I hate that interview question. Not because I don’t have examples to give, but because it pulls you toward a narrow answer focused on one particular type of conflict and the approach you used to resolve it. Every case is different, and thinking about why that is has made me a better manager and (hopefully!) a better interviewee.
Recently I completed a leadership course with my local Education and Training Board. To be honest, there wasn’t anything really new in it that I hadn’t come across in other training or books over the years. But it did provide a timely opportunity to think more deliberately about the causes of conflict and the approaches to resolution, useful preparation for giving a better answer to that question.
So, when we see conflict arising, how do we deal with it? The answer, as usual, is – it depends. But as a broad guideline, the first step is to figure out the cause.
The textbook taxonomy is Christopher Moore’s Circle of Conflict, which identifies Relationship, Data, Structural, Value and Interest as the main conflict types. The course I attended broke this down slightly differently, in a way that matches my experience more closely:
- Poor communication
- Clashes in personalities or working styles
- Competing needs or interests
- Different values
- Ambiguity in the workplace
- Performance issues
Looking back on the conflicts I’ve dealt with, they fit more naturally into those categories than into Moore’s original five. Performance issues and poor communication, for instance, both deserve their own category in modern workplaces.
As a manager dealing with conflict, your role is mostly that of a mediator. Imposing solutions rarely works; it may resolve the immediate situation but tends to store up bigger problems for later.
My approach depends on the severity and the situation, but broadly:
- I meet with people individually to understand their perspective first. What’s actually causing the conflict for them?, how do they feel?, what do they want?
- then bring both parties together to facilitate a calm exchange of views. Sometimes we may set some simple ground rules – don’t interrupt, don’t criticise the person rather than the behaviour
- From there it’s about exploring possible solutions and aiming for an outcome both sides can live with. Sometimes this involves finding a compromise or trade off, sometimes it involves setting boundaries, it’s about finding something that both people are happy with.
When working through conflict with people, and indeed when you find yourself in one, it’s worth being mindful of the different approaches people take. Most people don’t like conflict, so avoidance is often the default. Sometimes that’s fine: if the matter is trivial or genuinely doesn’t need immediate attention, letting it pass isn’t always wrong. But if we avoid dealing with conflict, we risk it growing into something harder to address later.
The main conflict styles taught in leadership courses trace back to the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (1974), which identifies five approaches:
- Avoid – sidestep the issue entirely
- Accommodate – give ground to preserve the relationship
- Compete – assert your position regardless of the other party
- Compromise – both sides give something to get something
- Collaborate – work together toward a genuine win-win
There are situations where all five are valid. As a mediator, your job is partly to recognise which mode the parties are operating in and adjust accordingly. You can’t force people to change their style, but you can create conditions where they engage more productively. As a general principle, the goal should be to move toward compromise or collaboration wherever possible.
So how do I answer the interview question now, without disappearing into conflict theory? I say that the cause and the right response depend on the type of conflict, its severity, and the people involved. Then I give a specific example where I facilitated a resolution, one where both parties came out with something they could accept. If pushed, I have a couple of more difficult scenarios ready too.
It’s not a perfect answer. But it’s one I can give without waffling.
0 Comments