Don't Compromise Your Values

In a recent post, I wrote about the variety of complex skills that most good supervisors have incorporated into their own professional development. Shortly after hitting the “publish” button on that post, I realized that I had left out a biggie: conflict management. Whether a supervisor is mediating a conflict between a customer and a staff member, two (or more) staff members, or even between herself and either one of the aforementioned, this is a skill that cannot be underrated in terms of predicting success in the workplace.

Mary Parker Follett, a management theorist far ahead of her time (she died in 1933), wrote at length about what she called constructive conflict. Follett urges us not to treat the concept of conflict as inherently negative. After all, as we know, conflict in life is unavoidable; as Follett says, then, “instead of condemning it, we should set it to work for us”. Using some nice metaphor, Follett compares the friction in conflict to the friction used by the violinist’s bow to create something beautiful. Makes sense, doesn’t it? It also sounds a little unrealistic, you’re thinking, I’m sure.But wait. Follett explains that there are essentially three ways of resolving conflict:

• Domination

• Compromise

• Integration

Domination is exactly what it sounds like and nobody wants to feel dominated. If there’s one thing I’ve learned about managing people, it’s that everyone wants to believe they’ve got a voice. Compromise, even though it’s the most common method of resolving conflict isn’t too much better. The thing is, when we compromise, the immediate problem is smoothed over; however, we agree to give up something of value so long as our counter does, too. Thus, while the immediate problem might be swept under the rug, it’s entirely possible that resentment continues to smolder.

Follett’s third approach to conflict management is integration. In short, the integrative approach to conflict management is one in which the participants bring their differences and, importantly, the underlying values behind the differences in opinion, to the discussion. If those situations where time permits (not at the circulation desk with an irate customer, perhaps, but in a meeting or closed door session with angry co-workers, definitely), lay out what is actually important to each conflict participant and allow them to discuss a solution where neither party has actually had to give up anything. This approach is more successful than compromise at completely resolving conflict because the source of the conflict is dissolved.