Leading in the Heat of Conflict

Leaders need to learn during conflict and encourage opposition based on fact and analysis. The ones who do will be successful leaders.

Howard, I think you need to leave.

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz was working with a small team to plan a shareholders meeting in New York City. Earnings were down. Expansive and expensive changes were under way; it was too soon to show the results of these changes, and there wasnt agreement about some future changes. The stock could free-fall if the message to Wall Street was not on point, and Starbucks could be taken over. The CFO abruptly resigned. The challenge of presenting an optimistic, yet realistic, story was amplified by the short timeline.

As the Starbucks executives practiced their presentations on stage in New York, Schultz thought he sensed insecurity and began to doubt their effectiveness. He interrupted their presentations, redirected them, and caused the lack of confidence that he perceived. Patience was wearing thin. The other executives felt threatened and micromanaged. Thats when someone said, Howard, I think you need to leave.

Leaders in the midst of conflict make decisions with the head and heart, with intellect and emotion. These conflicts involve elements of opposition: the different possible futures for an organization, the different tactics related to a shared strategy, or vastly different strategies. In this article the term opposition is used to describe contrasting or contradictory ideas, and the term conflict is used to describe situations where people experience it at a deeply personal level.

Schultzs input was intended to encourage and support the executives who were dealing with the business problem (the opposition), but he caused conflict by the obtrusive manner of his input. He did not offer a discussion about the presentations that might have produced better ideas. Instead, he threatened their self-esteem and confidence. The executives reminded Schultz that they knew what they needed to do, that they shared a vision for the presentationand Schultz left.

Opposition versus conflict

Leaders who encourage opposition based on experience, facts, and analysis are able to more fully consider the issue at hand and generally get better results. According to research, the most successful leaders address 60 percent more opposition than their peers. In many ways, a leaders job is to encourage opposition by creating conditions where productive debate can flourish and the best decisions can be made.

The productiveness of this dialogue, however, is at risk when people take things personally and experience conflict. Many people avoid opposition because they fear it will turn into conflict. But avoiding opposition can actually create issues, and when ignored, can get bigger and become more frustrating, which creates conflict.

The experience of conflict short-circuits debate and dialogue. People may try to avoid the unpleasantness of conflict, saying that they agree with the leader and then act differently or half-heartedly. They may become aggressive and challenging, competing for power or influence. Or they may pull back and analyze the situation, try to wait it out, or distance themselves from the issue.

Whatever the response in conflict, people tend to manage the potentially productive elements of opposition less skillfullyleading to poor results for the organization. Survey after survey shows that the main reason people leave their organization is because of a bad relationship with their boss. The costs of this turnover may exceed 200 percent of the departing employees annual salary. Turnover, however, is not the whole story. Poor strategic decisions, lackluster implementation, and missed opportunities resulting from conflict can be more costly than turnover.

Leaders in the heat of conflict often fail because they, with good intentions, use strategies that are meant to deal with opposition. Conflict is a personal experience; its about the relationship, the emotion, responding to something that could potentially threaten a persons self-worth. Schultz was experiencing doubt and he sought to resolve it by micromanaging the team during rehearsal. This caused conflict in them because they could all see that Schultz was damaging their preparation to address the business challenge. They refocused Schultz on their shared vision and after Schultzs departure they refocused the meeting. Schultz learned that he was getting in the way of the very thing he cared about.

Learning from conflict

Leaders need to learn from conflict. People experience conflict only about things that are important to them; therefore, conflict can serve to uncover peoples values. The experience of conflict shows us that something important (to ourselves or others) is not being valued or respected. This opens windows of learning in the relationship and the organization. For learning and development professionals, the burning question is: How can we teach leaders to learn during conflict?

First, and possibly most important, is to clearly distinguish conflict from opposition. While many people are conflict-averse, there is no reason to be opposition-averse. We know, intellectually, that the clash of opposing ideas can spark creativity and innovation, that it tests ideas against each other and leads to better decisions. When we mistakenly call opposition conflict, we project all the emotion and experience of a potentially threatening situation onto one that has the potential for great productivity. This may lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy because the opposition does, in fact, turn into conflict when we treat it as such.

There also are deeper, and subtler, sources of conflict. Much has been written about conflict between different generations in the workplace. As the developed world continues its transition from an industrial mode of production to a knowledge and service economy, the social character shifts from bureaucratic to interactive.

Generational differences can be more fully understood as waves on top of the changing tide of social character. Social character, a concept introduced by psychoanalyst Erich Fromm, is the shared values and attitudes of people in a culture. The faster the culture changes, the more potential there is for conflict related to value differences between people in the workplace. We are in a period of social character transition, and social character changes more slowly than culture.

Leaders in the heat of conflict need to be able to identify and manage the emotions and motives of conflict. When we teach leaders to take the emotion out

of conflict, or separate the people from the problem, we misapply opposition-management techniques to conflict. Conflict is about the emotions and the people. We need to teach leaders to address these issues before applying their negotiation or problem-solving skillsor we run the risk of solving the wrong problem and alienating the people involved.

Different approaches to conflict

The experience of conflict is different for each of us, but there are some common themes. According to Elias Porters Relationship Awareness Theory, conflict is characterized by three progressively serious stages that are internally experienced. The observable behaviors connected with these internal experiences appear as accommodation, assertiveness, and analysisand different people may experience these in different orders. When leaders, through exploration of their own conflict sequences, learn that they experience all three stages, they also learn to perceive different conflict experiences in others.

People who accommodate in conflict generally do so because they want to maintain harmony. They hope that others will notice the problem and address it. They do not want to make the problem worse by expressing their own view, and may at times deny that there is a problem. A calm, respectful approach is most effective when people experience conflict in this manner. A leader who can affirm the relationship, listen carefully, and craft questions that will allow the person in conflict to express himself will be more likely to resolve the interpersonal conflictand more able to engage in productive dialogue about opposing ideas.

People who assert themselves in conflict generally want to rise to the challenge, to take quick action. They are passionate about the issue and want others to act with the same urgency. They do not want to let the problem get worse by ignoring it, so they confront the issue directly. A direct, open, and timely approach is most effective when people experience conflict in this manner. A leader who can be confident, prepared for a robust exchange of ideas, and focused on action will be more likely to resolve the interpersonal conflictand more able to engage in productive dialogue about opposing ideas.

People who analyze in conflict generally want order and logic to prevail; they want rationality and objectivity. They want time, space, and information. They do not want to make the problem worse by taking impetuous action, so they ask questions, challenge assumptions, and seek to separate opinion from fact. An objective, open, and rational approach is most effective when people experience conflict in this manner. A leader who can set opinions and preconceived ideas aside, respect another persons need for processing time, address ideas in a logical order, and focus on getting things right will be more likely to resolve the interpersonal conflictand more able to engage in productive dialogue about opposing ideas.

Leadership philosophy and change

In the heat of conflict, it can be difficult to address opposing issues neutrally because conflict, by its nature, is subjective. Thats where a clear philosophy can add value to a leaders strategic decisions during conflict. A written philosophy not only guides a leader, but when shared with collaborators, invites open dialogue about whether a leader is acting in accordance with the philosophy.

When leaders have clearly expressed the purpose of the organization and the practical values that are essential to accomplishing that purpose, they provide a set of principles to guide themselves and their collaboratorsnot just when things are going well for the organization, but also at times of change and crisis.

Leaders may not always act in ways that are consistent with their philosophy. But leaders with a clear philosophy, like Schultz, generally will be more responsive to followers who call him out for behaving in ways that are not consistent with the philosophy, or in ways that cause conflict for followers such as in the meeting rehearsal.

The practical values expressed in Starbuckss philosophy include the phrase we always treat each other with respect and dignity and we hold each other to that standard. When Schultz interrupted and redirected the rehearsal, the other team members reminded him of his philosophy and Schultz left them alone.

The meeting (held in late 2008 and reflected upon in Schultzs 2011 book Onward) was ultimately successful and marked a turning point for Schultz and Starbucks. In reflection, Schultz said that people were telling him things he already believed; he just needed to hear them again.

Leaders lead change, and change usually involves opposing strategies, ideas, and opinions. The foundation of an organization may be challenged, and with it the daily activities and the source of income for employees. These changes hold the potential for conflict.

To succeed at leading complex changes, leaders must think systemically, not just about the organization and its context, but also about the organizations social system, the human values and drives that are expressed through work. Leaders with a clear philosophy are likely to spend more time working with opposition and the productive outcomes that can be achieved through it. Those who have not clearly defined their philosophy are more likely to lose their way and find themselves mired in the interpersonal conflict that often accompanies opposition.

The secret to successful leadership of conflict is to recognize that managing conflict is not just an intellectual exercise. As current neuroscience research (such as that done by Antonio Damasio) has shown, people are unable to reason effectively when the reasoning center of the brain is detached from their emotional center. We must not, in fact cannot, take the emotion out of conflict. Managing conflict engages both head and heart.

Note: This article is drawn from the book Onward.