Team conflicts as a catalyst

Conflicts in a team are not a disruption, but the starting point for development. Behind every visible dispute lies a deeper issue: distribution disputes, role conflicts or power issues. As long as the escalation is low, the bound energy can be used by managers maintaining impartiality, using “I” messages and making the common goal visible again.

Key Takeaways

• Conflicts only become destructive when emotions create a lasting upset: pure differences of opinion without emotional hardening are not yet a conflict.
• The iceberg model applies to team conflicts: the trigger is visible, such as a role dispute or distribution injustice, underneath is usually a relationship or identity conflict.
• Up to the third escalation stage according to Friedrich Glaser’s model, managers can still resolve conflicts internally; from stage four onwards, external moderation is required.
• I-messages instead of you-accusations are the most effective discussion technique because they don’t put anyone in the dock and keep the issue at hand.
• Team members who want to resolve a conflict should first seek a direct one-to-one discussion with the person concerned before involving allies.

Conflicts are normal, the problem starts later

Differences of opinion are normal in teams, not an alarm signal. Two people have two opinions that do not agree: that alone is not a conflict. Conflict only arises when it becomes permanent, a disagreement hardens and emotions override the factual level.

It is precisely at this threshold that it becomes difficult for the parties involved to bring the matter back to an objective level. A typical picture from the testing environment: the tester comes back for the third or fourth time with a bug that has been found. What begins as objective feedback becomes emotionally charged, and it takes tact to continue working constructively with the developers.

Ruben Gotthardt, coach and process facilitator specializing in team conflicts, turns the usual view around. Behind every visible conflict lies an opportunity for development. Without conflict, there is no next step in development, neither in the animal kingdom, nor in the plant kingdom, nor in humans. Friction is the vehicle for change, not its opponent.

What is visible on the surface is rarely the actual conflict

Conflicts work like an iceberg: above the waterline you can see the dispute, below it lies the real issue. If you want to resolve a conflict, you have to separate the two levels. What is the visible issue and what is the real issue?

A distribution conflict often manifests itself in a triviality. Who does the unpopular washing up in the shift becomes a point of contention: on the surface a trifle, underneath a relationship conflict between people who don’t get on well together. The role conflict becomes visible, the relationship conflict remains hidden.

In a positional struggle, a deeper issue lies beneath the visible power struggle. Two people fight tooth and nail for a leadership position. The fight for the position is visible. Underneath it is about identity, about a claim to leadership that affects one’s own person. You first have to become aware of this deeper level in order to understand what is really at stake.

Unresolved conflicts do not disappear, they move with you. If someone changes position, they take the old friction with them. This leads to trench warfare between departments that at first glance appear to have nothing to do with each other, until it becomes apparent: They used to work together on a project and there was already something there. Over time, this creates a web of conflict that blocks many things in the company.

Escalation levels decide who can still resolve the conflict

Conflicts escalate in stages, and the stage determines which solution is effective. Conflict researcher Friedrich Glasl has differentiated this model with a total of nine stages. For practical purposes, it is sufficient to take a look at the first transitions.

It begins with hardening as the first stage. This is followed by debates and polemics. Glasl calls the third stage “actions instead of words”: The parties stop talking to each other and look for allies and coalitions.

Up to this point, the conflict can be resolved internally. A manager, division manager or project manager can still moderate the conflict themselves, provided they handle it confidently. From the fourth stage onwards, this is no longer enough. This is when a black-and-white mindset sets in: Your own image is improved by worsening the image of the other party.

At this stage, external support, i.e. moderation or mediation, is needed to create a situation that can end in a compromise. A win-win solution is then no longer possible. At the end of every full escalation is an attempt to destroy the opposing system, not necessarily physically, but materially or psychologically. In the company, the power intervention then means separating parts of the team, because otherwise the existence of the project is at risk.

As long as the escalation remains low, the energy tied up in the conflict can be used to win over the cause and turn opponents into friends.

Are you still part of the conflict or does the conflict already have you?

The first question for anyone who wants to navigate a conflict: Am I still part of the disagreement or am I caught up in it? Anyone who can still analyze the conflict is on the outside. If you are caught up in coalitions and emotions, you have lost the necessary distance.

This distance requires self-reflection. You need an observer role, the ability to switch to a meta-perspective and recognize yourself in the situation. This requires clarity about your own role and your own personality.

This clarity creates an attitude filter. The path leads from your role via your personality to your own attitude, and this filter makes your actions more effective in tense situations. You recognize earlier when something is getting out of hand and can intervene before the hardening becomes public.

Sometimes this doesn’t need a lot of words. If a conflict is smouldering behind closed doors, it is enough to open the door, step into the room and ask: What is actually going on here? Everything that remains hidden has the potential to climb the escalation ladder until it is beyond your control.

How managers channel bound energy forward

A manager can utilize conflict energy if they remain non-partisan and do not put anyone in the dock. That is the central rule. Even those who live out their belligerence rawly and assert themselves well must be allowed to exist in their own way without being seen as the guilty party. Otherwise the bound energy will intensify instead of dissolving.

Authenticity has a stronger effect than any moderation technique. A manager who says “I have behaved wrongly here” or “I have contributed to this issue” opens up the space. This requires the courage to show your own vulnerability to the outside world.

Concrete tools that release pressure without creating new coalitions are helpful. A “wall of complaint” in the office, where everyone can write down on a piece of paper what bothers them, makes disgruntlement visible. The subsequent question as to whether those involved are prepared to tear up their notes brings them back into a sense of solidarity. Most people want to work forward in a positive way.

An “I” message keeps the question of guilt outside. The sentence “You’re a great team, I can’t see you fighting like this” avoids the accusatory you. In the conflict itself, this accusatory “you” is already taking place between the parties, which is why the moderator must consistently avoid it.

A shared vision has the greatest leverage. An attractive picture of the future that people want to work towards transforms conflict energy into forward energy for the whole team.

What you can do as a team member without a leadership role

If you don’t have a leadership mandate, start by seeking a direct conversation. One-to-one, with the person concerned, without detours. Any other way would already be a coalition: as soon as someone realizes that a group is getting together, the speculation begins.

During the conversation, stay in the first-person perspective and talk objectively about a specific situation. Describe what you have observed and name what it does to you. “That hurt me”, “that’s why I’m angry”, “I couldn’t sleep for two days”. Then ask back how the other person feels about it and suggest an agreement for future situations.

Only if the direct conversation fails does the path lead via the responsible authority, i.e. testing or project management. There, too, the first-person perspective applies, not the accusation. The manager’s task is then to listen to both sides and bring them together in one room.

Before the direct discussion, many people watch a fear movie: it could get even worse. This movie rarely happens if you really show yourself and stay in the first-person perspective. You have to go through it.

From interpretation back to the factual level

The longer a conflict smoulders, the more people interpret rather than listen. Every situation is fed by what is currently happening and by the experiences of all those involved. In a team, entire life stories sit around a table.

At a certain level of escalation, you no longer really listen to the other person. You already know what they are going to say and build your own interpretation from it. Sentences such as “someone already said that 30 years ago” or “we’ve always done it that way” are markers for this state.

The way out leads back to the factual level via the emotions. The central question is: What is it actually about for you, personally? In the early stages, it often becomes clear that both sides have the same goal and have only taken a different turn at one point. From this realization, the energy can be unlocked to build the ship together and sail in the same direction again.