into one in which we
entertain new possibilities that have been otherwise elusive.
Return to About Conflict Menu
|Conflict is Normal: Anticipating Conflicts
Likely to Arise in the Workplace
Consider your own work environment for a moment:
- What are some key sources of conflict in our workplace?
- When do they tend to occur?
- How do people respond to these conflicts as they arise?
- When we solve problems, do we do so for the moment, or do we put in
place systems for addressing these types of concerns in the future?
In reflecting upon your answers to these questions, you may begin to
understand what we mean by anticipating conflicts likely to arise in the
workplace: Normal, healthy organizations will experience their share of
conflict, and workplaces experiencing a certain amount of dysfunction
will experience it in greater quantities. Anticipating conflicts is useful
in either situation for transforming these situations into opportunities
for growth and learning. Consider
- Are there seasonal peaks in our workload that tend to occur annually?
- Chart the occurrence of such challenges, and consider whether
they can be managed as a normal period of stress and transition.
For example, a school had a large population of students who arrived
after long bus rides without breakfast, who tended to arrive at
school ready to fight. The school identified 10 minutes at the start
of the day to give these students a healthy snack, and worked with
teachers to pull out students who weren't yet ready for school before
they became disruptive. After food and a little counseling, students
entered their classrooms in a better frame of mind (and body) to
- Do we have channels for expressing normal problems and concerns in
a predictable, reliable manner?
- Staff meeting should be used as a tool for effective problem-solving
in a range of situations, including anticipated conflicts. If such
channels are perceived by staff as closed, unsafe, and non-productive,
they will be replaced by gossip, 'end runs' and back-biting.
- Are there certain factors in the environment that make problems worse,
especially at times of conflict?
- Take stock of your processes for managing during stressful times.
Look at how phones are routed, noise is managed, client lines are
queued, distractions are managed, etc. Often, our response during
times of stress is to meet less frequently, because 'we have no
time to meet.' And we continue to do things the way we've been doing
them, because 'we have no time to create new procedures.' This approach
dooms us to repeat the same errors, rather than to learn from the
opportunities. Examine your systems for managing problems, including
dispute resolution systems, and use times of "harmony"
to identify process improvements that can be implemented in times
Return to About Conflict Menu
|Conflict Styles and Their Consequences
Conflict is often best understood by examining the consequences of various
behaviors at moments in time. These behaviors are usefully categorized
according to conflict styles. Each style is a way to meet one's needs
in a dispute but may impact other people in different ways.
- Competing is a style in which one's own needs are advocated
over the needs of others. It relies on an aggressive style of communication,
low regard for future relationships, and the exercise of coercive power.
Those using a competitive style tend to seek control over a discussion,
in both substance and ground rules. They fear that loss of such control
will result in solutions that fail to meet their needs. Competing tends
to result in responses that increase the level of threat.
- Accommodating, also known as smoothing, is the opposite of
competing. Persons using this style yield their needs to those of others,
trying to be diplomatic. They tend to allow the needs of the group to
overwhelm their own, which may not ever be stated, as preserving the
relationship is seen as most important.
- Avoiding is a common response to the negative perception of
conflict. "Perhaps if we don't bring it up, it will blow over,"
we say to ourselves. But, generally, all that happens is that feelings
get pent up, views go unexpressed, and the conflict festers until it
becomes too big to ignore. Like a cancer that may well have been cured
if treated early, the conflict grows and spreads until it kills the
relationship. Because needs and concerns go unexpressed, people are
often confused, wondering what went wrong in a relationship.
- Compromising is an approach to conflict in which people gain
and give in a series of tradeoffs. While satisfactory, compromise is
generally not satisfying. We each remain shaped by our individual perceptions
of our needs and don't necessarily understand the other side very well.
We often retain a lack of trust and avoid risk-taking involved in more
- Collaborating is the pooling of individual needs and goals
toward a common goal. Often called "win-win problem-solving,"
collaboration requires assertive communication and cooperation in order
to achieve a better solution than either individual could have achieved
alone. It offers the chance for consensus, the integration of needs,
and the potential to exceed the "budget of possibilities"
that previously limited our views of the conflict. It brings new time,
energy, and ideas to resolve the dispute meaningfully
By understanding each style and its consequences, we may normalize the
results of our behaviors in various situations. This is not to say, "Thou
shalt collaborate" in a moralizing way, but to indicate the expected
consequences of each approach: If we use a competing style, we might force
the others to accept 'our' solution, but this acceptance may be accompanied
by fear and resentment. If we accommodate, the relationship may proceed
smoothly, but we may build up frustrations that our needs are going unmet.
If we compromise, we may feel OK about the outcome, but still harbor resentments
in the future. If we collaborate, we may not gain a better solution than
a compromise might have yielded, but we are more likely to feel better
about our chances for future understanding and goodwill. And if we avoid
discussing the conflict at all, both parties may remain clueless about
the real underlying issues and concerns, only to be dealing with them
in the future. If you'd like further insights into the conflict styles
you tend to use take the Situational
Conflict Styles Assessment Exercise on this site. If you have further
questions contact us!
Return to About Conflict Menu
|How we Respond to Conflict: Thoughts, Feelings,
and Physical Responses 1
In addition to the behavioral responses summarized by the various conflict
styles, we have emotional, cognitive and physical responses to conflict.
These are important windows into our experience during conflict, for they
frequently tell us more about what is the true source of threat that we
perceive; by understanding our thoughts, feelings and physical responses
to conflict, we may get better insights into the best potential solutions
to the situation.
- Emotional responses: These are the feelings we experience in
conflict, ranging from anger and fear to despair and confusion. Emotional
responses are often misunderstood, as people tend to believe that others
feel the same as they do. Thus, differing emotional responses are confusing
and, at times, threatening.
- Cognitive responses: These are our ideas and thoughts about
a conflict, often present as inner voices or internal observers in the
midst of a situation. Through sub-vocalization (i.e., self-talk), we
come to understand these cognitive responses. For example, we might
think any of the following things in response to another person taking
a parking spot just as we are ready to park:
"That jerk! Who does he think he is! What a sense of entitlement!"
"I wonder if he realizes what he has done. He seems lost in
his own thoughts. I hope he is okay."
"What am I supposed to do? Now I'm going to be late for my meeting
Should I say something to him? What if he gets mad at me?"
Such differing cognitive responses contribute to emotional and behavioral
responses, where self-talk can either promote a positive or negative feedback
loop in the situation.
- Physical responses: These responses can play an important role
in our ability to meet our needs in the conflict. They include heightened
stress, bodily tension, increased perspiration, tunnel vision, shallow
or accelerated breathing, nausea, and rapid heartbeat. These responses
are similar to those we experience in high-anxiety situations, and they
may be managed through stress
management techniques. Establishing a calmer environment in which
emotions can be managed is more likely if the physical response is addressed
Return to About Conflict Menu
| 1 Adapted
from Harry Webne-Behrman, The Practice of Facilitation: Managing Group
Process and Solving Problems, Quorum Books, Greenwood Publishing, 1998,
by permission of the author. All rights reserved.
|The Role of Perceptions in Conflict
As noted in our basic definition of conflict, we define conflict as a
disagreement through which the parties involved perceive a threat to their
needs, interests or concerns. One key element of this definition
is the idea that each party may have a different perception of any given
situation. We can anticipate having such differences due to a number of
factors that create "perceptual filters" that influence our
responses to the situation:
- Culture, race, and ethnicity:2
Our varying cultural backgrounds influence us to hold certain beliefs
about the social structure of our world, as well as the role of conflict
in that experience. We may have learned to value substantive, procedural
and psychological needs differently as a result, thus influencing our
willingness to engage in various modes of negotiation and efforts to
manage the conflict
- Gender and sexuality:3 Men and
women often perceive situations somewhat differently, based on both
their experiences in the world (which relates to power and privilege,
as do race and ethnicity) and socialization patterns that reinforce
the importance of relationships vs. task, substance vs. process, immediacy
vs. long-term outcomes. As a result, men and women will often approach
conflictive situations with differing mindsets about the desired outcomes
from the situation, as well as the set of possible solutions that may
- Knowledge (general and situational): Parties respond to given
conflicts on the basis of the knowledge they may have about the issue
at hand. This includes situation-specific knowledge (i.e., "Do
I understand what is going on here?") and general knowledge (i.e.,
"Have I experienced this type of situation before?" or "Have
I studied about similar situations before?"). Such information
can influence the person's willingness to engage in efforts to manage
the conflict, either reinforcing confidence to deal with the dilemma
or undermining one's willingness to flexibly consider alternatives.
- Impressions of the Messenger: If the person sharing the message
- the messenger - is perceived to be a threat (powerful, scary, unknown,
etc.), this can influence our responses to the overall situation being
experienced. For example, if a big scary-looking guy is approaching
me rapidly, yelling "Get out of the way!" I may respond differently
than if a diminutive, calm person would express the same message to
me. As well, if I knew either one of them previously, I might respond
differently based upon that prior sense of their credibility: I am more
inclined to listen with respect to someone I view as credible than if
the message comes from someone who lacks credibility and integrity in
- Previous experiences: Some of us have had profound, significant
life experiences that continue to influence our perceptions of current
situations. These experiences may have left us fearful, lacking trust,
and reluctant to take risks. On the other hand, previous experiences
may have left us confident, willing to take chances and experience the
unknown. Either way, we must acknowledge the role of previous experiences
as elements of our perceptual filter in the current dilemma.
These factors (along with others) conspire to form the perceptual filters
through which we experience conflict. As a result, our reactions to the
threat and dilemma posed by conflict should be anticipated to include
varying understandings of the situation. This also means that we can anticipate
that in many conflicts there will be significant misunderstanding of each
other's perceptions, needs and feelings. These challenges contribute to
our emerging sense, during conflict, that the situation is overwhelming
and unsolvable. As such, they become critical sources of potential understanding,
insight and possibility.
Return to About Conflict Menu
2 Much more can be said about
this subject. We have posted an article as an additional resource: "Managing
Intercultural Conflicts Effectively," by Stella Ting-Toomey,
3 This topic is well addressed
in the writings of Professor Deborah Tannen, who has focused extensively
on gender differences in communication.
|Why do we tend to avoid dealing with conflict?
|Engaging in dialogue and negotiation around conflict is something we tend
to approach with fear and hesitation, afraid that the conversation will
go worse than the conflict has gone thus far. All too often, we talk ourselves
out of potential dialogue:
"Why should I talk to her? She'll bite my head off and not listen
to anything I have to say!"
"I should talk to him about this problem, but maybe it will
go away on its own. There's no sense stirring up something that makes
us both uncomfortable."
"If I go to him, I'm making myself vulnerable. No, that's his
responsibility - he should come to me and ask me to talk!"
Our responses, as noted earlier, tend to include behaviors, feelings,
thoughts and physical responses. If any of these responses indicates stress
factors that make us reluctant to talk things out, we are more inclined
to follow the pathway of avoidance. In addition, if we have history with
the individuals involved in this conflict (i.e., we've tried to negotiate
with them in the past, without success), it will "filter" our
perceptions of this situation and make us reluctant to negotiate.
In addition, consider that our society tends to reward alternative
responses to conflict, rather than negotiation: People who aggressively
pursue their needs, competing rather than collaborating, are often satisfied
by others who prefer to accommodate. Managers and leaders are often rewarded
for their aggressive, controlling approaches to problems, rather than
taking a more compassionate approach to issues that may seem less decisive
to the public or their staffs. In other circumstances, those who raise
issues and concerns, even respectfully, are quickly perceived to be "problem"
clients or staff members
they tend to be avoided and minimized.
In any of these approaches, negotiated solutions to conflicts are rarely
modeled or held in high esteem.
Finally, we should keep in mind that negotiation requires profound
courage on the part of all parties: It takes courage to honestly and
clearly articulate your needs, and it takes courage to sit down and listen
to your adversaries. It takes courage to look at your own role in the
dispute, and it takes courage to approach others with a sense of empathy,
openness and respect for their perspective. Collaborative approaches to
conflict management require us to engage in the moment of dialogue in
profound and meaningful ways, so it is understandable if we tend to avoid
such situations until the balance of wisdom tips in favor of negotiation.
[see video clip on "Confronting Conflicts"
for additional information (: