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.

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 Conflict Management:

Changing the Subject: I

Whether in small group discussions, large meetings, or chats between friends, changing the subject of the conversation can be constructive, mischievous, frustrating, creative, tension relieving, necessary, devious, or outright malicious. What techniques do we use to change the subject, and how can we cope with them?

Political Framing: Communications

In organizational politics, one class of toxic tactics is framing — accusing a group or individual by offering interpretations of their actions to knowingly and falsely make them seem responsible for reprehensible or negligent acts. Here are some communications tactics framers use.

Untangling Tangled Threads

In energetic discussions, topics and subtopics get intertwined. The tangles can be frustrating. Here's a collection of techniques for minimizing tangles in complex discussions.

Stalking the Elephant in the Room: II

When everyone is thinking something that no one dares discuss, we say that there is "an elephant in the room." Free-ranging elephants are expensive and dangerous to both the organization and its people. Here's Part II of a catalog of indicators that elephants are about.

How to Create Distrust

A trusting environment is critical to high performance. That's why it's important to recognize behaviors that erode trust in others. Here's a little catalog of methods people use — intentionally or not — to create distrust.

See also Conflict Management for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 19: Embarrassment, Shame, and Guilt at Work: Creation

Three feelings are often confused with each other: embarrassment, shame, and guilt. To understand how to cope with these feelings, begin by understanding what different kinds of situations we use when we create these feelings. Available here and by RSS on December 19.

And on December 26: Embarrassment, Shame, and Guilt at Work: Coping

Coping effectively with feelings of embarrassment, shame, or guilt is the path to recovering a sense of balance that's the foundation of clear thinking. And thinking clearly at work is important if you want to avoid feeling embarrassment, shame, or guilt. Available here and by RSS on December 26.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenJotkUgBVnJiJmyBGner@ChacSnvRJLAhskjlhLlioCanyon.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, USD 11.95)
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)

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 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info

Public seminars

The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power

Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.

• A recording of a program presented 6:00 PM June 29 (Eastern Time), Monthly Webinar, Technobility Webinar Series. You can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.