Managing conflicts using the power of - “Please explain it to me”

I have found myself in the same type of situation many times in my career as an engineer and leader. There is a conflict between two development teams where each team thinks that the other isn’t doing their job correctly, fast enough, or focusing on the right things. Or between developers and operations, or between a customer and a supplier. Frustration is high, and neither side understands why it is so hard for the “other” side to understand and fix the simple problem.

Fortunately, I have also found that there is a relatively simple way to bring the temperature down and move things forward. My approach presumes that there is a genuine interest from all parties to actually find a solution (which might not always be the case). If the conflict is a proxy for something else, say a struggle for power or influence, your chance of success is smaller as you are not addressing the real issue.

My approach is by no means rocket science, so this might be completely obvious to you. I’ll go through the details, but the key components are: respect and curiosity. It doesn’t take more than that.

I try to solve these conflicts by taking the role of a facilitator. My mental starting point is to assume that most people act with good intentions, to the best of their ability, within the perceived boundaries set by the organization and using the information they have at hand. Essentially nothing more than assuming that most people are decent, doing their best, and not having a hidden agenda. Of course this doesn’t apply to everybody, but I have met many more people of this kind than genuinely evil persons, so for most part, I believe this assumption to be valid.

I bring a few representatives from the conflicting teams together in a problem solving workshop that I facilitate. Having a face-to-face dialogue is so much more powerful than emailing. If you run the workshop on-line, make sure everyone has their cameras turned on. Reading body language and social cues is important for you as a facilitator when you run the meeting.

As part of the invite, I give some background to the problem being sure to only state what is factually true. Also I try to set the tone of the meeting by clarifying that this is about us together finding a solution to a problem. I try to establish a sense that we share and own the problem together, and that we can solve it together. The focus is on finding a solution, not finding someone to blame. Any kind of analysis of why we ended up in this situation is put on halt for later. Keep the number of attendees relatively small. Don’t make the workshop into a town hall meeting as too many participants tend to reduce people's willingness to take in new perspectives or change their mind.

During the meeting, your role as a facilitator is critical. It is important to keep control of time and topics to make actual progress. Letting the word open for anybody and seeing where it takes you will generally not work. Most people tend to reiterate what they have already said before unless the conversation is moderated.

In the meeting, I make every effort to treat people with kindness, respect and be genuinely interested in hearing what they have to say. I do my best to create a safe atmosphere where they don’t feel threatened or pointed out as being wrong or being the reason for the current situation. Again, your role as facilitator is important to curb any signs of fault-finding or blaming. If you succeed in this, you’re more than halfway done to finding a solution that everybody can accept.

Give each representative time to explain their perspective of the problem, what they are facing and the context in which they see this problem. The key here is to allow enough time to surface all boundary conditions and assumptions. Summarize what you hear in your own (neutral) words and to be super aware of hidden or unspoken assumptions when someone presents their side of things. Uncovering these hidden (unspoken) assumptions is one of the most critical pieces as the conflict is often caused by a lack of a common understanding of the complete picture.

There is a lot of merit in digging into a specific topic by repeatedly asking why. Be mindful, however, as the way you phrase the “why” can be seen as hostile and not trusting. It easily provokes a defensive response rather than an explanation and does not invite dialogue and open minded discussion. I prefer to phrase the questions along the lines - “I didn’t understand what you just said, can you please explain it to me again?”. Even if it feels awkward or that you’re the only one in the room not understanding, you make everybody a great service by asking. If you didn’t get it, chances are high that nobody else did either. It might even be that the person having to explain again realizes that their own reasoning isn’t as tight as they thought.

You have to let go of your own ego and not presume that you know the answer or understand the complete picture. Remember that your role is not to be the smartest person in the room. If you are, you have other problems to address. Summarize what others say and try to distill it down to it’s fundamental elements. Not being the expert is fine (even good), however, the more you know about the actual problem, the better it is, as it gives you the possibility to ask relevant questions to clarify details that might otherwise be glossed over.

Seeing the body language of the other participants is really helpful here as you, the facilitator, can ask a question on someone else’s behalf when you see that they didn’t understand. This way, they don’t have to lose face which can be very valuable especially before trust has been established between those involved. The point here is to make people explain their perspectives and have others understand what they are saying and where they come from. When we start to see through each other’s eyes, it becomes possible to understand why we behave the way we do and understand each other’s positions.

Maybe that’s what it all boils down to: communication. Quite often we speak to each other, not with each other. We tend to assume that everyone else has the same understanding of a situation that you have and that the context is the same for everyone. In reality, it’s anything but.

To summarize: Most people are decent, doing the best they can. Treat everyone with respect, be curious, and don’t assume that everyone navigates using the same map. With that as a starting point for face-to-face dialogue, you will be able to find solutions to conflicts at work in many more cases than you thought possible.

Let me know if any of this makes sense to you and helps you in any way.

Good luck!