HR Advisor January 2010

MRSC In Focus › HR Advisor January 2010

HR Advisor

MRSC has joined with Janice Corbin and Janet May, Partners, Sound Employment Solutions, Bruce Schroeder, Employment/Litigation Attorney, Summit Law Group, Mark Busto, Attorney, Sebris Busto James, and Eric Svaren, Principal, Groupsmith, Inc. to bring you the "HR Advisor" article series on employment and labor law issues affecting Washington local governments. The "HR Advisor" will feature a new article each month with timely HR management information and advice you can use.*

When Conflict is Good (and when it’s not)

January 2010

By Eric Svaren, Principal
Groupsmith, Inc.

Nancy and Bonita are always at loggerheads in meetings. Casper and Dylan are always complaining (to you) about each other. Miguel and Keisha can hardly bear to be in the same room together.

If I asked you whether you have too much or too little conflict in your work life, what you’re likely to say—after scoffing at the question—is that you have too much.

What you have too much of is emotional and personal conflict, such as shouting, backstabbing, put-downs, cold shoulders, and personality conflicts. This kind of conflict is profoundly unproductive and destructive. It hurts business results, poisons the work atmosphere, and destroys trust and goodwill. Everyone would be better off with less emotional conflict at work.

There’s another kind of conflict, though, that you may not have enough of. That’s cognitive conflict. Cognitive conflict involves disagreement over ideas, decisions or actions. It’s the intellectual (as opposed to emotional) form of conflict.

Cognitive conflict is the good conflict because it tests ideas and approaches, forces people to examine their data and assumptions, and ensures they’re clear in their thinking. Cognitive conflict is about refining and tightening ideas in order to come to the best decision possible.

When there’s not enough cognitive conflict, half-baked ideas get implemented and ill-advised decisions get made. This hurts the organization, too, because it results in lower performance, wasted time and resources, frustration, anger, and disappointment.

Is it possible to have cognitive conflict without it devolving into emotional conflict? The short answer is “Yes.” But, it takes constant, focused effort to separate the personal and emotional from the ideas and decisions. I’ve seen many groups successfully reduce emotional conflict while increasing cognitive conflict.

The first step is to take a look at how people talk to each other. Is the conversation mostly about people pushing out their ideas (advocacy), or are they truly interested in exploring ideas and the thinking behind them (inquiry). Or, worse, are they hardly talking at all?

Advocacy often leads to emotional conflict because advocates become passionate about their ideas, start to focus on winning, stop critically evaluating their idea, and sometimes even withhold or distort information to support their cause. If all you see in your meetings is advocacy, then you’re likely to end up with a lot of emotional conflict to contend with.

Inquiry, on the other hand, is about exploring multiple options, not just one. It fosters a candid exchange of ideas. Assumptions and gaps in reasoning are exposed and examined. In inquiry, you ask genuine questions, which is a sign of respect. You’re sincerely interested in what they’re thinking. Disciplined inquiry is much more likely to result in a well-tested, workable solution than unbridled advocacy.

Healthy discussion (or “dialogue”) involves a lot of inquiry with a sprinkling of advocacy. It’s characterized by a fair amount of cognitive conflict and produces better ideas and decisions. Keep emotional conflict in check; when it emerges, deal with with openly and quickly, so that the group as a whole can get back to work.

There are many ways of increasing inquiry and cognitive conflict. Here are few tips to try on your own team:

Talk with the team about the kind of conversations you want to have in meetings (and between them). Agree on a short list of ground rules that would be needed to realize the vision.
If a conversation gets hot, intervene directly by paraphrasing the speaker’s comments, checking with the speaker for accuracy, and then asking the other combatant to respond. Paraphrase his/her comments, too, if necessary.
Step out of the conversation and observe how it’s going. Share your observations with the group and ask for their ideas for changing the tone. Are they following the ground rules? Need to add a new one?
If people too readily agree with each other, appoint a “devil’s advocate” to analyze the idea. Rotate this role so that everyone gets experience challenging the group and living to tell about it.
Identify the criteria you want a solution to address (e.g., budget neutral or politically palatable) and then do 10 minutes of unbridled, unedited brainstorming of potential solutions. Only after everyone’s ideas are up on the whiteboard do you allow evaluation, editing and combining of ideas.
Take five minutes at the end of each meeting to evaluate it. What worked well? Would people like to change?

At the end of the day, make “how we talk” a legitimate topic of conversation on your team. Taking a little time here and there to tune-up your meetings will pay big dividends.

Conflict is unavoidable. But it need not be destructive, emotional conflict. Done well, cognitive conflict leads to better ideas, livelier meetings, greater understanding, better work relationships, sound decisions and improved business outcomes.

Bruce Schroeder is an employment / litigation attorney with Summit Law Group, Seattle. Bruce's practice is concentrated on representing management in the entire range of employment law matters. More.

Janice Corbin is a partner with Sound Employment Solutions, LLC, Seattle. Janice has over 15 years of human resources experience with the Seattle Police Department and the International Harvester Truck Company and has worked in the law enforcement field for over 22 years. More.

Janet May is a partner and attorney with Sound Employment Solutions, LLC, Seattle. Janet has over ten years of experience in the labor and employment law field, and has represented both management and labor. More.

Mark Busto, Attorney with Sebris Busto James, Bellevue, is a seasoned employment law counselor and litigator with a strong professional background in labor-management relations. He has represented employers in discrimination cases before judges and juries in both state and federal court and has arbitrated many labor and employment matters. More.

Eric Svaren, Principal, Groupsmith, Inc., helps individuals, teams, departments and whole organizations get traction—by facilitating change, clarifying strategy, strengthening trust, and improving communication. He specializes in team rescue (intensive team building) and executive coaching. A master facilitator, Eric leads all types of meetings and retreats. He also offers training in Crucial Conversations, Leading without Authority, and Dangerous Decisions (how to involve people in decision making).

*The Articles appearing in the "HR Advisor" column represent the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Municipal Research & Services Center.

Comments

Jan. 14th - Nancy

You nailed our problem and better yet you provided the insight that was desperately needed. I cannot wait until your next article.

Jan. 6th - Mary

I appreciate your distinction between advocacy and inquiry. With so much advocacy around "live your passion," inquiry can get lost these days. But in my experience, inquiry is where the brilliance of combined minds can be tapped into. All of us together is smarter than one of us alone (no matter how passionate that one may be!)

Jan. 5th - Byron

These are great insights Eric. Too many work groups fall into the trap of allowing emotional conflict to get in the way of cognitive conflict to the point of precluding what might otherwise be a more thoughtful dialogue. Raising everyone's awareness of the problem and setting some ground rules for discussions should help to set the stage for better group interaction and decision making.