Why interpersonal conflict occurs

Conflict in the workplace can manifest in several ways. The root causes include the following.

Poor communication

Close to 90% of employees cite poor communication as the primary reason for workplace failures. The source can be poor communication between management and employees or between employees, and it usually has to do with insufficient or inaccurate information or comments taken out of context.

Personality and value clashes

Everyone is different, and there are some who may not understand or acknowledge those differences. In a polarized society, these differences can be a source of contention between colleagues who can’t seem to find common ground.

Lack of resources

In an environment ruled by scarcity, employees have to compete for resources, which can leave some feeling as if the playing field isn’t leveled. In the cases where the scarcity is in human resources, work overload can lead to poor performance, resentment and conflict.

Poorly defined roles

Job descriptions that are vague or incomplete create unnecessary overlapping of duties. Stepping on another person’s toes can cause tasks to fall through the cracks, leading to finger-pointing.

Conflict at work should always be addressed and never ignored. Not only does it result in a loss of productivity, it can also lead to a toxic work culture, excess employee absenteeism and attrition. The fact is that more managers need to be aware of how to handle workplace conflict because it’s a part of the power dynamic.

Types of interpersonal conflict

While there are several types, these interpersonal conflict examples tend to be the common ones that appear in work environments.

Pseudo conflict

Pseudo conflict happens when two people agree but wind up conflicting because they think they don’t. It’s a result of poor communication and derives from hasty assumptions. The consequences of this type of conflict can turn into real conflict.

Basic example: Two leaders are running a meeting. One wants to record the audio of the meeting, while another wants people to take notes. This can create a pseudo conflict. They both want the same objective but have different ways of achieving it.

Fact conflict

Two or more people disagree about the facts of a subject.

Basic example: An employee is promoted because of great performance. Another employee does not agree and feels that the promotion should be theirs instead, despite the fact that their performance was not strong enough to be considered.

Policy conflict

A policy conflict is a dispute over a course of action.

Basic example: An employee believes that they should get a raise even though they may not qualify for it according to the rules.

Value conflict

Because values are inherently individual, they can take on many forms. One type of value conflict occurs when the individual’s values don’t align with the job or the company’s values. Another type of value conflict is when the values of two or more team members don’t align.

Basic example: On a project, several team members want to complete the project as quickly as possible, which includes overtime. However, one member wants to make it home every night to spend time with their family, so overtime doesn’t work for this employee.

Ego conflict

An ego conflict is both destructive and frustrating. This can involve someone taking everything personally.

Basic example: A manager is choosing a team, and the employee was not included. They feel that their skills entitle them to a spot, and as a result, they assume that the manager has it in for them. The fact, however, could be that the person’s skills don’t match the project’s needs.

Meta conflict

A meta conflict involves disagreements over how a conflict is being addressed or handled. It’s essentially a conflict about conflict.

Basic example: Two people are having a disagreement, and one just nods. The other accuses that person of just nodding and not engaging in the argument.

Fundamental approaches to handling conflict resolution

There are four ways you can look at conflict resolution. Whichever one you choose will depend on what you want to achieve:

• Collaborative. This is the approach where both parties are open to working together to find a solution to the problem, instead of escalating and burning bridges.
• Compromise. Each side can get some of what they want by making certain concessions. There is no loser, as individuals and corporations strive for balance.
• Accommodation. One party is willing to let the other “win” to achieve peace.

Once you’ve identified the type of outcome you want to achieve, it’s important to:

• Set ground rules. Rules are meant to act as boundaries, not constraints. They are designed to help employees operate with a sense of fairness and security that can facilitate resolution rather than conflict.
• Actively listen. Active listening goes beyond listening to words. It’s about reading the nuances of conversations, including associated visible demeanor. When there are several variables involved, active listening becomes a key to breaking down misunderstandings.
• Schedule a face-to-face meeting. While it may not always be possible, opting for face-to-face meetings can be a great way to resolve conflict. How people speak isn’t just through words. It’s better to see all aspects of nonverbal communication so you can get a fuller picture.
• Avoid making it personal. Instead of allowing emotions to get the better of you, you can encourage employees to communicate by expressing their feelings, using I-messages, instead of using you-messages, which are more accusatory. I-messages allow both parties to have a chance to better control their dialog.

Role of mediation

Mediation is an informal process that involves the use of a third party to resolve disputes. The best time to use mediation is to resolve higher-level complaints, such as discrimination or harassment claims. The longer the issue continues, the deeper the grievances. Mediation may be the best way to salvage the situation.

There are organizations that train people in this technique, which involves:

• Meeting with each party separately. With the techniques of active listening and asking open-ended questions, mediators can get to the root of the conflict from each side’s perspective. This requires both participants to enter into a full, frank discussion.
• Meeting both sides to explore the issues. After individual talks, it’s time for both parties to meet with established boundaries, including equal talking time. Emotional intelligence plays a significant role in dismantling defensive and aggressive behaviors.
• Negotiation. Once you have both sides’ perspectives and the facts, it’s time to brainstorm and come up with a win-win solution. This requires identifying areas with shared perspectives and working to build a positive foundation.