Almost all conflict is originally misdiagnosed as a communication problem. The reality is that there wouldn’t be a communication problem if there weren’t some sort of underlying conflict. (Yes, poor communication can cause conflict, but if the relationships are relatively good and you have competent people, there’s not much of a problem.) You make adjustments, ask for what you want, get to work, and there’s no hard feelings.
Why It’s Not a Communication Problem
The reason people don’t communicate is relational. There’s a lack of trust. There are hurt feelings. There’s fear of being misunderstood, of making waves, of not getting support. So, the real issue is some sort of inner conflict that turns into outer conflict that’s first recognized as a communication problem.
When unresolved or mismanaged conflict gets the attention of the C-suite, it’s because unresolved conflict affects the business in some way: Customers are leaving, projects are stalled, mistakes are made, quality is compromised, and OSHA is knocking at the corporate door due to a safety violation.
That’s when conflict becomes not a tactical issue meant for front-line supervisors, but a strategic priority at the top with the VP or C-suite.
Most senior-level leaders believe unresolved conflict is a “tactical communication problem” that should be pushed down either to HR or business unit managers to figure out. That’s a nice theory, but the truth is this: Culture is not up to HR, and conflict is not a tactical communication problem to be handled by middle management. It’s not fair to throw a problem to HR and expect a solution based on building a new policy or hosting mandatory workshops.
And, if Mid-level managers knew how to manage conflicts and build accountability, the top leaders wouldn’t even know about conflict. Once the conflicts get to a certain point, the best that happens is a workshop a 360, or a reorganization.
What’s interesting to me is the unaddressed conflict and dysfunction at the senior level. I’ve talked with senior leaders about their own executive teams, and this is what I hear, even at the top: “But they just don’t do conflict…”So, if senior leaders don’t do conflict, why do they expect their mid-level managers and supervisors to excel at it? Or why do they think a new policy is going to change anything if managers won’t have conversations? Because avoidance is the path of least resistance. But it’s not like avoiders don’t know they avoid. They do.
Avoiders know they avoid, so the avoiding is intentional. (There’s a belief that it will all blow over, and after all, “we’re all adults.”) Unfortunately, it’s rare for conflict to work itself out or blow over. It leaks out in sarcasm, passive aggressiveness, undermining, and turnover, and that’s why it looks on the surface like a communication problem.
As a leader, if you’re INTENTIONALLY avoiding conflict, you’re UNINTENTIONALLY avoiding inner growth.
The Courageous Leader Eco System solves this cultural problem because it’s supported at every level of the organization. Part of the system is learning a framework for having difficult conversations, and part of the system is changing your mind about how you interpret conflict. Once you know a framework, and you change your interpretation, anxiety subsides. Leaders have a pathway even when it’s difficult. Schedule a meeting with me if you want to learn more.
