Denise Keller

Profile

Registered: 1 month, 3 weeks ago

Why Your Conflict Resolution Training Keeps Failing: A Brutal Truth

 

This Conflict Resolution Fantasy That's Ruining Your Organization: The Reason "Collaborative" Outcomes Often Generate Greater Conflicts Than They Solve

 

 

I'll ready to question one of the greatest fundamental assumptions in contemporary conflict resolution training: the belief that all workplace disagreement can and should be settled through "mutually beneficial" solutions.

 

 

Such approach sounds progressive and compassionate, but following sixteen years of training in organizational development, I can tell you it's often total nonsense that causes additional issues than it resolves.

 

 

Here's the fundamental flaw with the "win-win" mindset: it believes that every disputes are about misunderstandings or conflicting desires that can be cleverly reconciled if people just talk sufficiently.

 

 

For actual practice, many workplace disagreements center on real, absolute differences in goals, real contests for scarce resources, or situations where one party really has to win and another party has to concede.

 

 

The team worked with a large advertising company where the artistic department and the client services department were in constant disagreement about campaign approach.

 

 

Creative teams demanded to produce innovative, impressive campaigns that would build their creative reputation. Client services people demanded campaigns that would meet the needs of conservative customers and preserve established account contracts.

 

 

Both sides had totally reasonable priorities. Each viewpoints were essential for the agency's survival.

 

 

Executives consulted a group of conflict resolution experts who dedicated extensive time leading "collaborative solution-finding" workshops.

 

 

Such sessions produced detailed "mutually beneficial" strategies that seemed sophisticated on paper but were entirely unrealistic in actual implementation.

 

 

For instance, they developed approaches where each client work would somehow combine "creative standards" with "customer acceptance." The consultants created elaborate evaluation standards and approval committees designed to guarantee that each stakeholder's concerns were considered.

 

 

Their consequence: decision-making processes that took significantly longer than previously, artistic work that was mediocre to the degree of being bland, and clients who were confused by unclear direction about creative approach.

 

 

Both departments were increasingly frustrated than originally because nobody was achieving what they really wanted to do their jobs effectively.

 

 

When 180 days of this nonsense, we persuaded leadership to abandon the "win-win" approach and create what I call "Realistic Choice Setting."

 

 

Rather than trying to act like that each client work could simultaneously fulfill opposing priorities, they implemented specific guidelines for determining when innovative quality would take focus and when account retention would be the primary concern.

 

 

For major clients where the company wanted to maintain stable contracts, client preferences would take precedence.

 

 

For newer accounts or charity work, artistic people would have more latitude to create innovative approaches.

 

 

With potential industry competitions, creative innovation would be the top objective.

 

 

All departments understood exactly what the priorities were for specific campaign, what criteria would influence decisions, and what trade-offs were being chosen.

 

 

Tension between the departments almost stopped. All teams managed to focus on performing what they did best rather than endlessly debating about direction.

 

 

Customer retention got better because business development staff managed to clearly explain campaign approach and expectations. Artistic excellence improved on appropriate projects because design staff had clear permission to create experimental approaches.

 

 

This point: working to create "collaborative" solutions for essentially conflicting interests often results in "everybody loses" outcomes where nobody gets what they actually need.

 

 

Smarter to be honest about choices and make deliberate, intelligent decisions about when competing goals will get priority.

 

 

Let me share one more example of how the "collaborative" fixation creates dysfunction. The team consulted with a software programming organization where lead developers and new employees were in continuous disagreement about project distribution.

 

 

Experienced engineers preferred focusing on complex, high-visibility projects that would advance their careers and improve their industry standing.

 

 

New developers wanted opportunities to challenging projects to develop their skills and advance their professional development.

 

 

Scarce numbers of challenging projects meant that providing more assignments to new staff automatically meant less assignments for experienced staff.

 

 

Leadership consulted conflict resolution specialists who dedicated extensive time working to find "collaborative" arrangements that would magically meet everyone's professional needs.

 

 

These experts developed sophisticated approaches for "joint project ownership," "development arrangements," and "skills sharing programs."

 

 

Zero of these solutions addressed the core problem: there were simply not adequate high-level opportunities for all parties to get what they needed.

 

 

This result: increased complexity in project management, slower work distribution, and continued dissatisfaction from both parties.

 

 

The team worked with them establish a honest, merit-based process for work assignment:

 

 

Lead roles on complex tasks would be allocated based on demonstrated competence and track record

 

 

New staff would be assigned specific learning projects designed to enhance their skills systematically

 

 

Transparent requirements and schedules were defined for career progression from beginning to lead levels

 

 

All team members understood precisely what they had to demonstrate to qualify for various types of assignment responsibilities

 

 

Tension between different groups almost stopped. New team members were able to concentrate on reaching defined skill goals rather than fighting for scarce access. Lead developers could focus on complex assignments without continuously justifying their right to these assignments.

 

 

Output and quality got better substantially across every performance levels.

 

 

That lesson: clear, performance-focused distribution usually creates more effective outcomes than artificial "win-win" solutions that try to eliminate legitimate competition.

 

 

Now let's address possibly the biggest dangerous aspect of the "mutual benefit" fixation: how it protects poor employees and undermines company accountability.

 

 

I worked with a public sector agency where certain unit was repeatedly missing performance standards, producing inadequate work, and creating problems for other teams that relied on their output.

 

 

Once other departments raised concerns about these delivery failures, leadership repeatedly replied by organizing "joint solution-finding" meetings to develop "compromise" approaches.

 

 

Those sessions would invariably conclude in complex "workflow adjustments" that basically required effective units to compensate for the inadequate work of the failing team.

 

 

For instance, instead of requiring the underperforming unit to achieve standard schedules, the "win-win" approach would be to lengthen every delivery deadlines to work around their poor performance.

 

 

Instead of requiring them to enhance their work levels, different units would be asked to provide more review, support, and improvements to make up for their substandard output.

 

 

Such an approach was remarkably inequitable to effective teams and directly enabled poor work.

 

 

Even worse, it created frustration and cynicism among effective performers who sensed that their additional contributions was being taken for granted while inadequate performers were being accommodated from consequences.

 

 

We convinced management to abandon the "collaborative" charade and create honest accountability systems.

 

 

They established measurable performance expectations for all teams, with specific consequences for repeated failure to achieve these standards.

 

 

This underperforming unit was provided clear support and a adequate timeframe to enhance their performance. After they were unable to achieve the required standards, swift management decisions were made.

 

 

This transformation was remarkable. Overall productivity increased significantly, interdepartmental tensions decreased, and worker morale among effective employees increased significantly.

 

 

That lesson: real "mutual benefit" outcomes result from enforcing fair expectations for all parties, not from compromising expectations to protect substandard performance.

 

 

Here's what I've discovered after extensive experience of watching businesses suffer with misguided "win-win" approaches:

 

 

Good issue resolution needs managers who are prepared to make unpopular choices, set clear expectations, and understand that never everyone can get everything they want.

 

 

Frequently the most effective approach is for certain people to win and others to compromise significantly. Often the most effective approach is to get rid of elements who are unwilling to function productively within established expectations.

 

 

And often the most effective outcome is to recognize that some disputes represent fundamental differences in values that should not be bridged through mediation.

 

 

Quit attempting to create "collaborative" arrangements where they cannot apply. Start establishing organizations with fair expectations, reliable accountability, and the courage to make appropriate changes when collaborative approaches aren't appropriate.

 

 

The business - and your highest performing staff - require no less.

 

 

Here is more information on Writing Emails Training have a look at our own webpage.

Website: https://trainingforsupervisorsperth.bigcartel.com/product/training-for-managers

---

Forums

Topics Started: 0

Replies Created: 0

Forum Role: Participant