Why Conflict is a Confusing Subject
There are many things that are difficult to discuss in English. Our shared language has some limitations. One of the words that provides some confusion that complicates our work together as teams is the English word “conflict.”
I recently had an opportunity to work with a group of healthcare providers, doctors and NPPs, and asked them as an introduction to our conversation on conflict to develop two lists. The first list is the PROs of conflict, the reasons conflict is often discussed as a team strength to develop. The second list is the CONs of conflict, the reasons conflict is also discussed as a team weakness to prevent. Here are the 2 lists they came up with (some of the best lists I’ve seen in this exercise):
Pros
Change
Innovation
Organizational/personal growth
Mutually beneficial
Weeds out the weak
Input from all
Tenacity
Drive
Broader view
Relieves pressure
Further direction
Progress
Increased productivity
Stimulation
Unifying
Thought
Advancement
Leads to creativity
Prompting further solutions
Learn new things
deconstruction
Cons
Death / dismembership
Time-consuming / loss of productivity
Pressure / stress / anxiety
Anger / negative emotions
Hurt feelings
Damaged relationships
Lawsuits
Negative healthcare consequences
Emotional / physical harm
Complete annihilation of relationships
Stomps the weak
Conflict (con is in the word)
Chaos
Dysfunction
Dissatisfaction
Triggers emotions
Fight / flight lizard brain
Disrupts inner peace / homeostasis
Loss of good / big picture
Not good
Unfun
Thanos
As you can see the two lists significantly differ. The first describes something we should cultivate and seek more of. The second list describes something we should prevent and seek less of. This divergent understanding of the English word “conflict” is common. If we’re not careful or more precise in our language, we can easily talk past each other.
To have a meaningful conversation about “conflict,” I think we first need to clarify which kind of conflict we’re referring to. Because of this reality, I encourage the teams and organizations I get the chance to work with to use more precise language to help make the subject of our conversations clearer. For the “good” kind of conflict I suggest that they use terms like: healthy disagreement, rigorous debate, the opposite of “groupthink.” For the “destructive” kind of conflict, I suggest that they either use the modifier “destructive” or “interpersonal” before conflict to clarity or simply to use the English word conflict to refer to the destructive type. While the existing research suggests that conflict over ideas and processes can be for good or ill in the organization, it is clear that interpersonal or relational conflict is always a destructive force within a workplace team.
I also encourage them to be aware of the possibility of “misunderstanding” masquerading as “conflict.” Misunderstanding is sometimes connected to our concept of conflict and when we are misunderstanding each other, the resulting feelings can feel very similar to the feelings we have when we are relationally conflicted. The key to misunderstanding is that data is missing from one or both parties in the attempted communication. This data gap creates wrong but unintended perceptions. Once the misunderstanding is identified and the missing data is provided, erroneous perceptions are often cleared up in an instant.
English is often a difficult language to share as we build healthy, vitally connected organizations involving humans. For this reason, I would suggest trying to make our communication clearer by agreeing to use 3 clearer expressions in lieu of the one word “conflict.”
Healthy disagreement or rigorous debate is a healthy group dynamic that allows the best ideas to come forward from all members of the team. It relies on psychological safety, trust, and good relationships to be practiced well. It is the opposite of “groupthink.”
Destructive interpersonal conflict is an unhealthy group dynamic that does damage to individuals, teams and groups, and the entire system. It destroys psychological safety, trust, and relationships.
Misunderstandings are the situations where we discover that we are missing data to better understand the situation or others’ intentions. With the provision of the missing data and clarification, the misunderstanding is cleared up.