Friday Reflection (No.44): Conflict Resolution - Walking in the Shoes of Others (Part 1)
November 18, 2022
“Can we agree that duels are dumb and immature?” -Aaron Burr in Hamilton
Early in the musical, Aaron Burr sings these ironic lines, passing judgment on the decision of two others to take part in a duel. However, Aaron Burr ultimately challenges Alexander Hamilton to a duel - the very act he declared “dumb and immature.”
Burr’s condition exemplifies a sentiment that most of us have experienced. We look at the conflict between other people and think it is “dumb and immature,” yet when we are in the midst of conflict we rarely see it this way.
Interpersonal conflict is an inevitable reality of work life. When conflict is constructive, it has all sorts of benefits.1 Unfortunately, the lion’s share of interpersonal conflict that takes place in organizational life is often unproductive, unresolved and overly personal.
Given the omnipresence of unproductive interpersonal conflict, you’d think we would have cracked the code on conflict resolution. And while there is high quality theoretical and applied multidisciplinary research on conflict resolution, the reality is that we still suck at it.
Why is it that we are so bad at conflict resolution?
One reason is that we overvalue our motivations, emotions and opinions and undervalue those of others.
In fact, we are hard wired to do this. Our egocentric view of the world can cause us to think that our perspective carries more water than those of others. Moreover, the more primitive parts of our brain are prone to protect us from any perceived threats.2
What this means in practice is that we often settle for sub-optimal agreements.3 If this were a one-off occurrence, it would not be great but we could move on. The challenge is that in organizational life, having to settle for sub-optimal agreements, especially more than once with the same peer, creates scar tissue in relationships that is really tough to work out.
One antidote to resolving interpersonal conflict in organizational life is to spend more time walking in the shoes of others and at times, “overvaluing” their motivations, emotions and opinions.4
Since our default mode is to discount the perspectives, including often assuming the least generous interpretation of the motivations of others, the concept of “overvaluing” the perspectives of others allows us to get to more of a balanced view.
When we deeply understand the motivations, emotions and opinions of others, we can look at our own view with a more objective lens and use this information to arrive at solutions that are as close to win-win as possible.
To explore the application of this somewhat counterintuitive principle (overvaluing the perspectives of others), I plan to explore three flavors of interpersonal conflict and potential resolution approaches over the next three weeks:
The “Simmer” - unspoken and/or unaddressed conflict that colors interactions with a colleague and can inhibit achieving optimal solutions, especially those we engage with frequently
The “Ok Corral” - open conflict that at its best shows up as biting sarcasm and at its worst as tempers flaring, resulting in all kinds of residual damage
The “Ego Measuring Contest” - conflict resulting from personal ambition and insecurity, which often shows up between peers
Next week, I’ll focus on some strategies for how to resolve “The Simmer.”5
In the mean time, here are some questions I reflected on this week:
Which type of interpersonal conflict in organizational life is most common for me?
What is it about me (my motivations, my personality, my values) that makes me more susceptible to these types of interpersonal conflicts?
What is one lingering interpersonal conflict that I would like to resolve in the next quarter?
Amy Gallo has done a ton of research on the benefits of disagreeing more at work. Here’s one article that is particularly relevant. The idea of constructive conflict is likely a topic for a future Friday Reflection as most of the organizations I have been part of and/or advised have too little constructive conflict and too much unresolved interpersonal conflict.
Consider the following from a recent Scientific American article: “The amygdala [a part of the brain] can generate fear and distrust of things that pose a danger—think predators or or being lost somewhere unknown. Another part of the brain, a group of connected structures called the mesolimbic system, can give rise to pleasure and feelings of reward in response to things that make it more likely we’ll flourish and survive—think not only food, but also social pleasure, like trust.” It doesn’t take a neuroscientist to come to the conclusion that our natural state is to defend against or at a minimum undervalue anything that seems in conflict with what is seemingly in our best interest. You can read the full article here.
Negotiation research by Pinkley et al reinforces this point. Even when we have full information, we process it in a biased way based on our own emotions and interests.
This ideas is related to an earlier reflection where I explored the concept and application of unconditional positive regard, a coin termed by Carl Rogers. Though simple in theory, consistently showing UPR is incredibly hard, especially in our world that is moving a million miles per hour. UPR is also a foundational starting point to make progress in challenging relationships. You can read more here.
This happens to be the form of conflict that I struggle with the most, so I’ll be doing my own work in this first installment.