Thank you for your visit, and for raising this important point. When conflict appears, it almost always presents as a zero-sum situation. Each participant’s position and self-esteem can become essentially immediately and virtually intextricably bound up in this view, and it can be difficult to even entertain the possibility that we can find another, more mutually agreeable, way to resolve it.

Thank you as well for your effective suggestion of viewing this problem as one of resistance. I hope visitors will follow the link you provided to your excellent articles on the subject.

Thanks again for stopping by and participating in this discussion!

From a leadership standpoint, and particularly from moving an organization to higher levels of performance, I think conflict and the dominance vs compromise scenario’s both suggest a loss scenario. Conflict resolution when you have to move forward yields a unique inflection on the topic. I think conflict resolution for leadership often involves breaking the paradigm when opposites present. Which partly ties to the Managing Leadership’s reference to the personal meanings attached to the user’s options. Essentially conflict is often described as “resistance” in this environment. I write about managing resistance, see if you agree at http://www.managepro.com/blog/index.php/category/leadership

Your identification of the explosively sensitive nature of the actual dynamics of conflict in actual organizations, together with your association of those dynamics and organizations with culture is, in my view, right on the money.

Managing conflict, as many other of the dynamics of organizations, is not a discrete package of techniques that you can apply when the issue comes up. Either the culture of the organization facilitates this (or that) approach to conflict, or not. It is straight to the culture that we must go, and it is that which managers must venture to manage.

You note that, “occasionally, disagreements between people can persist, remain civilized throughout, and be turned into learning moments.” Perhaps such events are an opening for alert managers to begin this process. There are many other such possibilities.

The key, though, is to approach this topic from the context of the culture of the outfit – the way its members perceive each others’ intentions, and interact and work together. If the culture doesn’t support such approaches, it will inevitably undermine them.

Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment, revealing such considered experience. I hope we hear more from you on this topic.

I agree – it seems so counter-intuitive to regard conflict as something potentially to be welcomed for the benefits it promises to unveil. As a result, many of us miss out on advantages struggling to find the traction to surface in our organizations.

Thanks for your visit – and your kind words!

Mostly what I see is hominid conflict masquerading as a polite disagreement over substance. In Mary Parker Follett’s example what’s so striking is the emotional maturity of both parties from the outset. When two people who are both mature have a disagreement, most often, one defers to the other. That gesture is then appreciated, and often leads to an unmediated discussion about a mutually satisfactory solution. It’s true that, occasionally, disagreements between people can persist, remain civilized throughout, and be turned into learning moments. I wish it happened more often.

Since actual physical conflict is (almost) verboten in the workplace, and certainly grist for possible sanctions, most conflict is subtle and not-so-subtle verbal and psychological warfare, and sometimes the parties acknowledge that it’s happening, and just as often they don’t.

The willingness of managers to go toward conflict, and then appreciate, validate, reward, and insist on mature behavior is a key test of a manager’s mettle, especially if one of the immature people is a big producer.

Workplaces are min-cultures that are essentially healthy – or not.

Great series!