A lot of times when you're in conflict you hear something that you're having a different opinion about and emotions run high. That's where conflict happens. So your emotions are high. You're having a different opinion. You need to take a step back, and make sure that you actually understand what's happening. Because you may think you understand what's happening. But you really don't understand what's happening. And that's where active listening comes into play. So the example I'm thinking of is, in a meeting recently, I thought that I had made a presentation using information that was incorrect. I thought that someone on my staff had given me information that was incorrect. I was upset, because I had presented that information to an executive team. And I went back to my staff and said, help me understand where you got this information, I think I've just made a terrible mistake. And I was upset, I felt embarrassed, I felt angry, and I had to kinda take a step back, and say help me understand where you got this information. And as they presented where they had the information, I realized the information was not incorrect. I had, in fact, presented the correct information. So I could have gone into the situation and conflict could have developed, where I attacked someone for giving me the incorrect information. But by taking a step back and saying, tell me where you got this information, and let me really listen to how you put this information together. We realize that we were actually on the same page. I don't know if you're familiar with the Thomas-Kilmann Indicator, the TKI. But on the TKI, which is a self-assessment, it's an assessment to find out what your conflict style is. I'm an accomodator/avoider which is not the greatest thing for a manager to be. So I walk away from conflict all the time. You have to decide whether or not it's worth it to you. To get into conflict with someone or whether walking away, coming back another day to have a rational conversation with the person, or to kinda work behind the scenes to create influence is going to be a better strategy than getting into conflict with someone. So personally, I walk away from conflict all the time. Maybe a little bit more than I should, but that is my natural style. As the manager of Learning and Development there are a lot of collaborative projects that I do with other departments. So in one instance, I was given a project to work on succession planning. My group was given a project to work on succession planning for the organization. The current human resources manager did not feel that that was appropriate and told me in so many words that her department would be taking that project. It was clear that she did not want to collaborate, and that she had made it known to other people as well that it was inappropriate for me to be given that project. Now, I could have gotten into conflict with her. I felt that that would be very unproductive. Given her nature, and given the type of assignment, my attitude was well, if you want it, go ahead and take it. I have no problem with that. And if you want help, I'm more than willing to help you and show you what we have done in the past and what we're going to do in the future. I let that sit for about a month and talked to some other people who couldn't quite understand why I had been taken off the project. But again, there's no need to kind of bad mouth people or run around stirring the pot. It's like well, that's the way it's been decided. In the end, I think just sitting with it and biding my time. It developed that this person enjoyed conflicts, got into a lot of conflicts, and eventually within 90 days was no longer with the organization, and the project came back to me. So I know that if I had made a big stink about it, I probably, even when she left, the project wouldn't have come back to me. If I just kind of be mellow about it when she left was, like, oh, let's just give it back to Julie. That's where it belongs in the first place. Fortunately, I haven't have to downsize my employee population many times in my career. But I have had to terminate people for cause, and I have been in a situation where positions have been eliminated and people have had to reapply for their jobs, and that's always frustrating, and anxiety producing for everyone. What do I think worked well? I think that open communication and honesty is probably the rule of the day. Even when things are going to be really uncomfortable and horrible, some messages are difficult, and they're painful. And there's no way to make them less difficult or less painful. And when an organization tries to dance around them, they get themselves into trouble. And I can think of an example where we were undergoing a reorganization and employees asked outright, will there be downsizing? Will I have to reapply for my job? And they were told, no. And that was not true. And then, to come back and say, oh, we've changed our minds. Yes, everyone does have to reapply for their job. And yes, there may be downsizing. People felt betrayed. They felt angry. That could have been avoided if someone would have just said at the beginning, yes, you may have to reapply for your job, we haven't decided yet. So I think honesty is always going to be the most powerful tool that you can use. What also works well being very direct, and communicating along the way. If someone's being terminated for cause, it shouldn't be a surprise. There should be a path that includes verbal warnings, written warnings, documentation, and by the time you sit down, actually have the conversation that says you probably understand that you've crossed the line and that you're not going to work here anymore. They shouldn't be shocked. They may be disappointed. They may be frustrated. But in no way should they be surprised or feel like this is coming out of the blue. So I think what works well always has to be honesty and open communication, all the way along the line as painful as it is for everybody.
