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:

Saying No

When we have to say "no" to customers or to people in power, we're often tempted to placate with a "yes." There's a better way: learn how to say "no" in a way that moves the group toward joint problem solving.

What Makes a Good Question?

In group discussion or group problem solving, many of us focus on being the first one to provide the answer. The right answer can be good; but often, the right question can be better.

Overtalking: I

Overtalking is the practice of using one's own talking to prevent others from talking. It can lead to hurt feelings and toxic conflict. Why does it happen and what can we do about it?

Conversation Irritants: II

Workplace conversation is difficult enough, because of stress, time pressure, and the complexity of our discussions. But it's even more vexing when people actually try to be nasty, unclear, and ambiguous. Here's Part II of a small collection of their techniques.

What Do We Actually Know?

Precision in both writing and speech can be critical in determining the success of collaborations in the modern workplace. Precision is especially important when we distinguish between what we surmise or assume and what we actually know.

See also Conflict Management and Problem Solving and Creativity for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming July 3: Additive bias…or Not: II

Additive bias is a cognitive bias that many believe contributes to bloat of commercial products. When we change products to make them more capable, additive bias might not play a role, because economic considerations sometimes favor additive approaches. Available here and by RSS on July 3.

And on July 10: On Delegating Accountability: I

As the saying goes, "You can't delegate your own accountability." Despite wide knowledge of this aphorism, people try it from time to time, especially when overcome by the temptation of a high-risk decision. What can you delegate, and how can you do it? Available here and by RSS on July 10.

Coaching services

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