Conflict’s Enduring Cost
Conflict always costs the combatants. Although sometimes we do not count the costs very effectively, they are still very real. If we are willing to acknowledge and calculate those costs, we would probably be shocked to see their true scale. The costs of conflict, according to Stewart Levine, fall into four broad categories (Levine, 2009). It is easy to calculate the direct costs of conflict. Those direct costs include legal and other fees paid to professionals in order for them to solve our conflicts for us and wasted or inefficient use of materials. Loss of productivity, both in terms of lost management and employee work time, constitute very real costs incurred by our conflicts (Wayne, 2005). The time spent dealing with the aftermath of conflict results in the loss of effective working time, causing money to be spent unproductively. There are continuity costs represented by the loss of important relationships and of the sense of community that enriches our lives. Conflict can destroy that sense of continuity in ways that can never be recovered, leading to a significant emotional cost (Levine, 2009).
Human beings are not machines. Conflict takes a serious and significant toll on the combatants and can easily overflow to others, creating emotional baggage requiring healing that can take a whole lifetime. This damage is often reflected in terms of a decrease in the trust needed to work productively together and results in aggressive and hostile interactions (Wayne, 2005). It is often difficult to actually count the cost of conflict. At times it tallies up in dollars and cents while at other times the costs are subtle and can cause deep wounding (Levine, 2009).
Resolving conflict in proactive ways starts with adjusting our thinking. Robert Brannin observes that “most people avoid taking personal responsibility for conflict resolution” citing Levine (2009) saying that “we generally lack the courage to connect with others on deep levels and therefore avoid confrontations” (Brannin, 2015). Thomas Killman (1972), suggested that “avoiding” is one of five conflict resolution styles.
As Mr. Brannin mentioned, we are all too good at avoiding confrontation. Dealing properly with conflicts requires understanding and skill. Learning to detect and address others styles of conflict resolution such as competing, compromising, collaborating, and accommodating, noted by Killman in 1972, goes a long way towards helping us manage conflict proactively. Reviving the collaborative approach to conflict resolution requires rejecting the old thinking that led us, as a society, to the litigious place where we find ourselves now. We have largely forgotten how to resolve our own problems, deferring most of them to professionals who play “traffic cop”, so that we do not have to address the real issues that underlie our conflicts. Rejecting the old way of thinking, and embracing the new ways will, according to Levine, prepare combatants to engage each other constructively as they move from conflict towards collaboration.
There are 10 suggestions made in Stuart Levine’s book, Getting to Resolution (2009, p. 46). The following 10 new ways of thinking are in sharp contrast to the older, more traditional, ideas.
Believing in abundance drives out a sense of scarcity in all our relationships (1). Conflict wastes resources, but creating healthy partnerships can conserve resources by helping us to manage them well (2). Creative solutions to problems drive away a sense of lethargy created by the emotional impact of the problems and issues that confront us (3). New thinking fosters sustainable collaboration; old thinking emphasizes conflict as the way to get ahead (4). Bravado and a feeling of superiority yields to an openness that brings peace into relationships (5). Collaboration helps to form long-term relationships that are positive, while the short-term mindset often leads to adversarial confrontations(6). Old thinking celebrates logic as a tool to understand and address all conflict, whereas new thinking relies on intuition and feelings bringing a richer dimension to interactions (7). Open-handedness leads to disclosure and a sense of “realness” whereas secrecy in negotiations can lead to isolation and distrust (8). Learning contrasts with old school winning (9), while, new thinking leads us to take responsibility for our own actions instead of looking for solutions offered by professionals (10). These 10 contrasting truths form the bedrock on which effective conflict resolution can begin. If we fail to embrace new thinking, we will stay stuck in the old way of doing things and fail to take advantage of the effective ways of dealing with conflict suggested by Stuart Levine (2009).
 |
| Who knew my little project was a part of the CIA Iran Contra support for Air America Operations? |
The early phases of the project went well. I designed the makeshift landing strip, utilizing all the input I knew how to obtain, bringing in the Navy Seabees, and built a runway in the middle of a jungle in Honduras. Costs were under control and the project was moving forward on schedule. I was happy with the project and the progress I was making towards its completion.
My unchallenged mindset was that my best effort was producing a product that was more than adequate to meet our airfield and supply needs. This opinion was based on the past performance of similar airports and landing zones we had in operation. John, on the other hand, felt quite differently. It was at this point in the project and our relationship that the tug-of-war began. It became clear that we, most certainly, were not on the same page.
As this conflict began, did we seek to establish a healthy partnership? Were we open-handed and collaborative in our negotiations (New idea number 6 and 8)? Our relationship looked much more “old school” than new and collaborative. Each of us sought to have our ideas win the day (New idea number 9).
Several things happened within the scope of the project that increased the costs of the project and delayed its completion. Equipment and resources for this project were siphoned off for use in other projects for the US Army, who were lacking in the resources that the Air Force was abundant with. These materials were not reordered causing them to be unavailable when needed on our project. New runway metal corrugated material was ordered and the job was redone only to find that the new surface was not any better than the original concrete or asphalt ones on a traditional runway. The specifications for the project were also challenged. I responded to this challenge by attempting to verify some of those specifications with Senior Military Command back home. This action was perceived as an attack on John’s authority as a Civil Engineer which incensed him. With John’s refusal to accept any input from me, I backed out of the project and let him finish it alone.
Stuart Levine’s 10 principles (2009) if properly applied may have helped me to become more open to John’s perspective. We would have spent more time listening to each other instead of trying to get the job done the way each of us thought was best. I would have learned to appreciate John’s perspective better. John, on the other hand, may have been less adversarial and opinionated. In the end, our long-term relationship would have been reinforced and even richened.
The project was completed. Our relationship endured, but some damage was done at levels each of us could barely grasp, showing up as a basic distrust that continues, at least to some degree, even today. We no longer work together, but I would like to think that we could.
The direct cost of this engagement can be measured in materials, including runway lighting, fueling stations for aircraft, even the camo netting to hide our air assets on the ground. The project lost momentum as productivity was compromised in the favor of “correctness”. The costs to the relationship are harder to quantify, but, when we were done, we parted as less good friends. Finally, we both suffered emotionally. John felt disrespected and I felt misunderstood. Could we have done better? Listening and resolving to find common ground leading to adjusted expectations and a new reality would have helped us to make better progress. Stuart Levine (2009) calls this process the “cycle of resolution”. I have found the cycle to accurately reflect a positive process of reconciliation leading to common ground and resolution of conflict.
We all have much to learn when it comes to resolving conflict in our lives. Whereas conflict is inevitable as long as there is more than one human being involved in any situation, how well we process disagreement can be the mark of true maturity. As leaders, we need to remain committed to resolving conflict quickly and effectively. An effective decision-maker will vary his approach and technique to suit each new situation but will find that collaboration is one of the most effective ways to defuse conflict in a way that restores the relationship and provides a strong foundation on which to develop group productivity.
References:
Brannin, R., (2015, February 17). A632.6.2.DQ-Collaborating as a foundation for resolution. Unpublished discussion. A632—Decision Making for Leaders, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University—Worldwide.
Levine, S. (2009). Getting to Resolution, Turning Conflict into Collaboration, 2nd Ed.[Kindle E-Book Version, downloaded from Amazon]. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehier. p. 14,46.
Killman, T. (1972). Conflict Styles, Collaboration Toolbox—Conflict Management, [blog site]. Retrieved from: http://web.mit.edu/collaboration/mainsite/modules/module1/1.11.5.html
Wayne, E. K. (2005, May 9). It pays to find the hidden, but high, costs of conflict. Bizjournals.com [web site]. Retrieved from: http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2005/05/09/smallb6.html?page=all
No comments:
Post a Comment