Good company conflict management

The conflict is in many ways similar to water - it overflows, flows down and, in the end, blurs everything in its path if it is not stopped in time.
And sometimes it looks like red wine - it leaves stains.

In every company, whether it is just a start-up startup or an already stable business, conflicts arise from time to time.

How to treat them: avoid or, on the contrary, rejoice that people care? And what advantages can be learned from conflicts? I bring to your attention the point of view of Jason Freed, co-author of the acclaimed ReWork and Getting Real.
')
I am particularly interested in his opinion, since I manage the business myself with the help of their tools and the Get Real approach. So, here is Jason's text:

I am a co-founder of the confident software company 37signals. This epithet suits us both in the process of interaction with the outside world (in blogs, negotiations, interviews, etc.) and in communication with each other. And since we have a semi-virtual company with employees in 12 different cities, we are not able to take advantage of body language, which helps to convey subtleties in communication. Since we do not see each other, we cannot smile at the interlocutor or say with a look “Well, you know what I mean,” in order to stop the conflict at the root.

Therefore, we learned a few things about conflict management. Of course, conflict can be oppressive. But a managed conflict is a good thing - this is fertile ground for a great exchange of ideas. When people zealously defend their positions, the problem begins to be understood more deeply. While people are upholding a brilliant idea, not their pride, you can learn a lot.

To argue is one thing. To make a convincing argument is completely different. To convince yourself that your feelings are true is not very difficult, but it is difficult to convince others of this. It makes you think more about what you believe, and why you believe it. And sometimes this alone helps to see the other side, and perhaps even change your mind.

Of course, if you want the work to be done, ultimately you have to make a decision. Solutions are progress. But when you need to make important and complex decisions, then most likely, regardless of the degree of your faith in your idea, someone just as strongly believes in his own. You may have convinced yourself, but the rest are not yet convinced. Or maybe they did not convince you. How to get out of the current stalemate and find a solution?

To get started is to take a step back and see if you really disagree. Sometimes what looks like a disagreement is merely agreement hidden in competing vocabulary.

I call this phenomenon “false conflict” and I see that it occurs quite often, especially when people with different skills are involved. That's because programmers have one language, designers have another, and managers have a third. In marketing, it is called that, and the customer calls it differently. Because of a misunderstanding at the base level, many conflicts arise.

I remember that we somehow worked on a new function of Highrise business contact management software. This particular feature was designed to track user conversations with their contacts. The designer called data logging a “message.” One programmer called it a “note,” and another called a “note.” And I, I remember, called her “fasting”. We all talked about the same thing and essentially agreed on the principle of work, however, we soon discovered that we were arguing about it. What is the reason? That none of us was exactly sure what the others were talking about. If we were more careful in defining terms at the very beginning, there would be much less controversy and wasted time. It's simple.

That is why we are trying to plunge into reality as quickly as possible. In our case, reality implies something to look at — a drawing, a sketch, something visual. Until everyone looks at the same thing, it will be difficult to reach a real agreement. Five people can read the same paragraph, but they often interpret words differently. But when you look at a picture, a model, you are much more likely to come to an agreement - or to a valid disagreement. No matter which way they go, we will at least know where they really are. Pointing to reality shortens the road to truth.

If you find yourself dealing with genuine disagreement, then you can move on to methods that help resolve the conflict. The method that has proven itself in practice, of course, is brute force: the highest official makes the call. This may be the founder, the executive director, the president or the manager. In some cases, this has to be done. But in most cases, I found that it rather affects the morale and hurts self-esteem, rather than leads to true agreement. After all, a person at the top may not always have the right idea. And the further the boss is from the actual work, the less likely his idea will be the right one.

Despite this, almost all entrepreneurs recognize that it is difficult for them not to play dictator. I also know this feeling. When it comes to your company, your vision and your final responsibility, it seems that all of you will be making calls alone. But if you really start to behave this way, you will see that the quality of work will constantly decline. If colleagues know that you will easily intervene and refute any of their work, they will not strive for better results. What for? If you don't like anything anyway, then it doesn't matter how badly the work was done.

But how we turn the conflict into something positive and work in 37signals.

We exchange. The method is based on a highly unscientific model “I got one; You will receive the following ", which is used daily by millions of people. You know the principle of work: go to lunch with a friend and take on the costs. Next time he does it. You do not follow this, because you know that in the end, everything will be equal. And even if it is not equal, then everything is fair.

So sometimes, when we argue about the details in one of our products, someone will eventually give up the decision to another: “Ok, this time we accept your idea. But next time it will be my idea. ” This does not always happen literally, but is read between the lines. Just do not fight for each last decision, until one of the parties is not weakened and will not be able to continue the fight. Sometimes, in order to move on, you only need to say “You are this, and the following” in a friendly way; pride remains intact.

A variation on the subject can be the question at the beginning of the process: “Who really wants it more?”. Quite rarely, two people (or two groups of people) have the same passion for a particular problem. Someone almost always shows more interest. Some have invested more or have a deeper conviction, or they simply need to win more than the rest. So sometimes all that is required is just to ask. Find out who is more interested and give preference to him. Someday you will be more interested in something and get it. In the end, everything is balanced.

Another way to find out who is really ready to defend the idea is to find out if they are ready to take responsibility if something goes wrong.

Let's say we are arguing about a new feature of the program. One group is confident that the function will cause problems for customers, while the other insists that everything will work fine. In most cases, we will give preference to optimists, but with one important condition: they take responsibility for working with customers and support in case of problems.

Therefore, if it turns out that customers are complaining or things are generally going wrong, everything falls on their backs. They have to respond to letters and deal with negative reactions. When a person is ready to shoulder such a burden, there is a big chance that he has the right idea.

Of course, it is not necessary to transfer decisions to people who are unable to make them. I do not propose to make low calls, just to avoid long conflicts. In all of this, I admit that everyone proves, for the most part, well-founded propositions. If someone is not knowledgeable or arguing for the sake of a dispute, the worst thing you can do is delegate authority.

In the company of 37signals we are all reasonable and competent people. I hope the same can be said about your company.