I was engaged in a corporate training pre-discussions for an organization. They were involved in producing small to large scale physical marketing materials like producing custom designed glass shaped in a particular design with text and graphics imprinted on them. In my discussions, I found that one of the major challenges in their organization was timely resolution of conflicts. Since raw materials were acquired and inefficient design or experiments wasted the materials, there was a lot of challenges where ideas were quickly dismissed or resistance followed. As I structured my training within this organization, I thought about the standard approaches to conflict management approaches. Expanding on these trainings as well as several conflict situations I had personally handled, I approached this training with a 4-D approach to how conflicts progress.
When teams are in the norming stage, they have adjusted their behaviors and have committed themselves to the project objectives. If at this stage, team members have a difference of opinion or an approach to ways of working, that is nothing more than "Difference." This difference is the first D. It is essential to understand the reason behind this difference as it is not at all unhealthy. On the contrary, it is very healthy to have "Devil's advocate" thinking and ask questions. Frequently, this could be informal discussions that could often be easily resolved. Such a resolution involves listening to people and explain the logical reasoning connecting with business objectives. The project manager may not be always the decision-maker but definitely a facilitator.
When such differences are quickly dismissed for any reasons, team members with strong opinions will frequently engage in a debate. Now, this debate is the second D and is also not unhealthy as it formally brings discussions forward. A healthy debate brings alternative views and is only healthy if the arguments are constructive and aimed at maximizing value while minimizing risks. In project management, we have several techniques like brainstorming, brainwriting, Delphi Techniques, Nominal Group Techniques, and also the DeBono's dysfunctional hats approach. For instance, when one engages in Joint Application Design (JAD) or Joint Application Requirements (JAR) sessions, all these approaches are effectively used. Due to the formal nature of debate, the project manager may be involved in expert facilitation and mediating solutions frequently in the form of preventive actions. One approach to prioritizing is approaching from the risk management perspective, such as asking what will be the impact of non-delivery or non-compliance to the business and customer.
When differences and debates are not addressed, then, disagreement emerges. People at this point have subscribed to the notion of "Prove me I am wrong." This is an unhealthy stage as time has elapsed in the management's timely intervention of resolution. This disagreement is the third D and is all about damage control. Depending upon the time lost or the conviction people have with the disagreement, the level of resistance may also be strong. Often, this is an indication of the project manager losing their grip on the situation requiring escalation to management. It may involve as simple as sponsor involvement , or engagement of Human Resources Personnel, or a more formal governance control documenting the impact and taking both corrective actions and preventive actions (CAPA).
When this disagreement is spread across the entire organization or impacting multiple business units, then, these differences have now become a dispute. This dispute is the fourth D and definitely indicates an unhealthy stage. Multiple business units, sometimes including legal teams and senior organizational team, will be consulted at this stage. The projects may be terminated, customers may be lost, and the company's image may be questioned.
My 4D approach was well received in this corporate training as people were able to relate to the patterns that were emerging. As we brainstormed ideas on how people within the organization could recognize these stages and put checks-and-balances, the participants felt they walked away with a practical guide to conflict management.
What do you think? Do you relate to them? Have any stories yourself to tell?
