Chicago Booth Review Podcast Don’t Avoid Workplace Conflict

Lisa Stefanac: So when I say to you, "Oh my gosh, you're being ridiculous. You don't know what you're talking about," I have just escalated the conversation. If I were to say, "I'm feeling frustrated because it doesn't come across to me that you're listening and here's the impact that it just had on me," now we're in productive conflict. Now you have to deal with the fact that I'm frustrated.

That's hard for you. But again, if you can be uncomfortable and be willing to be uncomfortable, well, we're now in it just in the interpersonal conflict piece. Oftentimes there's this whole idea that conflict is going to damage relationship. I hold a mental model that conflict is going to build relationship.

Hal Weitzman: As long as there's been a workplace, there's been tensions, strains, and disagreements between co-workers. Many of us are conflict-averse and try to avoid sensitive areas that we know could lead to confrontation. But is that the wrong approach? Welcome to the Chicago Booth Review Podcast, where we bring you groundbreaking academic research in a clear and straightforward way.

I'm Hal Weitzman, and today I'm talking with Chicago Booth's Lisa Stefanac, an expert in interpersonal dynamics. Stefanac says that, "Workplace conflict contains valuable data, if only we know how to gather and learn from it. Confronting conflict rather than avoiding it," she says, "can lead to a healthier work environment." So how do you and your co-workers become more comfortable with the discomfort of workplace conflict? Lisa Stefanac, welcome back to the Chicago Booth Review Podcast.

Lisa Stefanac: Thank you. It's great to be back.

Hal Weitzman: Well, we had such fun with you last time talking about how to lay people off that we're bringing you back for another conversation about a difficult conversation, which is workplace conflict. Something that many more of us have experienced probably than being laid off or laying people off. Tell us what are the primary causes of workplace conflict?

Lisa Stefanac: So first, right off the bat, I just want to say this conversation I'm going to reframe because I'm going to say right off the bat that workplace conflict is a good thing. And that might go against everyone's experience, but let's talk about it. But to answer your question, primary causes of workplace conflict, role ambiguity or overlap in which there might be swim lanes. And suddenly, I'm finding myself in your swim lane, that doesn't feel so good to you, so that has some tension.

Divergent goals or priorities in which you've got cross-functional teams that are in different areas trying to push for something that is going to go against each other. And then communication breakdowns in which it happens for the best of us and across family systems, across workplace. It's just communication breakdowns are commonplace, and so just learning how to handle that, is one of the causes though of communication breakdowns.

Hal Weitzman: Okay, you set it up as almost as if, well, apart from communication, I guess, but almost as if these are team dynamics, like one is between the lanes, maybe that could be individuals. I'm just wondering, the things you've said are almost like structural problems or challenges. I wonder if there's actually, and this goes to your point about it being good, is it possible to have a situation where you want some workplace conflict, you want to set up conflict in order to produce some kind of outcome?

Lisa Stefanac: I would never want to say to create and manipulate a situation to create workplace conflict. When there is conflict, it's data. That's how I see it. Because conflict itself or tension says something. What is the tension saying? And yes, if you talk about... So you just named team dynamics. Yes, that's actually part of my strong expertise. But there's also interpersonal conflict that can happen.

It's data about difference, whether there's difference in viewpoint or if there's difference in decision-making and how one thinks that they're in charge when in fact maybe it needs to be more consultative. There's lots of different reasons for conflict, but to me, tension conflict is data. And what allows for the best way to move through that is to say, "What is this data trying to tell me?"

Hal Weitzman: Okay. Maybe a better way of phrasing it would be teams. So there's teams. And we've all been in that team where they say about another team, "What the hell do they do, or why can't they just," whatever, right? It becomes an echo chamber. We get this confirmation bias where we all agree that they're a bunch of idiots, and they'd probably agree that we're a bunch of idiots, but we don't actually ever talk about it.

We just proceed as if they're idiots, and therefore, we have to deal with them. There's nothing else we can do. That's different from inside a team. You might get personality differences. You might get creative tension that can be productive. I don't know. Is there a distinction there between within a team where it's about individuals and their approaches and between teams?

Lisa Stefanac: Yes. So the first one you spoke of, teams talking about each other's teams, first of all, when it's that echo chamber within the team to talk about another team, there's a missed opportunity in that moment. And I would hope any team lead would be able to capitalize on that or any team member would be able to say, "Wow, we're seeing something systemically with this other team that's not working for the way we need to work together and solve the problem or get whatever needs to be done, done."

So I would say the opportunity there is what feedback do we need to have? A lot of times I'm brought into organizations to help teams talk to teams and give feedback to one another. I'm leading a team offsite. I ask them, "What other teams do you need to talk to? Where's the tension among your teams cross-functionally and even within the same function?" So that's one place to start.

Interpersonally though, if you're looking at how a team is operating interpersonally together, when there is tension, now that's feedback for those two individuals. You almost think about it as, what is the word, holographically, in which the small is in the large and the large is in the small. So we've got these individuals one-on-one that are struggling with one another.

There's likely feedback that needs to happen there and at the same time, respect. Understanding that, wow, there's tension here because I think so differently. I do think so differently from this other person, and yet we have to work together. So looking to find solution together in working better is where the intention needs to go, and ideally then having that conversation in that direction.

Hal Weitzman: Right. And you said that conflicts can be positive, and you've just talked about that. It provides data. I can't help thinking about where we work, Lisa, at the University of Chicago, which is all about conflict.

Lisa Stefanac: We challenge everything.

Hal Weitzman: Not violent conflict, thank God, but it's all about people. If you've ever sat in a Chicago Booth Finance seminar, you'll see a lot of intellectual conflict. We have Nobel laureates on our faculty here who will openly disagree with each other. And so the conflict is quite open, and everybody thinks of that as beneficial.

But when it goes to a corporate environment, there's a sense that we've all got to be, as they say, aligned. We've all got to be rowing in the same direction. And anybody dares to maybe not to question, but to be open about their questions, it's sort of a bad thing.

Lisa Stefanac: It puts us in a bind. It's a cultural piece. That suddenly in the corporate space, there seems to be punishment for speaking one's mind sometimes. If in the culture challenge of each other is not allowed, one, I will tell you first off, that is going to make for the worst decisions compared to the best decisions. Because when you have challenges, you just named here at Chicago Booth across the university here, their challenge is what creates the best research, the best outcome, the best ideas, the best decisions.

And so when you're not taking that into the workplace, the workplace is worse off. And so the importance of even shifting mindsets and recognizing, no, this conflict, this challenge, my pushback, my disagreement is actually going to help us in a better decision, in a better idea generation. To me, that's the shift. It's a mindset shift. And unfortunately, many organizational cultures have a downplay or even squashing of pushback. Pushback is one of the roles that we can play. There's other roles in conversation that are important as well, but that one often gets missed the most.

Hal Weitzman: Do you think it's because in the corporate world, unlike in a research university, there's a CEO and there's a C-suite? In some organizations, they're the ones who make the decisions, and everyone else is really just executing the decisions that they make. And we can argue about execution, but that's much less interesting than arguing about strategic things. So they feel like, well, other people make the decision and it's above my pay grade to speak up. I don't know. What do you think about that?

Lisa Stefanac: Sorry. When I hear that, I just get a little, ah, yikes, because where's the accountability across all the organization if I'm looking up and saying, "Oh, well, they're the ones to make the decision." I mean, you think about the famous Andon cord in Toyota, in which everyone was trained, you pull this cord if you see something wrong. And in that sense, everyone then owns that company and the accountability and productivity shot straight up. So I would say at this moment...

Hal Weitzman: Interesting example, because if you think about Boeing, which has had all sorts of challenges with engineering, it was kind of the opposite, right? Not enough people speaking up, letting stuff happen because they were under orders to produce as fast as possible or whatever.

Lisa Stefanac: It depends on, again, who's leading. But at some point, when an organization is large enough, those who are leading are not at... Speaking of Boeing, they're in the 30,000 foot heights with the organization and they're not on the ground. And so it's important to have multiple layers of feedback loops being able to communicate upward if something's a problem, if there's an issue, or if even somebody has an idea.

Imagine this amazing engineer five skip levels down from the CEO, and suddenly, they've got this great idea for solving a problem that's been thwarting Boeing and whomever, whatever company you're part of. No, it's important to be able to utilize the fact culturally that allow for anyone to be able to speak up at any level. And then comes potential conflict, right? So we're back to, if I speak up, will I get in trouble, is what holds anyone back. If I push back with this person, will they like me still, or will we now have a difficult relationship, is often what holds somebody back.

Hal Weitzman: Right. I can't be bothered dealing with that. It's much easier to deal with the other stuff. I think the decision the boss has made is dumb, but it's not my role to do anything about it. I just have to try and carry it out. So I just wonder, I mean, all these things suggest that, and there's a lot of research on this, we are conflict avoidant and that's not necessarily a positive thing.

Lisa Stefanac: I would fully endorse and agree with that statement. It is not a positive thing. Like I mentioned, it's super important to be able to push back to get the best decision or the best information to work with to make the best decision forward. So I would highly recommend, first and foremost, that there's a request for pushback.

One of the best services a team lead can do is that when there's a decision that's gotten made, for that team lead to say, "You know, we've just made this decision. Great. It feels like everyone's on board. But just for five minutes, I'm going to set a timer right now, for five minutes, let's poke holes in this thing. Let's just poke all the holes we can."

And I guarantee you, and I've seen it in action, is that one team member who's been quiet the whole time, because it's now permitted to push holes and put holes in any idea, will speak up and say the very thing that's going to be, "Oh, we did not think about that." And then now that idea gets morphed into an even better idea to account for the very thing that one silent person spoke.

So it's so much better to speak up, but speak up obviously respectfully, and to be able to say, "Hey, I have a different idea here, or I have something that potentially it's not going to work about the direction we're going in."

Hal Weitzman: If you're enjoying this podcast, there's another University of Chicago Podcast Network show that you should check out. It's called Not Another Politics Podcast. Not Another Politics Podcast provides a fresh perspective on the biggest political stories, not through opinions and anecdotes, but through rigorous scholarship, massive data sets, and a deep knowledge of theory.

If you want to understand the political science behind the political headlines, then listen to Not Another Politics Podcast, part of the University of Chicago Podcast Network. So Lisa, we're talking about workplace conflict and we talked about how you think it could be positive, it's data, and how not enough people do speak up or they're afraid of conflict, they avoid conflict.

And we've all certainly done that. You talked about speaking up and how you want that person who's been quiet the whole time and has just been listening to express their views, because very often what they say is going to be difficult to hear, but useful to hear. How do you get people to be comfortable about doing that though? Because it is uncomfortable, isn't it? And that's one of the reasons people don't want to do it.

Lisa Stefanac: It's super uncomfortable, but it starts with this. It's not ever the goal to get comfortable with it. It's the goal to get comfortable with being uncomfortable. And there is research of the wazoo, and I'll just state, I'll pull out Ron Heifetz over at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, who talks about adaptive leadership, that the best performance happens when you are uncomfortable as a team. When there is discomfort, you get more productive.

There's research out of Stanford. I mean, there's Ed Schein. There's a ton of work that will illustrate that it's important to just understand that discomfort is actually good. I mean, you look at basketball teams in the last two seconds and they're one point down, that's uncomfortable. But being comfortable with being uncomfortable is the first step. So I wanted to start there. It also is very important when it comes to understanding that conflict that escalates tends to be more unproductive.

So the skill sets that one needs in being able to engage conflict is about de-escalation. And how do you de-escalate? Well, you speak from only your area of experience, your area of expertise, your emotional state. So when I say to you, "Oh my gosh, you're being ridiculous. You don't know what you're talking about," I have just escalated the conversation because I'm actually speaking for what's your area of expertise.

You probably do know what you're talking about, and suddenly, I've escalated it just by accusing you of that. If I were to say, "I'm feeling frustrated because it doesn't come across to me that you're listening. And here's the behavior I just noticed you do, and here's the impact that it just had on me," now we're in productive conflict. Now you have to deal with the fact that I'm frustrated.

That's hard for you. But again, if you can be uncomfortable and be willing to be uncomfortable, well, we're now in it just in the interpersonal conflict piece, that could actually gain a stronger relationship for us. So there's a lot to gain from us engaging conflict. And this is another mental model I want to blow out of the water here. Oftentimes there's this whole idea that conflict is going to damage relationship.

And I will hold at any moment that I'm involved with any person or team, I hold a mental model that conflict is going to build relationship. And when I come from that mental model, now I'm engaging with you differently than if I have this mental model that's going to damage because I'm going to be less afraid. I'm going to not be as hesitant. I'm just going to share where I am in relationship to you. And now you have to handle that, right?

And hopefully with the intention, and this is the last piece I will name, it's really important to lead with intention. So why do I even want to engage with discomfort with you, right? It's uncomfortable. So what would make it worth engaging? My intention is to get to a better answer, to get to a decision for our organization, our team to really flourish, to be able to go sky-high with the numbers, whatever it is that we're trying to create. My intention is hopefully shared. Let's get to a shared intention. And then with that intention in place, now conflict becomes part of the way and the gateway forward.

Hal Weitzman: Okay. So you talked about I've expressed how I am interpreting or receiving your behavior or your language or whatever. So that's one way you could get people to become comfortable, I guess, is modeling that and then they'll presumably copy. But then what else? What practical steps? I would love you to give us a guide how to get your team, let's say, to be comfortable with inevitable conflict. Or is conflict inevitable? Well, maybe not.

Lisa Stefanac: Well, I would say anytime humans are trying to do something together, conflict is going to be a part of it, whether we like it or not. It's either covert and it's under the covers. And that's actually the most tragic, in my opinion, but also toxic when it goes undercover. Or it's overt. So the real key is learning how to be overtly in conflict in a productive and respectful way.

And so number one, it has to start with self-management because I need to know that when I'm working with you, that you when you're getting upset, that your upset is not going to spill out onto all of us. It's more of just going to be a communication strategy to say, "I'm feeling upset right now. I disagree with the direction we're going in. I'm angry."

Whatever it might be that you're naming, that you're holding it yourself. The moment you spill it and make me have to hold it, that escalates and that's not so fun. And that usually detracts from our productive movement forward. So a very important step is the self-management piece.

Hal Weitzman: Okay. Listening to you speak, I'm thinking, you teach MBAs here at Chicago Booth. You teach a lot of executives. This sounds a little bit like a very... It's a very American way of behaving.

Lisa Stefanac: I love that you're bringing this up.

Hal Weitzman: If I think in the UK, people will often keep their anger to themselves. They'll speak about people behind their back, but hardly ever confront them. That's kind of a stereotype, but not completely untrue. I know that in other cultures, in Japan for example, there is not a culture of confrontation at all. How do you advise people who travel or people who come from those cultures and then come and work in the US, do they just have to get over it and be more confrontational?

Lisa Stefanac: Well, it goes back to, and I love that you're bringing up the global culture aspects. We have different cultures across the globe. So absolutely, I do not say, "Just suck it up. Just do as I do or what I've just been saying." I want to acknowledge that, yes, part of interrelation is understanding where the other person is, their history, their culture, how they were raised. Now, all of that I actually don't know just engaging with you. You'd have to tell me.

So there is an aspect of building relationship that is pretty imperative when it comes to then being able to insert any form of conflict. There's conflict in Japan, but it is communicated differently. And so in that sense, understanding and building relationship first such that, think of it as this, an emotional bank account. That when I build relationship with you, even in this podcast as we're talking, I would hope that I'm building rapport and relationship.

And at a certain point over time in our relationship, I've built up an emotional bank account, that when I go to tell you something that I'm feeling that might be negative feeling or hard to hear, that actually you're going to hear it in the way that our relationship has been built and not suddenly through the cultural lens of, "Oh, one should not say that, or I can't believe she just said that. This is terrible."

So I want to encourage that it has to actually be a relationship first that you're building. And what does that look like in the workplace? My goodness, go for lunch together or go for a walk. And actually, this is another piece I just named, going for a walk. When there's tension or disagreement, I highly encourage going for a walk side by side because you're moving in the same direction.

You're also walking, which gets energy out, which can be sloughing off some of that frustration or underlying feeling that maybe you don't feel comfortable sharing, but you're actually helping to move that energy, if you will. And so it's really important to come up with different strategies, relationship building, whether it's going for a walk, et cetera, but to really build that up so that when conflict takes place, it's coming from a place of respect and understanding with the other individual in front of you.

Hal Weitzman: You talked about a couple of times now saying, "This is how I'm reading this. This is how I'm receiving this." Is there a danger there that it becomes about you and your reaction and not about the things? How would you turn that personal experience into something professional?

Lisa Stefanac: It goes back to intention. If my intention is just to be heard and it's all about me, yeah, that's not going to create a very productive outcome. But if I have the intention that we're going to solve something together, that yeah, I have some feelings or something going on inside, that by expressing it to you, the intention is to get through it so that we can get to the solution, so that we can solve it together. Now, that's where we get productive.

So yes, it could backtrack if I lose sight of my intention, and also it could backtrack if you judge that what I'm doing is all about me. So hopefully there'd be an opportunity for you even to ask, "What's your intention here?" So for those receiving who think, "Oh my gosh, what is going on? This person is just emoting," ask for their intention. What are you hoping to have happen here and where do I play a role, is a really good question.

Hal Weitzman: Okay, what about someone who finds himself in the middle of a workplace conflict? There are two people or two groups and you're in the middle. How should you handle...

Lisa Stefanac: Are you saying I'm in it with another person, or I'm in the middle watching two...

Hal Weitzman: I'm in the middle watching and I'm thinking, maybe my... Structurally I'm in the middle, and I'm guessing that most of us would try to step out and let them have a go at each other. But what would be your advice there? Particularly if the person in the middle is a manager, let's say, and it's two team members who are in conflict.

Lisa Stefanac: Absolutely. So one of the first things to do is likely going to different the two individuals separately to just hear them out. Because doing it in the room, if tension is escalating, it's just going to make matters worse to have a third party step in and try to talk too, because now we've got more complexity. So I would as a manager go to each individual to find out what's going on and be coaching.

And now we're in the skillset of coaching because not every manager has that skillset yet. But there is an opportunity to coach, ask questions, even ask them what their intention is and where they see the other person potentially as a solution or a partner in that solution. So ideally, as a manager, I'm getting involved ideally to help support moving them back together.

And then I might organize a three-way conversation that we can all talk about it together, and I'm there to help offer reframe, help guide, help coach in that process. Also, it would help to be able to share even what's the impact on me as a manager, because even knowing the impact it's having on me to engage across this conflict is going to hopefully spur for each of those individuals.

Oh gosh, my manager's not feeling well about this. I don't want that because that's going to potentially reflect poorly upon my career or my position here. So there'd be more of an impetus to step in and be uncomfortable and have the hard conversation.

Hal Weitzman: Okay, Lisa, so let's summarize. For anyone who's listening to this and thinking, "Uh-oh, I have a conflict that I don't really want to face," what would your advice be? Three tips for how to handle it.

Lisa Stefanac: First, again, it starts with self-management. What are you feeling? So be able to assess for yourself what is going on, what do you think is the main issue at play? And biggest question, where might I be wrong and what am I missing? Those are very important questions that only the other person could likely answer. And guaranteed, they probably have an answer. So that's the first thing I would suggest.

Second, I would say allowing yourself some time and space to be able to just gather yourself, to come from a place of strength instead of feeling already defeated or deflated or already ready to fight. Reminding yourself from a mindset to shift from conflict is bad to conflict can build relationship. So in that mindset of conflict can build relationship, this is a growth mindset with Carol Dweck. So that whole idea of conflict builds relationship lets...

Where does that mindset get me in moving toward the person? And then the third one, in the act of engaging with that person, if they are showing signs of curiosity and willingness to engage with you, then there's more opportunity to disclose what's going on for you, feelings of impact, et cetera. If they are not, then I would focus at the task at hand and the common goals, the shared goals together, and look to shared intention, because that's going to be the way forward.

And if there's ever a moment of falter in which escalation starts to happen, re-contract from a standpoint of what is it we're trying to solve together? Let's just get through this in order to get the task done, the job done, et cetera.

Hal Weitzman: Okay. Well, Lisa Stefanac, thank you again for coming on the Chicago Booth Review Podcast. I feel like you always get a positive out of a difficult situation, so we appreciate it.

Lisa Stefanac: You're welcome, and it's kind of my job to do that. So thanks so much for having me.

Hal Weitzman: That's it for this episode of the Chicago Booth Review Podcast, part of the University of Chicago Podcast Network. For more research, analysis, and insights, visit our website, chicagobooth.edu/review. When you're there, sign up for our weekly newsletter so you never miss the latest in business-focused academic research. This episode was produced by Josh Stunkel. If you enjoyed it, please subscribe, and please do leave us a five-star review. Until next time, I'm Hal Weitzman. Thanks for listening.