Clearing Conflict Fog

Resolving destructive conflict with dispatch is a valuable practice for at least two reasons. First, destructive conflict substantially degrades group productivity. Second, destructive conflict can become so toxic that it can permanently damage interpersonal relationships. Conventional approaches to resolving such conflicts usually entail private conversations (or sometimes a series of private conversations) with the parties to the conflict, in which we air grievances and devise approaches that address those grievances.

Sometimes, though, conventional conflict resolution fails, because so many group members are engaged in so many destructive conflicts that the conflicts interact. When that happens, resolving any one conflict has little lasting effect. Moreover, when the parties to that resolved conflict return to the group environment, they can become entangled in other conflicts, which can disrupt the resolution they just recently achieved.

When destructive conflict becomes widespread enough, it can "repair" itself — it can undo whatever we do to resolve it. Clearing it is like trying to clear the air of fog. You can blow the fog away in one place, but fog from adjacent spaces quickly fills the cleared space.

Groups enmeshed in widespread destructive conflict aren't experiencing multiple conflicts. They're experiencing one conflict fog.

Resolving conflict fog can be so frustrating that managers sometimes resort to transfer, termination, or reorganization. But there is another approach that can be attempted before employing more drastic measures.

Since conflict fog is group-wide, deal with it as such. Instead of addressing each conflict separately and privately, assemble the entire group for a day (or more) of Instead of addressing each conflict
separately and privately, assemble
the entire group for a day
(or more) of conflict resolutionconflict resolution. Deal with each conflict openly, letting the entire group participate in each conflict resolution exercise. This can be effective because it exploits four phenomena.

Suspension of aggravating events

Halting (or at least minimizing) routine work attenuates the stream of aggravating events that has been feeding ongoing conflict. This can prevent the conflicts from becoming more complex while we're working on them.

Normalization of flexibility

Working with the parties to any given conflict changes the configuration of that conflict. With the rest of the group observing, the parties to the conflict adopt new stances, and make commitments to approach things differently. This change in posture makes it easier for others to change their postures. It normalizes flexibility.

Group-wide disclosure of perspectives

As we work with the parties to one conflict, they disclose their perspectives and feelings in ways they might not have done previously. The entire group learns about how the parties experienced the incidents of the conflict. Understanding and insight propagate.

Near-simultaneity of resolution of interlocking conflicts

Conventional one-at-a-time conflict resolution rests on the assumptions that conflicts are independent of each other, and that privacy enables fuller disclosure. But in conflict fog, working through any one conflict "in public" often aids progress in other conflicts.

Conflict fog is fundamentally different from more isolated forms of destructive conflict. That difference is what makes treating it as a single entity so much more effective.  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 Conflict Management:

Letting Go of the Status Quo: the Debate

Before we can change, we must want to change, or at least accept that we must change. And somewhere in there, we must let go of some part of what is now in place — the status quo. In organizations, the decision to let go involves debate.

Impasses in Group Decision Making: II

When groups can't reach agreement on all aspects of an issue, the tactics of some members can actually exacerbate disagreement. Here's Part II of an exploration of impasses, emphasizing two of the more toxic tactics.

Impasses in Group Decision Making: III

In group decision making, impasses can develop. Some are related to the substance of the issue at hand. With some effort, we can usually resolve substantive impasses. But treating nonsubstantive impasses in the same way doesn't work. Here's why.

Historical Debates at Work

One obstacle to high performance in teams is the historical debate — arguing about who said what and when, or who agreed to what and when. Here are suggestions for ending and preventing historical debates.

Big, Complicated Problems

Big, complicated problems can be difficult to solve. Even contemplating them can be daunting. But we can survive them if we get advice we can trust, know our resources, recall solutions to past problems, find workarounds, or as a last resort, escape.

See also Conflict Management and Conflict Management for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming May 14: Working with the Overconfident

A cognitive bias known as the Overconfidence Effect causes us to overestimate the reliability of our judgments. Decisions we make based on those judgments are therefore suspect. But there are steps we can take to make our confidence levels more realistic, and thus make our decisions more reliable. Available here and by RSS on May 14.

And on May 21: Mismanaging Project Managers

Most organizations hold project managers accountable for project performance. But they don't grant those project managers control of needed resources. Nor do they hold project sponsors or other senior managers accountable for the consequences of their actions when they interfere with project work. Here's a catalog of behaviors worth looking at. Available here and by RSS on May 21.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenDJpmhgyaDTwBQXkhner@ChacmGoYuzfZpOvDQdRkoCanyon.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