The Focus of Conflict

Jill heard a knock at the door. "Come in," she called. It was Troy, and he looked upset. If he felt like he looked, this would be his second "upset" visit in two days. Jill blanked her screen, turned to face Troy, motioned to the chair in front of her desk and said, "Please."

Troy sat. "I'm done," he said. "I'm here to let you know that I've requested reassignment."

Jill had been optimistic at first — Metro­nome was her team's second project together and Daffodil had been very successful. Well, almost. With hindsight, Jill could see that Rachel and Troy had had some bumps over Daffodil. Now Metro­nome was becoming a disaster.

Jill had tried everything. She'd worked with Rachel alone, and with Rachel and each of the three others who'd had difficulty with her. Finally she had referred the whole mess up to HR. Nothing worked. Jill wanted to keep Rachel, because she understood the driver software, but not if it meant losing everyone else.

Ironically, Jill's solutions would all lead to the same outcome, because Rachel isn't the problem. For reasons unknown to Jill, transferring Rachel to another team would only create an unfilled conflict role that someone else would then fill. Here's why.

Early in Daffodil, Troy and Jim had been "at war." Jill had separated them by assigning Troy some work that Rachel wanted, but had never asked for, and assigning Rachel some work she hated, but had never objected to. Since Jill stuck with those assignments for Metronome, Rachel had been fuming privately for months. Now she was always irritable, regularly lashing out.

Rachel had placated — she hadn't expressed her discomfort to Jill. Troy and Jim had coped by blaming each other, and Jill had found a super-reasonable "peace" rather than working through everyone's issues, which continued to simmer. Rachel became the focus of the conflict, though she actually contributed only a small piece.

The focus of conflict
is often a role —
it can be filled
by anyoneRachel became the identified patient — the one who exhibited symptoms of pain that was caused by imbalance in the overall system. The team saw the problem as belonging to Rachel, even though four people played roles in creating and maintaining the problem.

Most group interpersonal conflict follows similar patterns. People who seem to be central — especially the identified patient — might only be peripheral to the conflict. People who seem to be peripheral or even helpful can actually be responsible, in part, for igniting and maintaining the conflict.

Eventually, it all came apart for Jill's team. Rachel was reassigned, at great cost to her, to the team, and to Metronome. Jim and Troy were again working more closely together, and resumed their war. Jill was back to Square One — but now Metronome was late.

If you're inside the system, you probably can't tell what's really happening. Seeking outside assistance — from someone with a detached perspective, and the right skills — is your best hope. And the earlier you do it, the easier it will be.  Top    Next Issue

Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Emotions at Work:

Holey Grails

How much of the time and energy you spend in meetings goes to finding the best way? or a better way? It's of questionable value unless you first agree on what you mean by "better" or "best."

Demanding Forgiveness

Working together under stress, we do sometimes hurt each other. Delivering apologies is a skill critical to repairing those hurts and maintaining our relationships.

Resuming Projects: Team Morale

Sometimes we cancel a project because of budgetary constraints. We reallocate its resources and scatter its people, and we tell ourselves that the project is on hold. But resuming is often riskier, more difficult and more expensive than we hoped. Here are some reasons why.

Reverse Micromanagement

Micromanagement is too familiar to too many of us. Less familiar is inappropriate interference in the reverse direction — in the work of our supervisors or even higher in the chain. Disciplinary action isn't always helpful, especially when some of the causes of reverse micromanagement are organizational.

Some Subtleties of ad hominem Attacks

Groups sometimes make mistakes based on faulty reasoning used in their debates. One source of faulty reasoning is the ad hominem attack. Here are some insights that help groups recognize and avoid this class of errors.

See also Emotions at Work and Emotions at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming February 26: Devious Political Tactics: Bad Decisions

When workplace politics influences the exchanges that lead to important organizational decisions, we sometimes make decisions for reasons other than the best interests of the organization. Recognizing these tactics can limit the risk of bad decisions. Available here and by RSS on February 26.

And on March 5: On Begging the Question

Some of our most expensive wrong decisions have come about because we've tricked ourselves as we debated our options. The tricks sometimes arise from rhetorical fallacies that tangle our thinking. One of the trickiest is called Begging the Question. Available here and by RSS on March 5.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info