Companies invest considerable sums in efficiency programs and innovation projects. The costs of avoided conflicts, on the other hand, do not appear on any balance sheet – and yet they are real. A protracted conflict can delay a project, cause a wrong decision to be made or cause top performers to leave. The result: a loss of value that can be measured in figures.
Practical example:
In a medium-sized company, there had been tensions between two departments for months. For fear of escalation, the issue was not addressed openly. As a result, a central project was delayed by six weeks because the necessary agreements were not reached. The additional costs amounted to over 40,000 euros – documented in the project accounts. It was only when the conflict was finally addressed openly that solutions could be found and further delays avoided.
We see: Silence is not necessarily a sign of harmony, it can be a business risk factor. Conflicts are better than their reputation. They reveal where perspectives differ, expectations are unclear or structures do not work.
When signals become interference
Conflicts often escalate not because of the problem, but because of the way it is handled. The difference between
A second pattern that reliably exacerbates conflicts is the confusion between intention and effect. People almost always explain their own behavior by their good motives – and the behavior of others by their supposedly bad ones. We are therefore too quick to attribute bad intentions where in reality there may be a completely different reason, e.g. excessive demands, a lack of information or simply a different perspective. Active listening helps here: A sentence like “If I understand you correctly, then…” creates an environment in which people feel seen and heard.
What can managers do?
In conflicts, managers find themselves in a structural dilemma: they are part of the system – and at the same time should enable it to resolve conflicts.
It helps to take a look at the role that is currently required. There are conflicts in which leadership is inevitably a party: resources, roles, priorities. Decisions are needed here, not moderation. However, there are also conflicts in which leadership can moderate: Relationship issues, misunderstandings, ambiguities – there their role is that of an architect for understanding.
These steps, preferably in conjunction with an (external) sparring partner, can help:
- Joint call for analysis: When the first signals become visible, a brief, structured exchange should take place to clarify the situation and identify misunderstandings at an early stage.
- Workshop to take stock: In the event of (smouldering) conflicts, a moderated team workshop helps to make expectations, perceptions and unresolved issues transparent and to work on them in this and other workshops.
- Clear agreements: Define how the team will deal with tensions in future – including escalation path and break arrangements.
- External moderation: A neutral third party helps to maintain the framework and develop solutions throughout the entire process. Get in touch with us and we will find a common approach.
It’s worth the effort, because conflicts are not just psychological phenomena, but structural ones. Patrick Lencioni described this brilliantly in his model of the “Five Dysfunctions of a Team”: A lack of trust leads to conflict avoidance, which in turn generates a lack of commitment – a domino effect that ultimately costs results. Addressing conflicts early on builds trust and prevents the spiral from turning. Tuckman’s phase model is similarly helpful: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing. Storming – the friction – is not a mistake, but a necessary development step. Managers who understand this stop seeing conflict as a disruption and start shaping it as a growth process.
Teams can benefit enormously from this, as it promotes their conflict competence. Managers then formulate clear expectations and open up spaces in which criticism is not seen as a gripe or even an insult, but as a helpful contribution.
Conflict competence arises on three levels:
- With the individual: people need clarity about their patterns. Whether someone reflexively avoids, escalates or harmonizes – these are habits, not personality traits. People who can read themselves control themselves more consciously.
- In a team: teams need clear rules for emergencies. What happens when emotions boil over? When do you take a break? Who holds the line? Good teams don’t have folklore, they have agreements.
- In the organization: Companies must not only preach the ability to deal with conflict, they must make it possible – through training, neutral bodies, moderation skills and, above all, through the normal case: conflicts are resolved, not “managed away”.
In the end, constructive debate is helpful. It creates the basis for organizations to recognize what is actually happening – not just what everyone would like to happen. This is precisely how their ability to deal with conflict is demonstrated: in dealing soberly with the uncomfortable, in the willingness to use tensions as a resource and in the realization that silence may seem comfortable, but it rarely helps.”