As I mentioned in the last post, Jim Stroup did a series of posts last week about conflict and leadership. It was based on his review of the work of Mary Parker Follett. I love to see the topic covered, of course, and I think Jim did a good job. Most of his (and Parker’s) focus is on what I call the "agreement context" of conflict resolution. That is, conflict as viewed as two parties in disagreement about something. The traditional approach to resolving this conflict is hard bargaining where either one side wins over the other, or they end up compromising. Jim points to Parker’s "integrative" approach, which is akin to Fisher and Ury’s  classic "win/win" in what they called Principled Negotiation. From Jim’s last post:

It’s worth emphasizing again that Follett promoted integration as a means of dealing with, or (better) of using, a conflict – not of avoiding it. Conflict, properly perceived and exploited, is a potentially positive contributor to the vitality and progress of the organization.

Amen, although I’d take out the word "potentially." The problem is not conflict. The problem is conflict avoidance. Conflict, it turns out, is both inevitable and good. Think about it: there is not a living system that doesn’t have conflict in it. Why? Because you NEED conflict to grow and develop. What if you went to work tomorrow and everyone agreed with everyone else all the time. About everything. No conflict. Some think this would be great, but most come to realize that it would be very boring, because nothing would ever change. You need conflicting ideas in order to do the thinking you need to to move forward. The "next level" in an organization is not achieved by reiterating what you already know as truth. You need the real world to conflict with your existing view of the world in order to learn and grow. You need conflict with another person (or group) in order to deepen your relationship. A world without conflict is stagnant and boring.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that we always handle conflict well. It’s the history we all have of people yelling, fighting, undermining, etc. in conflict situations that leaves us with a bad taste in our mouths when we think of conflict. But it is important to separate out our ineffective management of conflict and the important value of conflict itself. Because when we don’t (and think conflict is bad), we end up quite "rationally" choosing to avoid conflict, and that’s what actually makes things bad. In avoiding, we miss the early opportunities to "perceive and exploit" the conflict appropriately. After things start to really fall apart we end up reinforcing our original view that conflict is "bad."

Breaking out of this cycle means moving towards conflict when you see it. It means bringing it up in that meeting right after everyone becomes awkwardly silent because the boss and the VP are in conflict but not talking about it. Move towards the conflict. If you’re in a position of authority in an organization, you should work to make it clear that moving toward conflict is a good thing. Reward the people who do it.

I remember learning in the martial art of Aikido that many of the moves (which are all defensive; there is no attack in Aikido) involve moving closer to the oncoming attack. It feels counter-intuitive to move toward the fist that is aimed at your head (you move towards, but not directly at it, of course), but retreating from an attack (dodging while backing up) simply gives the attacker more time to change their attack. The safest place, it turns out, is right next to the attacker. Your gut says getting as far away from this attacker is the right thing to do, but in some instances, the best move is to get right next to them.

The same is true with conflict. In Aikido, of course, you need some skills to end up safely right next to that attacker, and the same is true with conflict. Learn conflict resolution skills. Learn to communicate more effectively in "charged" situations. And then go towards the conflict and move through it to the next level.