72% of managers avoid conflict—five approaches to help you improve
You’ve likely experienced this yourself: You point out a discrepancy—a potential conflict—and then hear excuses like “I don’t have time for that” or “we’ll look into it later.” In our work with top leadership teams, we encounter a wide range of situations, from subtle tensions to heated conflicts. Here are two examples:
- The long-time sales manager conceals his sales activities and schemes against the CEO. Only after several executive coaching sessions is the CEO willing to confront the employee.
- A toxic department head has caused several team leaders to leave and is damaging the reputation of the entire company. Fearing that the situation might escalate and lead to her dismissal, the CFO lets her have her way and needs several attempts to confront her with the facts.
These examples illustrate how conflicts are avoided. Keith Ferrazzi highlights in his New York Times bestseller *Never Lead Alone* that many leaders look the other way and avoid confrontations: According to his study, 72% of leaders avoid conflict. Burying one’s head in the sand when it comes to taking a stand seems to be a widespread phenomenon far beyond Switzerland. Or to put it another way: only one in four leaders handles conflicts effectively. The consequences are disastrous not only for the work environment but also for productivity.
What are the reasons why managers “act like ostriches” and bury their heads in the sand when conflicts arise?
- Personality: Many leaders have, from an early age, gotten into the habit of going with the flow and adapting optimally to circumstances. This is evident not only in middle management but increasingly in top management as well. These leaders tend to take the path of least resistance.
- Loss of status/loss of income: We all occupy a place somewhere along the food chain and have corresponding dependencies. If we fear a loss of income or a loss of our own status when making controversial or critical statements, we will express ourselves with corresponding restraint.
- A Culture of Fear: CEOs who primarily rule through power structures foster a “yes-man” mentality and either expose critics or get rid of them altogether. As a result, members of the executive team, as well as managers and employees, develop a culture of ducking and kowtowing.
- A Culture of Fear: CEOs who primarily rule through power structures foster a “yes-man” mentality and either expose critics or get rid of them altogether. As a result, members of the executive team, as well as managers and employees, develop a culture of ducking and kowtowing.
- Lengthy processes that result in endless, unproductive decisions: While many companies do have channels for addressing problems and conflicts, these often lead to time-consuming discussions. Conflicts become time-wasters—and change fails to materialize.
As a result, while avoiding conflict reduces stress in the short term, sooner or later the issue will come back to haunt us in the long run. And in most cases, we end up experiencing significantly more stress because internal tensions rise, informal power struggles intensify, and the quality of decision-making declines sharply. Anyone who wants to become more skilled at handling conflicts has no choice but to face the unpleasant reality.
Leaders who manage conflicts and tensions effectively use them as a driving force for the company’s overall development. For example, we once worked with a CEO who would stir up controversy in every meeting and provoke extreme positions, only to reach a well-considered decision by navigating this tension.
Below, we outline five approaches to improving how we handle conflict:
- The starting point is our own personal attitude. We quickly realize that the crux of the matter is our inner dialogue in a conflict situation.
- What is my basic attitude? Do I view tensions, inconsistencies, disagreements, and conflicts as disruptions? Or can I find at least one positive aspect in the conflict? Helpful ways of looking at it are “Ah, here’s some raw material for leadership” or “I’m needed.” If we succeed in cultivating a constructive attitude toward conflicts, we lay the foundation for successful conflict resolution. The basic attitude then becomes “there are opportunities for improvement here” or “this is a chance to learn—for me and hopefully for others as well.” The key question for practical application here is: What does this conflict want to show me about myself, the team, or the company?
- Since conflicts often trigger vivid mental imagery, we should use our human capacity for imagination as a form of paradoxical intervention and ask ourselves: What is the worst thing that could happen to me if I engage with this conflict? And what is the likelihood of that happening? Ideally, we should explore these questions with a trusted confidant or a leadership coach.
- Facing the Unpleasant: Most of us who avoid conflict fall into a strong flight response when faced with tense situations. This means that as soon as we perceive a sign of impending conflict—such as latent tension in a meeting—our autonomic nervous system reacts by activating, which manifests as a strong urge to flee. Our throats tighten, our hands get sweaty, and we withdraw. This is exactly where the training comes in: As soon as we notice these physical signals, we pause. Now it’s time to look instead of looking away and getting lost in distractions. The guiding principle for practice is: Catch it, before it catches you! A personal resolution is powerful: “I choose to face what is difficult and unpleasant. In doing so, I cultivate my ability to endure tension and difficulties and to handle them constructively over time.” In small doses, in small steps, we increase our ability to face conflicts. In technical terms, we also call this tolerance for ambiguity.
- When we operate within a power-dominated system, a strong track record provides us with the legitimacy and credibility to have a say. And based on an established network of relationships, we can raise awareness among those around us regarding conflict issues. In doing so, we should develop an instinct for identifying who expresses a certain openness to which issues. The more nuanced our perception of others and the more realistically we assess them, the more precisely and time-sensitively we can make our mark and position ourselves effectively regarding the issues at hand.
- Harmonious companies have their own unique history that has led them to adopt conflict-avoidant behavior. Cultural development will involve exploring both the benefits of a family-like atmosphere and the importance of constructive conflict resolution. Consequently, the goal is for leaders to develop leadership qualities that are both compassionate and boldly clarifying. The Harvard Business Review study by Rasmus Hougaard and Jacqueline Carter, based on data from 15,000 executives, shows that compassionate and wise leaders generate 20% greater efficiency and 85% higher job satisfaction among their employees. I find these facts astonishing, and they point to a way of linking “soft, people-oriented approaches” with expected “hard facts.” The more we learn to call difficult issues by their name and address them transparently, contextually, and directly, the more we foster commitment and clarity. For more on this, see “Achieving Success with Compassion and Clarity” – Trans In.
When we find ourselves in an organization where lengthy processes hinder the timely and effective resolution of conflicts, the maxim “Don’t ask for permission; ask for forgiveness” applies. We must use our own sphere of influence to create successful exceptions to rigid processes, starting on a small scale. However, we should under no circumstances flaunt these business successes in the faces of the responsible process owners. Rather, we must first examine and investigate the internal narrative that underpins this process:
- A safety measure to minimize errors
- A mechanism for political self-protection against those in power
- Compliance with a legal or regulatory requirement
- Internal Governance Requirements
With this in mind, we should organize a short workshop to examine the process by addressing the following three questions:
- What would happen if we made the decision at the lowest possible level?
- Which risks are real—and which are imagined?
- How would we design the process today if we were to start from scratch?
In doing so, we breathe new life into an over-processed system, and perhaps we’ll even find the courage to challenge processes so fundamentally that “Kill the Process” events become possible. One of our clients has restructured both its decision-making architecture and corporate culture in such a way that conflicts have become a productive driving force for the company’s continued development.
No matter where we start, we will make a difference and improve our own conflict management skills as well as those of our company.
