Conflict: neither fleeing nor forcing,
transforming the tension

A conflict is a tension between two concerns that each ask to exist, and the way it is handled decides everything. Leading means transforming that tension into dialogue, without stifling disagreements or letting them fester. You do not win against someone, you resolve with them.

The knot that tightens

Pull on the two ends of a knot, each from your own side, with all your might. It does not give way, it locks. The more the tension rises, the tighter it closes. This is exactly what our two reflexes do in the face of conflict. The first withdraws: denial, avoidance, flight. The second attacks: hostility, aggression, a hardening of tone. Two ways of straining the rope, neither of untying it. Yet the conflict is not the danger; the danger is the way we take it. A knot is never undone by force. It is untied by two people, patiently searching for where it holds.

Three paths, only one fruitful

Faced with a tension, three doors open. To flee, and let slip what will come back heavier. To counter, and turn a disagreement into a confrontation. Or to engage in dialogue, and make the tension a piece of information rather than a threat. Only the third path makes conflict fruitful. A healthy disagreement is not a flaw in the collective, it is a sign of life: antagonism is energy, and the real danger remains apathy and silence. The leader's challenge, then, is not to avoid tensions, but to stay connected when they rise, to separate the problem from the person, and to aim at intentions rather than positions.

Five ways of approaching tension

Thomas and Kilmann describe five ways of entering a conflict, according to how far one asserts one's own concern and how far one tends to the relationship. This framework does not resolve the conflict, it illuminates it: it names the mode in which one stands.

• Competing — imposing one's point of view: in an emergency, or for an unpopular but necessary decision.
• Collaborating — holding both the concern and the relationship: the only path truly livable over time.
• Compromise — conceding on both sides: when time is short and the stakes are moderate.
• Avoiding — withdrawing, letting things settle: for a minor concern.
• Accommodating — favouring the relationship: when it matters more than the concern.

The classic mistake is always to have the same default mode. The one who reveals chooses consciously, and aims, wherever possible, at collaboration.

What blocks dialogue

Before resolving, one must spot what prevents progress. Some blockages are head-on: passivity, where one becomes absorbed in one's own inhibition instead of seeking a way out; disparagement, which belittles the other or oneself; redefinition, where each answers beside the problem posed; over-detailing, which drowns the subject under qualifications; the non-verbal, that absent presence which contradicts the words. Others are more subtle: too much reason without warmth, too much emotion without clarity, generalisations that swell, flight from the main subject, a lack of honesty about what one truly feels. To name them is already to begin defusing them.

Going beneath the positions

Escalation always sets one position against another position. Each digs in, the tone rises a notch, then another. The way out lies beneath. One must go beneath the positions, down to the intentions and needs that feed them: it is there, in the depths, that possible agreements lie sleeping. Still, they must be sought out, for the worst enemy of a conflict is not disagreement, it is silence. When people stop speaking to each other, positions do not soften, they swell: one fills the other's silence with a judgement that grows the longer it lasts. On one's position, one is often right. On one's intention, one is almost always wrong, and there is no way to guess it from the trench: one must go and ask.

The framework of the exchange

To conduct the discussion, a proven framework holds in four markers, the OFNR of Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication. One begins with the facts, seeking first what one agrees on: common ground before any interpretation. One then voices one's feeling, for behind the sentiment the deep intentions often lie sleeping. One expresses one's need, then, through reformulation, one seeks to understand the other's, not to choose one against the other but to answer both. One finally frames requests, and acknowledges what has been gained. Running through it all, always the same two gestures: reformulate before answering, and stay connected. Taking up the other's words proves that one has listened, and lets the tension fall without conceding anything of substance.

Where to begin

Transforming a conflict takes work. It begins with knowing oneself: knowing one's spontaneous mode in the face of a tension, competing, avoiding, accommodating or rushing to compromise, and what that reflex has already cost. It is this look at oneself, then the training in dialogue, that we support in coaching. There one learns to stay connected when everything pushes toward rupture, to go beneath the positions, and to untie rather than to cut.