How to handle conflicts inside the team

Fix long-term conflict

First of all, define the real reasons for the conflict. Emotions prevent unbiased decisions, so, calm down.

It often happens that real reason of the conflict is latent. Find out who the involved sides and listen to their opinions.

• Organize 1-on-1 meeting with each side. By talking to them separately, you will get the clear vision of the situation and can easily transform the situation into productive communication. Set up a discussion in which you are a kind of a 'third party' or referee.

• Hold the discussion in a constructive way: explain that all of us have the same goal - a successful project and customer's satisfaction. Find something in common in order to unite both sides. Avoid personal suggestions in order not to provoke a new conflict. Use common techniques like reframing statements.

• Make sure the team members admit that there is a conflict and that they are ready to find a compromise. Ask both sides to provide their own vision of how to resolve the conflict. Don’t suggest anything, just summarize.

In some cases, the best way of conflict solving is to prevent the conflicting parties from crossing their paths. It can be achieved by:

• splitting project responsibilities (define separate project areas and clarify the sets of responsibilities).

• rotations (can be a simple and quick solution if appropriate candidates exist. Keep in mind how this will affect the customer: rotations are often not approved of by the customer.

Quickly solving conflict

For quickly solving conflict:

• It can be useful to organize a round table meeting with persons involved in the conflict and moderate it consistently.

• Prepare for the meeting, collect all necessary facts. Use the active listening technique.

• If you feel that you are not objective enough to moderate the meeting, involve external an moderator/mediator/HR BP.

• If conflict is complex and seems unsolvable, it is important to ask for additional coaching/support from the respective service in EPAM or HR BP of the unit.

• Using the "Forcing" conflict management technique only as a last resort to resolve a long-lasting conflict.

HIDDEN CONFLICTS

You must learn to identify this type of conflict quickly. The, once your suspicions are confirmed, act quickly: make it an open conflict, observe the situation, etc. If you see the signs of a hidden conflict listed below, it’s a sign that you need to talk to your team or individuals on the team.

Signs of hidden conflict:

• Decreased effectiveness

• Decreased motivation and engagement

• Avoidance of fulfilling direct responsibilities

• Avoidance of discussions of the problem

• Individual or team mood becomes negative

• Rumors, squabbles, coldness in communication

• Unconstructive criticism or blaming

• Sabotage

• Absence of communication

• Playing the ‘good employee’ – doing only what they are responsible for and being indifferent to others on the team

How to Interact With Difficult People

Learn practical strategies you can use to develop better working relationships with difficult people.Almost everyone encounters a difficult person now and then in personal and professional life. The best defense against conflict in such a situation is to be prepared for interacting with difficult individuals.

1. Be honest and direct.

State your concern from your perspective, for example:

• I have a hard time concentrating when ...

• I can’t meet my deadlines if ...

• It’s hard for me to be positive when ...

2. Listen carefully.

• Listen to what the other person is saying instead of getting ready to react.

• Avoid interrupting the other person.

• After the other person finishes speaking, rephrase what was said to make sure you understand it.

3. Avoid blaming.

Focus on the facts. Finding fault can prevent problem-solving.

4. Stay focused.

• Discuss particulars; avoid generalizing.

• Avoid getting sidetracked into discussing other problems.

• Keep bringing the conversation back to the concern you’ve stated.

5. Say less.

After you state the problem, allow silence until the other person responds.

Conflict resolution techniques

Compromising

Compromising looks for an expedient and mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties.

Examples of the situation when a compromise may be appropriate:

• When the goals are moderately important and not worth the use of more assertive or more involving approaches, such as forcing or collaborating.

• To reach a temporary settlement on complex issues.

• To reach for an expedient solution on important issues.

• As a first step when the involved parties do not know each other well or haven’t yet developed a high level of mutual trust.

• When collaboration or forcing do not work.

Possible advantages of compromise:

• Faster issue resolution. Compromising may be more practical when time is the key factor.

• Can provide a temporary solution while still looking for a win-win solution.

• Lowers the levels of tension and stress resulting from the conflict.

Some drawbacks of using compromise:

• May result in a situation when both parties are not satisfied with the outcome (a lose-lose situation).

• Does not contribute to building trust in the long run.

• May require close monitoring and control to ensure the agreements are met.

Withdrawing (avoiding)

A case when a person does not pursue their own concerns or those of the opponent. The person does not address the conflict, sidesteps, postpones or simply withdraws.

Examples of when withdrawing may be appropriate:

• When the issue is trivial and not worth the effort.

• When more important issues are pressing and you don't have time to deal with it.

• In situations where postponing the response is beneficial to you, for example:

  • When it is not the right time or place to confront the issue.

  • When you need time to think and collect information before you act (e.g. if you are unprepared or taken by surprise).

• When you see no chance of getting your goals met or you would have to put forth unreasonable efforts.

• When you will have to deal with hostility.

• When you are unable to handle the conflict (e.g. if you are too emotionally involved or others can handle it better).

Possible advantages of withdrawing:

• When the opponent is forcing/attempts aggression, you may choose to withdraw and postpone your response until you are in a more favorable circumstance for you to push back.

• Withdrawing is a low stress approach when the conflict is short.

• Gives the ability/time to focus on more important or more urgent issues instead.

• Gives you time to prepare better and collect information before you act.

Some drawbacks of withdrawing:

• May lead to weakening or losing your position. Inaction may be interpreted as an agreement. Using withdrawing strategies without negatively affecting your own position requires certain skill and experience.

• When multiple parties are involved, withdrawing may negatively affect your relationship with a party that expects you to act.

Smoothing (accommodating)

Smoothing is accommodating the concerns of other people first of all, rather than one's own concerns.

Examples of when smoothing may be appropriate:

• When it is important to provide temporary relief from the conflict or buy time until you are in a better position to respond/push back.

• When the issue is not as important to you as it is to the other person.

• When you accept that you are wrong.

• When you have no choice or when continued competition would be detrimental.

Possible advantages of smoothing:

• In some cases smoothing will help to protect more important interests while giving up on some less important ones.

• Gives an opportunity to reassess the situation from a different angle.

Some drawbacks of smoothing:

• There is a risk to be abused, i.e. the opponent may constantly try to take advantage of your tendency toward smoothing/accommodating. Therefore it is important to keep the right balance and this requires some skill.

• May negatively affect your confidence in your ability to respond to an aggressive opponent.

• It makes it more difficult to transition to a win-win solution in the future.

• Some of your supporters may not like your smoothing response and be turned off.

Reframing

Reframing statements

Parties involved in mediation have a tendency to talk about the things they don’t like or disapprove of in each other rather than what’s personally important to them. Reframing is a way to capture what’s important to the speaker while leaving out what’s supposedly wrong with the other person.

Reframing is also a way of highlighting and drawing out interests or values, which is a tremendous asset to you as a facilitator. Highlighting the values shifts the conversation away from negative descriptions and toward describing what’s important to each party.

For example, Jacob says, “Katherine is the real problem here. She has to create a timeline for everything! I have to juggle multiple projects, and I don’t need her trying to make my work process fit into her little plan.”

Here's an example of a statement and its reframed summary:

Statement: “He never shares any information. I don’t understand why he can’t just provide me with the numbers.”

Reframed: “It’s important for you to work cooperatively.”

By reframing language to include the values you see, you create the opportunity to discuss what each value means to the parties. Then they can begin to think about how they may be able to ask for the important things they’ve described rather than only asking for resolution to a surface issue.

Win-Win (Collaborating)

Also known as problem confronting or problem solving. Collaboration involves an attempt to work with the other person to find a win-win solution to the problem at hand - the one that satisfies the most concerns of both parties. The win-win approach sees conflict resolution as an opportunity to come to a mutually beneficial result. It includes identifying the underlying concerns of the opponents and finding an alternative which meets each party's concerns.

Examples of situations when collaborating may be appropriate:

• When consensus and commitment of other parties is important

• In a collaborative environment.

• When it is required to address the interests of multiple stakeholders.

• When a high level of trust is present.

• When a long-term relationship is important.

• When you need to work through hard feelings, animosity, etc.

• When you don't want to have full responsibility.

Possible advantages of collaborating:

• Leads to solving the actual problem.

• Leads to a win-win outcome.

• Reinforces mutual trust and respect.

• Builds a foundation for effective collaboration in the future.

• Shared responsibility of the outcome.

• You earn the reputation of a good negotiator.

• For parties involved, the outcome of the conflict resolution is less stressful (however, the process of finding and establishing a win-win solution may be very involved – see the drawbacks below).

Some drawbacks of collaborating:

• Requires commitment from all parties to look for a mutually acceptable solution.

• May require more effort and more time than some other methods. A win-win solution may not be evident.

• For the same reason, collaborating may not be practical when timing is crucial and a quick solution or fast response is required.

• Once one or more parties lose their trust in the opponent, the situation will require other methods of conflict resolution. Therefore, all involved parties must continue collaborative efforts to maintain a collaborative relationship.

How to reach a win-win agreement:

RULE #1:

• Don’t get personal.

• Separate problems and people.

• Be hard on the problems and soft on the people.

RULE #2:

Focus on interests, not positions.

RULE #3:

Generate options until you reach a mutual benefit situation.

RULE #4:

• Evaluate options by objective criteria.

• Draw on the facts.

Forcing (competing)

An individual firmly pursues their own goals despite the resistance of another person. This may involve pushing one viewpoint at the expense of another or maintaining firm resistance to another person’s actions.

Examples of situations where forcing may be appropriate

• In certain situations when all other, less forceful methods, don’t work or are inefficient.

• When you need to stand up for your own rights, resist aggression and pressure.

• When a quick resolution is required and using force is justified (e.g. in a life-threatening situation, to stop aggression).

• As a last resort to resolve a long-lasting conflict.

Possible advantages of forcing:

• May provide a quick resolution to a conflict

• Increases self-esteem and draws respect when firm resistance or actions were a response to an aggression or hostility

Some drawbacks of forcing:

• May negatively affect your relationship with the opponent in the long run.

• May cause the opponent to react the same way, even if the opponent did not intend to be forceful initially.

• Cannot take advantage of the strong sides of the opponent's position.

• Taking this approach may require a lot of energy and be exhausting to some individuals.