Managing Conflict in the Workplace

Conflict is a part of every work environment. Anytime two or more individuals, groups, or organizations come together, differences of opinion will arise. Contrary to many business leaders, conflict is not always a negative aspect of business. In fact, conflict can have a positive impact on business and the workplace when channeled and mediated properly. When it is not, conflict can become a cancerous sore that will lie dormant, undetected until its venom has poisoned an entire organization and killed its ability to be effective because of the negativity that has run rampant and not combated properly.

Fifteen years ago, Apple's board of directors and CEO, Steve Jobs experienced a conflict run amuck which led to his departure that saw Apple lose both its visibility and credibility until his return. Recently, Gary Sheffield talked with Bob Costas about his perceived conflict with Yankees manager, Joe Torre in the way Torre treated African-Americans differently than ballplayers of other ethnic heritages. Even in religious circles, conflict is not something that is an acute phenomenon. Inside the confines of meetings and teams, conflicts arise. Those companies that handle conflict resolution well are healthier than those that do not.

Case in point is the struggle that typically happens when one organization merges or acquires another. With two entities who often were once competitors trying to navigate the landscape to become one entity problems are certain to occur. When Time Warner and AOL merged in the 90s, cultural differences led to massive problems internally that caused AOL CEO Steve Case to resign. The failure arose because no one took the time to resolve the conflicts appropriately.

There are five basic elements to managing or resolving conflict. Inside of every company's policy manual should be some pages focused on conflict resolution. It is going to happen. You might as well take a proactive approach to developing a procedure for it. Or face the consequences when it happens.

The first element of conflict resolution is to understand the nature of the conflict. When Time Warner and AOL merged, cultural differences between the two companies was the dominant cause of conflict. Time Warner was a stodgier, older business environment. Whereas AOL was a less conservative, more liberal company where employees wore jeans and flip-flops to work everyday. The problems that arose could have been resolved if executives had taken the issues more seriously and confronted them by understanding what the root issues of the conflict were.

The second element of conflict resolution revolves around a goal of building consensus. In any business or personal environment, consensus or measured agreement between two parties or entities must be the goal. In order for that to happen, one of five things must occur. Either team's will collaborate, compromise, compete, accommodate, or avoid. One of those will occur. In Time Warner and AOL's case, the first tried to avoid each other, then teams competed against each other. It was not until new leadership came in that they developed a culture of collaboration and compromise by building mutual respect for each other.

Any resolution will require some negotiation or mediation. But before that takes place, a period of fact-finding must take place. This takes place in order to develop an agreeable platform for the discussion to take place. If any ground rules need to be set, they will occur at this phase. This is where Time Warner and AOL failed their employees. During the time when the merger was being discussed and a bid was being made, more attention should have been undertaken by executives and management in order to soften the blow and to ease both companies into a healthy marriage. Every partnership is not always a merger of equals. Neither will both companies become best friends. But there should be a respect and trust factor evoked in order for the partnership to be effective. That did not happen. AOL saw itself buying Time Warner and its media outlets to push the AOL brand farther. Time Warner saw itself as giving AOL credibility beyond the tech spectrum, something it desperately needed in order to brand itself more than simply an online company.

If negotiations had occurred, executives from both companies would have come to some concrete agreements on sensitive matters that both companies hold as essential to the culture of their respective organizations. Those employees at AOL's headquarters in Virginia could continue to operate the way they had. While Time Warner's employees in Atlanta could maintain the culture they had. Seeing that no negotiation was undertaken, employees were forced to try to figure it out on their own, ingredients for disaster. There are options in every conflict. All conflicts do not have to end in war. There are peaceable options to every conflict. They should be looked at, evaluated, and decided on best on what is in the best interest of all parties involved. A bad negotiation will leave one side bitter while the other side leaves feeling better. That is not resolution. That is paving the way for a problem down the road.

Once negotiations have taken place and agreements have been formulated, it is now left for implementing. If care has been undertaken to ensure that everyone has been duly heard, implementation should take place with little to no fanfare involved. Because both parties are aware of the decisions made and the necessity for the actions agreed upon, it is easier to sell the resolutions backwards to those who have to live out those decisions every day.