Do you have what it takes to solve this?

“The following account was from my cousin while she was working for her previous company. Nancy was a colleague of my cousin, Lucy, in ABC Company. Both of them were in the same department. Being the most junior in the department, Lucy worked hard and performed well. The problem occurred when Lucy started hearing rumors from her other colleagues about her incompetency in work and poor work attitude. Lucy was even summoned to the manager’s office and was told to improve on her work performance.

For months, Lucy was disliked by both the manager and her colleagues. Fortunately, one colleague finally went up to Lucy and told her that the rumors originated from Nancy. Lucy was skeptical initially, thinking that the colleague was trying to create dispute between Nancy and her. Sadly, after much observation by Lucy, she found out that Nancy was the originator of the rumors. Nancy, being competitive and aggressive, was envious of Lucy’s performance and was trying ways and means to create discontentment between Lucy and the rest of the department. Nancy was on close terms with the manager and even claimed that she helped Lucy with most of the work. That was the reason why Lucy was reprimanded by the manager even though she performed relatively well.

Needless to say, Lucy confronted Nancy directly to seek justice for all the slander made previously. Nancy denied Lucy’s accusations and even blamed Lucy for trying to ruin her reputation. After the confrontation, both Nancy and Lucy stopped talking to each other and the rumors of Lucy became worse. She even received emails and online messages (MSN) from Nancy, containing hurtful comments of her. She did counter Nancy’s hurtful messages by requesting Nancy for a face-to-face talk but was greeted by more upsetting mails from Nancy. Lucy found it difficult to concentrate on her work and seek the manager’s advice on her interpersonal conflict with Nancy. Being in close terms with Nancy, the manager obviously sided with Nancy. Being passive and submissive in nature, Lucy finally gave up and resigned from her job after two months.”

Interpersonal conflict, from my understanding, is part and parcel of life. You have seen it occurs between husband and wife, between mother and daughter, between friends and many other daily encounters. Basically, interpersonal conflicts can be classified into “Task conflict” and “Affective conflict”. The former recognizes the differences in opinions towards achieving a goal is the source of conflict between two parties whereas the latter focus on personal differences between the two parties. Hence, “Affective conflict” should be more appropriate for the above account.

It is important that we recognize the unceasing presence of interpersonal conflict, not because we have to accept it as our way of life. But rather, we have to understand the strategies we can adopt in handling such scenarios when they do occur. (Touchwood!)
There are many books and manuals teaching us various ways to resolve conflicts and the list go on. Personally, I adopt a simplified approach towards resolving all interpersonal conflicts that I encounter; “Flight, Fight and Unite” approach.

“Flight” means exiting yourself from the conflict. In a situation where the conflict seems getting out of control, one could refrain from engaging any further for fear of worsening the situation. This is what happened to my cousin, Lucy, in her case. She resigned from her job to avoid further confrontation. But is the choice to leave the best option given her biased manager’s stand? What could possibly be a better alternative then? “Fight” would then be direct communication with the other party, i.e. face-to-face talk. This would minimize any misunderstanding resulted from inappropriate use of words via channels such as emails and SMS. Back to the above account, Nancy was avoiding Lucy’s request for a direct talk even though I would think that this is the best solution for resolving the conflict. So, do you think it is possible for Lucy to have a direct talk with Nancy? “Unite” would then be the interacting with the other party in a non-assertive manner. We did not see this happening in Lucy’s case. Why is that so? Does it mean that persons of two opposite nature (such as Nancy and Lucy) cannot talk it through then? Would a neutral party as mediator be preferred in this case?

As an end note, one should remember we can only control our response to the conflict but not the outcome.
Do you agree?

If you have an answer to any of my questions, feel free to comment!

Cheers!