“Nothing gives one person so much advantage over another as to remain always cool and unruffled under all circumstances.”
Thomas Jefferson
President of the United States of America (1801 - 1809)
Conflict in the workplace is a fact of life. We are all human and, whether it is intentional or unintentional, conflicts with others will arise. How you handle conflict says a lot about you. A person who keeps their cool is more likely to be respected than one who looses it when wronged by another.
Reacting to conflict by turning defensive, raising your voice or being condescending or insulting in any way, will project the image that you cannot rationally handle difficult situations. Think of handling a conflict with an individual the same as you would handle a drop in sales, loss of production on the assembly line or a costly engineering defect. The way you conduct yourself in a personal conflict is a reflection of how you will conduct yourself in any one of these other situations. Your potential for advancement may be affected as will the respect of your peers and subordinates.
So how do you avoid this pitfall? There are four basic rules of conflict management that will keep you from reacting to conflict in a way that will only hurt you in the long run. They are:
- Pause to analyze the situation
- Consider whom you need to convince
- Weigh the outcome of your action or inaction
- Make a smart decision
An Illustration
The application of these rules may be best illustrated by the following story:
Larry, a consultant at a widget manufacturing plant was given the task of documenting the widget making process from beginning to end. He finished his first draft of the material and sent it off to Kiel, the floor supervisor, to review and sign off on the documentation.
A week had passed and Larry had not received a response from Kiel, so he sent a polite e-mail to remind Kiel that the document needed to be reviewed and the due date was approaching. Just a minute later, Kiel sent Larry an e-mail that made no reference to the previous two Larry sent, but simply stated that there had been a change in procedure so that step 3 had been eliminated. Realizing that Kiel could not have reviewed the original material in the minute that had elapsed between his and Kiel’s e-mail, Larry replied by saying, “I will eliminate step 3 just as you said. Please review the rest of the material that I sent you and let me know if there are any other changes you would like made.”
After a few more days had passed with no reply from Kiel, Larry followed up with an e-mail stating, “I have made the change you requested by eliminating step 3. Are there any other changes you would like me to make before finalizing this document?”
The next day, Larry received an e-mail from his manager which read: “Kiel said that he told you to eliminate step 3 in your document and you did not. The material he forwarded to me still includes this step. Please explain.”
Larry felt the urge to call his manager and explain to her that Kiel was an idiot who didn’t read his e-mail. He even thought of telling Kiel this directly, but instead he decided to apply the four basic rules of conflict management.
Pause to Analyze the Situation
It was apparent that Kiel did not read the e-mails Larry had sent (at least not very carefully). If he had, he would have known that Larry did eliminate step 3 and requested a review of the rest of the material before finalizing it. When Kiel finally looked at the documentation, it still contained step 3 because it was the first draft of the material.
What was worse than not reading the e-mails was Kiel’s action of e-mailing Larry’s manager directly. Mistakes happen and e-mails get overlooked, but by going over Larry’s head, Kiel had damaged the relationship they had and future projects would be negatively impacted. This could have been avoided if Kiel had simply called or e-mailed Larry and asked about the update, eliminating step 3.
Consider Whom You Need to Convince
While Larry still needed the rest of the document to be reviewed by Kiel, it was his relationship with his manager that was most important in this situation. Larry needed to reassure his manager he was not in the wrong. He also wanted to let her know he was mature enough to handle this situation in the most professional manner possible.
Weigh the Outcome of Your Action or Inaction
Occasionally a conflict will arise that can simply be overlooked. You bump into a co-worker in the hallway and they scream at you to watch where you’re going. Or your manager, clearly frustrated, asks why you haven’t delivered the monthly report yet and you reply that it was turned in two days ago, (and she discovers it under a stack of papers on her desk). In these situations, inaction is the best response. Otherwise you may either make the situation worse or appear condescending. If the situation will blow over quickly and there are no negative repercussions, it is usually best to “let it go.”
However, Larry’s situation required action. Again he needed to mend his image with his manager and he still needed Kiel to review the document. The question was, what action should he take to accomplish these goals without over-reacting.
Make a Smart Decision
This step will vary widely, based on your particular situation. Suffice it to say, if you have followed the first three rules, you have allowed yourself some time to calm down and come to a more rational decision.
In Larry’s case, he forwarded the e-mail chain to his manager with the following statements:
- “I believe there has been a miscommunication. I have eliminated step 3 as requested and asked Kiel for his review of the rest of the material before finalizing it. Once the remainder of the material is reviewed and the document finalized this project will be complete.”
- “On a personal note, this situation seemed to cause some tension with Kiel. Communication being key to the success of our business, I would like to ask your advice. Is there anything you would have done differently, had you been in my position, to avoid this tension?”
While Larry hadn’t done anything wrong, he was open to the possibility that there may have been a better way to communicate with Kiel in this situation. Even if there wasn’t a better way, his approach had several positive effects.
- Larry’s manager could see very clearly from the e-mail chain that Kiel was in the wrong. However, by not pointing fingers, Larry demonstrated that he is interested in getting the job done, and not in placing blame.
- Larry also demonstrated to his manager a desire to learn from difficult situations and he showed his ability to act calmly and rationally in such situations. Larry demonstrated that he was mature and professional, even when others were not.
The Outcome
Larry’s manager assured him that he acted correctly and that this “miscommunication” on Kiel’s behalf would be resolved.
Kiel finished the review and never went over Larry’s head again, (probably for fear of looking foolish). From that point on, whenever Kiel had a question or misunderstanding he called Larry and they always worked it out to their mutual benefit.
The moral of this story is: if you take the time to apply the four basic rules of conflict management before reacting to a conflict, you are more likely to resolve the situation and you will better your standing in the long term as well.

Lucas D. Ives is a training consultant at Verizon Wireless and a
StrategyDriven contributor. A dynamic facilitator, he excels at creating and delivering captivating training focused on the business professional. To read Lucas’s complete biography,
click here.
Popularity: 37% [?]