Source: MC Today

You can find plenty of people who immensely love their teammates, but you will hardly find anyone who has never quarreled with them. A conflict is one of the engines for personal and team progress. But to reach it, one should know how to deal with conflicts in the right way.

AMC Bridge describes the nature of conflict situations and how to cope with them from the technical team leader’s and HR specialist’s point of view.

Why people sometimes say one thing, and we hear another

Mariia Manoilo, Team Leader, AMC Bridge

Mariia Manoilo is a team leader at AMC Bridge. She used to ask herself, ‘Why do people sometimes say one thing, and we hear another? How to reach solving work questions in a constructive way, without the overabundance of emotions, and without their suppression at the same time?’ Over the years, Mariia has got experience and theoretical knowledge in dealing with conflicts.

Arguing with a teammate regarding a framework choice, frustration concerning the client’s way of work, and an intention to give negative feedback to your direct report—this is all a potential or current conflict. And my recommendations will be sole for all those situations. As a developer and team leader, I will illustrate my knowledge with an example of a legacy project (Editor’s Note: a project ‘inherited’ from previous developers) with bad code and a client who wants a new functionality. So, what is a conflict? It is always a combo of three constituents:

• Different points of view. You root for a quality code and think that the current one should be rewritten, but the client considers it a waste of time.
• High rates. You have what to lose, for example, relationships, the result, reputation, and so on.
• Strong emotions:
• Anger: ‘This project has already driven me up the wall!’
• Fear: ‘What if I will get fired?’
• Shame: ‘They will think that I am a bad developer.’
• Guilt: ‘Other projects have even more of legacy code.’
• Offense: ‘All clients just do not care about the code quality!’

And there are also three scenarios of conflict resolution:

• Suppression. We avoid a conversation because of the fear of spoiling relationships or making a mistake. We think that the other person does not care or that we just react to the situation in the wrong way. I have been using that tactic for a long time before admitting its inefficiency. It’s because the personal frustration grows, and the problem is not resolved.
• Attack. We look for the drawbacks of our opponents and blame them for all the problems.
• Dialogue. When we openly and respectfully tell other people that everything is okay with them and with us. We just have different points of view, and we need to reach an agreement accommodating the interests of both parties.

Our aim is the third option. But when emotions run high, usually, the first and second options work out. Further, I will show step-by-step how to bring a conflict to the constructive dialogue.

Preparation

Answer honestly: what do I want to reach for myself (for example, the control of the project), for the other person (for instance, the development of the client’s product and profit generation), for our relationships (let’s say, a relaxed atmosphere in the team and when communicating with the client).

I will say at once: refuse the silly choice “quarrel or suffer”. Let the brain look for the option with ‘and’: how to get what you want and avoid what you don’t want. In other words, how you can improve the code and not quarrel with the client at the same time.

Safety

It is not easy to understand what is going on when you get into a complicated conversation: usually, everyone has a firestorm of emotions. We are inefficient and have a corresponding result. In such a situation, the manner of talking is as important as the content. One clumsy wording—and they can misunderstand you though you did not mean anything bad.

To avoid it, watch the following points:

• At what moment was the feeling of safety lost?
• When did the opponent ‘close up’ or become aggressive?
• Also, follow your reactions: do you usually take to the suppression or attack when you feel unsafe?

If you notice that the safety is disrupted, try to restore it. Otherwise, all will just throw slippers at one another, and you can forget about the common goal and mutual respect.

How to restore safety

• Apologize if you are wrong or have offended a person. In the meantime, the likeliest situation is that you are only partially wrong. Show distinctly what exactly you apologize for. Also, be cautious. I mean, it is easy to give in to the feeling that the opponent’s wrong automatically justifies all your actions. As a result, you do not see where you were wrong.
• If you see that you have done nothing wrong, but your opponent becomes aggressive or closes up, most likely, your words have been misinterpreted. Contrasting will help in this case. First, say what you don’t want and don’t mean, then—what you really have in mind. For example, ‘I don’t want to compromise development, but I want to accelerate it and improve the product quality.’
• Create a common goal if you see that your aims differ. Ask the opponents not what they want but what problem they want to solve. That is, why they want it. When you see what needs hide behind your supposedly contradictory wants, it may turn out that you have the same aims. And then, you will only have to find common strategies. If it has not happened, appeal to more general purposes. For example, you cannot agree on the code rewriting with the client. But most likely, you will agree that a poorly written product that brings profit is better than a well-written product that nobody uses. If you choose a global aim, it will be easier to return to a constructive dialogue.

Emotions: to hold back or show?

As we have figured out at the beginning, emotions are a mandatory constituent of any conflict, and if to act out of emotions only, you can mess things up. Hence, a genius idea of holding back and suppressing emotions may creep into your mind. It is how offended people appear, who lose their hair for nothing, turn the blame on others, or avoid tasks and dialogues that frighten them. That’s why it’s important not to run from emotions but to cooperate with them.

We ourselves choose what emotion to feel: we hear a speaker, and only after interpreting his or her words, we start sensing something. Thus, if you tend towards the suppression or attack, ask yourself what emotion makes you act that way. Then analyze your interpretation—the subjective perception of the situation—and doubt it. To do it, separate facts from the story. The facts may be as follows: a client started speaking faster, switched topics, or said, ‘I don’t care how it is written.’ But the ‘story’ box will capture ‘the client doesn’t care’ or ‘he or she is not interested in the topic and avoids the subject’.

Is our interpretation correct? Then we act according to the situation and get an expected result.

Mistaken? In this case, it is a problem as it justifies our wrong behavior when we attack (overstate the other person’s drawbacks), vindicate ourselves (understate our mistakes and contribution to the conflict situation), or give up (‘I cannot influence this situation, I have done my best’). Such interpretations help us not to feel guilty but are not efficient as they negatively influence the result.

If you have recognized yourself in those situations, answer the following questions:

• Have I contributed to this situation?
• Why could the other decent, smart person act that way?
• What can I do right now to approximate what I want?

What to do during a conflictual dialogue

Start with facts as it is hard to get offended at them. Only then, move to your own conclusions and subsequent emotions. Still, remember that your interpretation is not an undeniable fact. Be tactful to show that you are ready for the discussion. But avoid mitigating words not to understate the situation and not to look unconfident.

Now ask the other person to do the same. Say that you are ready to listen to his or her thought even if it does not coincide with yours. You will not make the opponent want to lead the dialogue but will be able to create a safe field for the conversation.

If the other person is too emotional, ask why he or she behaves that way. Try to reflect in words what the person does. Especially when he or she says and performs contrary things.

‘’You say that all is good, but your intonation hints that you are upset.’ It is required not to evaluate an emotion but to show that you respond to it in a normal way. When the person opens up and shares his or her thoughts, you can reinforce safety by rephrasing the person’s words, ‘Do I correctly understand that you mean this…?’ If the person does not answer, but you feel that he or she has something to say, try to suggest what his or her thoughts might be and express your understanding. ‘Maybe, you suppose that the only thing that matters for developers is to play it long. I would think the same if I were in your shoes.’ It will help to bring the person out of the shell.

When the person shares thoughts, you might not agree with his or her point of view. But do not hurry to object. If to watch those who actively argue, you can notice that people agree on most issues but argue because of minor differences. That’s why it is better to start with the things you agree upon. When you come to the variances, don’t say that the person is wrong; just compare your thoughts—‘I think so’— and respectfully explain your point of view, providing facts.

I will give examples of situations from my experience when there was a clash of interests and will tell you how my team and I solved them.

1. The client was not satisfied with the task execution but did not tell us because they thought we would understand that ourselves. As a result, the client accumulated frustration and treated people who performed that task with a jaundiced eye. The client expressed their thought only when we announced our own concern regarding a different question.

Lesson learned: Concerns should be expressed, and avoiding a conflict does not resolve it.

2. The client did not want to take a QA (Quality Assurance) engineer to the team as they had a negative experience with QA earlier. Instead of insisting and trying to show that the client is not the development expert, we managed to convince them, appealing to facts and explanations, why developers could not replace QA engineers. We also mentioned that we understood the client’s fears that the QA engineer would ‘fill up backlog with not important bugs’. So we committed to ensuring the avoidance of such situations. If the client didn’t like changes, they could turn them down at any time.

Lesson learned: To persuade an opponent, you should provide facts, show that his or her interests are considered (taking care of the common goal), talk respectfully, and avoid criticism (taking care of safety).

3. The client treated the new functionality as a high priority and kept elimination of the technical debt for later. Thanks to patience and explanations, we managed to convince the client that non-redemption of the technical debt slows down the functionality development, the product becomes less stable, the bug number increases, and the need for additional efforts to support the product transient condition arises. We also gave examples of particular critical bugs that already had their effect on the product.

Lesson learned: To make an opponent agree to your idea more willingly, show that you are on his or her side as you have a common goal.

You will not be able to change the communication style in a moment. Those are considerable changes that can cause reluctance. And as a result, it may seem not to have sense. Thus, introduce recommendations gradually. First, become more attentive to your own emotions and conclusions after which they appear. Then start observing the behavior of others: in this case, a person gave facts without interpretations, and in that case, on the contrary, the person passed off his or her story as facts. Here, people argued over trifles, though in general, they had similar points of view. It will be significant progress so far.

Why we need HR

Nadiia Ivashova, Regional Manager, AMC Bridge

Nadiia Ivashova is the AMC Bridge regional manager in Sumy. She has more than six years of experience in HR support of team members. Nadiia knows how conflicts are prevented, revealed, and resolved at AMC Bridge. And why even having a good manager and making out in everything described above, teams may need HR support.

Openness is one of our company’s values. We understand that the more open our communications are, the clearer and more effective our work is. That’s why we look at conflicts directly, not pretending they do not exist or are unimportant. We are all alive and feel different emotions. And if someone in the team feels discomfort and tension, it’s always important. So, we quickly clarify the situation, speak it out, and look for a solution that would suit all participants.

Now, why do we need HR? Team members can contact us if they feel that there is something wrong with the team: if they see that the conflict is coming or if they tried to clarify the situation with other participants, but emotions ran high.

We assist in creating a safe field for a dialogue, where one can look at the circumstances from a different angle and identify the nature of the problem without an emotional noise. Also, we always come back to the team members in a while to make sure that the conflict has not passed into suppression and the implicit problem, which will soon evoke a conflict again.

90% of conflicts are resolved through communication and minimal correction of work processes. People interpret the same situation differently, and when we manage to figure out their positions, it often turns out that there is no conflict. Only a small part of conflicts is associated with personal incompatibility.

Once, I received a request from a team member, ‘I feel that they do not trust me as a specialist.’ The reason was that the team member was asked to write a list of tasks that should be executed, but the client did not provide time for that.

Hence, the person felt overcontrol. We’ve learned the project manager’s position and figured out that it is related to a different thing—arguments to the client regarding the list of tasks we recommend adding. It is an example of how different interpretations of the situation can lead to a conflict. Other times, people have different expectations because they haven’t simply been discussed at the start. For instance, a team leader expects regular reporting from his or her team member. But the team member thinks that if he or she experiences no difficulties on the project, there is no need to distract the team leader. A kind of a conflict out of the blue. And sometimes, one of the conflict participants even doesn’t know that the other person has some difficulties in communication with him or her.

Our approach to managing conflicts can have the following wording: we create conditions to prevent conflicts, monitor the climate in teams, and resolve explicit conflicts, if any.

1. A proactive play

The best conflict is an avoided conflict. That’s why we create conditions in which problem situations can be prevented. The company communication culture plays a major role in it. Our project managers have one-on-ones (Editor’s Note: meetings with team members) with their team members. Apart from the technical questions, the emotional state of the team is also discussed there. Besides, team members themselves can initiate a talk with a team leader, project manager, or HR. In their turn, the project manager and director can ask HR to talk to the team member. Sometimes, the person can feel embarrassed to tell about the problem to his or her manager. Especially when the person is involved in the situation. Thus, team members have an opportunity to discuss a problem situation with neutral. We are kidding, ‘In any unclear situation, contact HR.’

2. A communication test

At AMC Bridge, an HR specialist is allocated to every team member. They have regular discussions when changing a project, getting feedback to internal surveys, and so on. Holding such talks, we try to understand the person’s sentiments, if he or she is contented with project communication, if there is a balance between work and personal life. So, we always monitor the situation and can see a potential problem at the nascent stage.

Most often, conflict situations happen after changes in the system. For example, when the person changes the team or project or gets a new set of responsibilities. That’s why the HR team mainly focuses on the changes that happen in work, and sometimes even in the out-of-work life.

3. A solution

Regardless of how we have learned about the situation, we contact its participants and figure out their attitudes. When we understand their positions, we talk about a possible solution. If required, we hold a meeting where we work on a way out that would be good for everyone. In a while, we come back to team members to check if it helped: if the teammates’ emotional state has got better, if the tension has been released, and if the agreements are followed.

Sometimes, it is sufficient just to show an alternative viewpoint on events to the participants. Could it happen, for example, that the person was not rude but just wanted to answer quickly and didn’t manage to find the right words? Primarily, it applies to communication via messengers when we do not hear an intonation. Therefore, we remind teams about that and recommend using video calls more.

If the frustration concerns not people but company changes that cannot be ignored, we follow one of our rules—not to say just ‘No’. Such an answer can invoke offense, ‘They do not hear me.’ That’s why we try to explain why the changes are introduced and what advantages they give. If such questions are numerous, we hold internal seminars, where team members can ask responsible specialists a question. We return to the person in a while to learn if he or she still feels any dissatisfaction or has questions on the topic.

However, there is no one-size-fits-all recipe. Every person has 2–3 dominant values. And the solution is in the value affected by a situation. For example, the case about ‘mistrust’ described above was related to the value of recognition. Hence, when resolving the situation, we worked not on the superficial problem ‘to write or not to write the task list’ but on the in-depth one ‘to feel valued’.

Just did not get along

You have done everything, but people still feel discomfort with each other? It also can happen. Though, it is a rare case. In one of our instances, the solution was teammates transfer to different projects. No one of them had a repetition of problem situations in new teams.