Dare to Conflict at the Office: A Sometimes Rewarding Gamble
9 November 2010
Read by 1926 persons
Text: Breaking the deadlock often allows for a fresh start. But you don’t raise your voice in the same way with a client, a colleague, or a boss. A guide to conflict.
Defending one’s territory, protecting one’s own, ensuring one’s livelihood… Biologist Konrad Lorenz showed that confrontation is a vital mode of interaction in the animal kingdom for species survival. Humans are no exception. Even in the controlled world of business, where it’s frowned upon, conflict is always latent.
Ready to erupt at any moment when a relationship deteriorates, when one must express opposition, or resolve a crisis. Avoiding it is not always the best solution. In many cases, it’s even beneficial, because it ends unspoken words and frustrations, and allows for a fresh start on a healthier basis.
If necessary, you must dare to confront, to provoke it at the opportune moment and manage it intelligently. Then know how to exit gracefully; the objective is not, of course, to prolong the tense atmosphere. Certainly, this requires boldness, but in practice, one realizes that being able to initiate conflict (with one’s boss, a colleague, a client…) is a constructive approach. Provided you choose the right weapons and adopt behavior appropriate to the situation and the stakes.
With a colleague, adapt your tone to their personality
Your office neighbor gives you dirty looks, makes snide remarks, and doesn’t hesitate to criticize your work publicly. Beyond a certain point, these tensions are unacceptable. “Going for the clash is sometimes the only way to break the deadlock. We often discover that the disagreement is based on very little,” notes Philippe Lemarchand. Six months ago, this manager joined a mobile phone company as a pre-sales manager. Upon arriving in the team, he noticed that one of his colleagues displayed a clear antipathy towards him.
No hello, no goodbye, a distant attitude and a dry tone in all circumstances. And the more Philippe Lemarchand showed goodwill, the more unpleasant the man became: “I ended up demanding an explanation in a rather forceful way. My reaction surprised him. He no longer looked at me the same way, and we were able to clear things up.” This hostility was based on a prejudice. The employee believed that Philippe Lemarchand had been favored and despised him for it. “This type of animosity often stems from the idea one has of the other. A confrontation shatters preconceptions,” summarizes Sylvaine Scheffer, a coach at the management consulting firm Coévolution.
When the conflict opposes two individuals without a hierarchical link or who are not in direct competition, the stakes may seem minor. The reality is more complex: since there are not always tangible facts to rely on, feelings and irrationality take over. It then depends on each person’s personality. An analytical temperament will manage the situation more easily than an emotional one, with whom one must act with diplomacy and gentleness.
A person who is confident in human nature will approach a disagreement with the goal of overcoming it. With them, it will be easy to get to the point. Conversely, a suspicious person will tend to flee or become aggressive. To approach the discussion healthily, try to anticipate your interlocutor’s reactions in order to choose the most appropriate words.
With a subordinate, remain in control and set the pace
“I was afraid of seeming heartless by firing one of my salespeople. In reality, for several months, his colleagues had considered me weak and spineless precisely because I hadn’t done so,” says François Hauser, co-president of Neoxia, a 30-employee SME in the IT consulting sector.
Acting radically – with good reason – also allows the manager to assert their authority. “Conflict proves valuable in a supervisory relationship where relationships adjust daily,” believes Sylvie Deffayet Davrout, a management professor at EDHEC Business School and author of “The Keys to Authority” (Eyrolles). But the exercise is not necessarily easy. “It is indeed more difficult for a manager to provoke a clash with their subordinate than vice versa. In France, we often have complexes about asserting our authority. Even if they know they are in the right, a superior will hesitate, for fear of abusing their power,” notes Hubert Reynier, CEO of the coaching firm Visconti.
Initiating conflict with a colleague requires taking multiple precautions. First, the subject of the dispute must be tangible: error, underperformance, contractual violation… Personal reasons have no place: invoking them would expose you to accusations of moral harassment. Also ensure that the dispute does not escalate into a social conflict, with union intervention.
To do this, ensure that the confrontation takes place in a structured setting, with a formalized procedure. One of your colleagues has made a serious mistake? Don’t wait, call them in within 24 or 48 hours. The discussion should take place in a private location, your office for example – never theirs – or a meeting room. The authority relationship implies a certain decorum. And take care not to let anything leak out to avoid the spread of rumors.
During the confrontation, manage the emotional charge as best as possible. Certainly, the exercise is difficult when you work side-by-side, sometimes for years, but you must maintain control throughout the interview and set the pace. “The manager must immediately get to the ‘hard stuff’ by describing the mistake made,” advises Hubert Reynier. “Once the explanation is finished, they specify that this reprimand will be the subject of a written report and offer the employee suggestions for improvement.” A way of showing them that, with the reproaches having been made, the conflict is over and the future can be envisioned more serenely.
With a superior, carefully weigh the risks and remain diplomatic
“There are times when you have to know how to disobey,” Eric Geffroy doesn’t hesitate to affirm. Even today, this former branch manager at a logistics group doesn’t regret confronting his management, after twelve years of loyal service. The subject of the discord? The elimination of bonuses for all employees in favor of a bonus system reserved for executives.
“Headquarters aimed to eliminate branches. Creating a detrimental climate encouraged people to leave on their own… I was the only one to stand up, challenging the decisions of the management committee,” he recalls. Between heated discussions, icy relationships, and scathing letters, the conflict lasted several months… and ultimately ended with his dismissal. “At least I left with the esteem of my colleagues and at peace with myself.”
As we can see, choosing to raise your voice requires nerves of steel and the ability to withstand the potential consequences. Because the power balance is by definition unequal. A boss embodies several figures: their own person but also the company and its culture, as well as the will of the shareholders… The posture to adopt is not obvious. And the choice of weapons is difficult.
To take on this fight, you must know why you are fighting it, what you are seeking, and above all, carefully weigh the risks. Daring to challenge authority reflects undeniable courage, which will inspire recognition, even admiration, in others. If you know how to oppose constructively, by proposing solutions to each of the problems you raise, your manager – unless they are resistant to any form of contradiction – might well appreciate your strength of character and your critical thinking. It might even be an opportunity for them to discover in you a certain aptitude for leadership. Even if you don’t win immediately, speaking up could benefit you later.
With a peer, don’t hesitate to ask for a third party’s arbitration
“Between the sales director and me, it’s perpetual war,” says Jean-Claude Villemotte, production director at a distributor of household appliances. “My role is to ensure that the products are of quality, while the salespeople’s role is to respond as quickly as possible to customer demand. With such different logics, there are inevitably times when things get stuck!” These recurring frictions are to be expected. “There is no personal animosity,” he explains. “It’s just a banal conflict of interest between two functions. As we both accept this, neither of us hesitates to raise our voices.”
These situations, although commonplace, nevertheless require a certain finesse if you want to avoid them escalating. Because, admits Jean-Claude Villemotte, “these exchanges can be very heated.” And ultimately, they threaten the smooth running of the company. Between two functions of the same hierarchical level, the best solution is to request the arbitration of a third party with authority.
Another option, proposed by Erwan Poiraud, sociologist and director of the International Institute of Commerce and Development: settle the dispute during a formal meeting (meeting between department heads, management committee…). A little solemnity will most often prevent the discussions from turning sour. Jean-Claude Villemotte and his colleague regularly use the weekly meeting between directors to air their grievances and plead their respective cases. Aware that they will have difficulty resolving their numerous problems alone, both accept that they are settled collegially.
With a client, intervene to rebalance the power dynamic
This client doesn’t take you seriously: after canceling three appointments, they stand you up on the fourth. “In this case, you must reverse the power dynamic and reaffirm your authority,” notes Thibaut Bechetoille, president of Qosmos, a provider of network security solutions. This 45-employee SME works with many large companies.
“However, there is sometimes a total lack of respect from large accounts towards small structures,” notes this boss who doesn’t hesitate to stand his ground. This is the case with this prospect who was stringing his teams along: “I went to a meeting to tell him that this meeting would be either the last, or the first of a properly signed collaboration.”
Because the client-supplier relationship is based on an unbalanced power dynamic, it is often difficult to find a solution to disagreements that satisfies both parties. “Going to conflict allows the supplier to rebalance this relationship. It’s a foundational act. There’s a before and an after,” says Jean-Claude Delgenes, president of the human resources expertise firm Technologia. Thibaut Bechetoille ended up coming to an agreement with his prospect: “And no more battles! The commercial game is now played in a serene atmosphere.”
Published October 21, 2010
Posted online November 9, 2010
capital.fr
Defending one’s territory, protecting one’s own, ensuring one’s livelihood… Biologist Konrad Lorenz showed that confrontation is a vital mode of interaction in the animal kingdom for species survival. Humans are no exception. Even in the controlled world of business, where it’s frowned upon, conflict is always latent.
Ready to erupt at any moment when a relationship deteriorates, when one must express opposition, or resolve a crisis. Avoiding it is not always the best solution. In many cases, it’s even beneficial, because it ends unspoken words and frustrations, and allows for a fresh start on a healthier basis.
If necessary, you must dare to confront, to provoke it at the opportune moment and manage it intelligently. Then know how to exit gracefully; the objective is not, of course, to prolong the tense atmosphere. Certainly, this requires boldness, but in practice, one realizes that being able to initiate conflict (with one’s boss, a colleague, a client…) is a constructive approach. Provided you choose the right weapons and adopt behavior appropriate to the situation and the stakes.
With a colleague, adapt your tone to their personality
Your office neighbor gives you dirty looks, makes snide remarks, and doesn’t hesitate to criticize your work publicly. Beyond a certain point, these tensions are unacceptable. “Going for the clash is sometimes the only way to break the deadlock. We often discover that the disagreement is based on very little,” notes Philippe Lemarchand. Six months ago, this manager joined a mobile phone company as a pre-sales manager. Upon arriving in the team, he noticed that one of his colleagues displayed a clear antipathy towards him.
No hello, no goodbye, a distant attitude and a dry tone in all circumstances. And the more Philippe Lemarchand showed goodwill, the more unpleasant the man became: “I ended up demanding an explanation in a rather forceful way. My reaction surprised him. He no longer looked at me the same way, and we were able to clear things up.” This hostility was based on a prejudice. The employee believed that Philippe Lemarchand had been favored and despised him for it. “This type of animosity often stems from the idea one has of the other. A confrontation shatters preconceptions,” summarizes Sylvaine Scheffer, a coach at the management consulting firm Coévolution.
When the conflict opposes two individuals without a hierarchical link or who are not in direct competition, the stakes may seem minor. The reality is more complex: since there are not always tangible facts to rely on, feelings and irrationality take over. It then depends on each person’s personality. An analytical temperament will manage the situation more easily than an emotional one, with whom one must act with diplomacy and gentleness.
A person who is confident in human nature will approach a disagreement with the goal of overcoming it. With them, it will be easy to get to the point. Conversely, a suspicious person will tend to flee or become aggressive. To approach the discussion healthily, try to anticipate your interlocutor’s reactions in order to choose the most appropriate words.
With a subordinate, remain in control and set the pace
“I was afraid of seeming heartless by firing one of my salespeople. In reality, for several months, his colleagues had considered me weak and spineless precisely because I hadn’t done so,” says François Hauser, co-president of Neoxia, a 30-employee SME in the IT consulting sector.
Acting radically – with good reason – also allows the manager to assert their authority. “Conflict proves valuable in a supervisory relationship where relationships adjust daily,” believes Sylvie Deffayet Davrout, a management professor at EDHEC Business School and author of “The Keys to Authority” (Eyrolles). But the exercise is not necessarily easy. “It is indeed more difficult for a manager to provoke a clash with their subordinate than vice versa. In France, we often have complexes about asserting our authority. Even if they know they are in the right, a superior will hesitate, for fear of abusing their power,” notes Hubert Reynier, CEO of the coaching firm Visconti.
Initiating conflict with a colleague requires taking multiple precautions. First, the subject of the dispute must be tangible: error, underperformance, contractual violation… Personal reasons have no place: invoking them would expose you to accusations of moral harassment. Also ensure that the dispute does not escalate into a social conflict, with union intervention.
To do this, ensure that the confrontation takes place in a structured setting, with a formalized procedure. One of your colleagues has made a serious mistake? Don’t wait, call them in within 24 or 48 hours. The discussion should take place in a private location, your office for example – never theirs – or a meeting room. The authority relationship implies a certain decorum. And take care not to let anything leak out to avoid the spread of rumors.
During the confrontation, manage the emotional charge as best as possible. Certainly, the exercise is difficult when you work side-by-side, sometimes for years, but you must maintain control throughout the interview and set the pace. “The manager must immediately get to the ‘hard stuff’ by describing the mistake made,” advises Hubert Reynier. “Once the explanation is finished, they specify that this reprimand will be the subject of a written report and offer the employee suggestions for improvement.” A way of showing them that, with the reproaches having been made, the conflict is over and the future can be envisioned more serenely.
With a superior, carefully weigh the risks and remain diplomatic
“There are times when you have to know how to disobey,” Eric Geffroy doesn’t hesitate to affirm. Even today, this former branch manager at a logistics group doesn’t regret confronting his management, after twelve years of loyal service. The subject of the discord? The elimination of bonuses for all employees in favor of a bonus system reserved for executives.
“Headquarters aimed to eliminate branches. Creating a detrimental climate encouraged people to leave on their own… I was the only one to stand up, challenging the decisions of the management committee,” he recalls. Between heated discussions, icy relationships, and scathing letters, the conflict lasted several months… and ultimately ended with his dismissal. “At least I left with the esteem of my colleagues and at peace with myself.”
As we can see, choosing to raise your voice requires nerves of steel and the ability to withstand the potential consequences. Because the power balance is by definition unequal. A boss embodies several figures: their own person but also the company and its culture, as well as the will of the shareholders… The posture to adopt is not obvious. And the choice of weapons is difficult.
To take on this fight, you must know why you are fighting it, what you are seeking, and above all, carefully weigh the risks. Daring to challenge authority reflects undeniable courage, which will inspire recognition, even admiration, in others. If you know how to oppose constructively, by proposing solutions to each of the problems you raise, your manager – unless they are resistant to any form of contradiction – might well appreciate your strength of character and your critical thinking. It might even be an opportunity for them to discover in you a certain aptitude for leadership. Even if you don’t win immediately, speaking up could benefit you later.
With a peer, don’t hesitate to ask for a third party’s arbitration
“Between the sales director and me, it’s perpetual war,” says Jean-Claude Villemotte, production director at a distributor of household appliances. “My role is to ensure that the products are of quality, while the salespeople’s role is to respond as quickly as possible to customer demand. With such different logics, there are inevitably times when things get stuck!” These recurring frictions are to be expected. “There is no personal animosity,” he explains. “It’s just a banal conflict of interest between two functions. As we both accept this, neither of us hesitates to raise our voices.”
These situations, although commonplace, nevertheless require a certain finesse if you want to avoid them escalating. Because, admits Jean-Claude Villemotte, “these exchanges can be very heated.” And ultimately, they threaten the smooth running of the company. Between two functions of the same hierarchical level, the best solution is to request the arbitration of a third party with authority.
Another option, proposed by Erwan Poiraud, sociologist and director of the International Institute of Commerce and Development: settle the dispute during a formal meeting (meeting between department heads, management committee…). A little solemnity will most often prevent the discussions from turning sour. Jean-Claude Villemotte and his colleague regularly use the weekly meeting between directors to air their grievances and plead their respective cases. Aware that they will have difficulty resolving their numerous problems alone, both accept that they are settled collegially.
With a client, intervene to rebalance the power dynamic
This client doesn’t take you seriously: after canceling three appointments, they stand you up on the fourth. “In this case, you must reverse the power dynamic and reaffirm your authority,” notes Thibaut Bechetoille, president of Qosmos, a provider of network security solutions. This 45-employee SME works with many large companies.
“However, there is sometimes a total lack of respect from large accounts towards small structures,” notes this boss who doesn’t hesitate to stand his ground. This is the case with this prospect who was stringing his teams along: “I went to a meeting to tell him that this meeting would be either the last, or the first of a properly signed collaboration.”
Because the client-supplier relationship is based on an unbalanced power dynamic, it is often difficult to find a solution to disagreements that satisfies both parties. “Going to conflict allows the supplier to rebalance this relationship. It’s a foundational act. There’s a before and an after,” says Jean-Claude Delgenes, president of the human resources expertise firm Technologia. Thibaut Bechetoille ended up coming to an agreement with his prospect: “And no more battles! The commercial game is now played in a serene atmosphere.”
Published October 21, 2010
Posted online November 9, 2010
capital.fr
