The Conflict Expert

A leader’s strength depends on their follower’s perception of them. And their conflict resolution style generally follow their approach to leadership. This blog post looks at both and intends to dispel the misinformed view that domination is a sign of strength in both fields.

Studies demonstrate that we perceive strong leaders as being dominant, ambitious, independent, assertive, confident and outspoken men. These values also apply to our perception of traditional masculinity; strong men are also leaders and vice verser. It doesn’t matter whether they are good at their job, if they display the qualities above, our perception of strength remains in tact. Interestingly, most studies show that women are generally viewed negatively in terms of leadership strength but perhaps more effective.

Skills, however, are not gendered.

And good leadership requires a flexible approach that is appropriate to the context.

Similarly, conflict resolution requires judgment in assessing which approach to take.

Dominant leaders often adopt a dominant style to negotiations. When this occurs, they want to win, not compromise or collaborate. Team members must do as they are told and not question them, irrespective of the scenario. Criticism and blame are ways of communicating dissatisfaction and there is little room for autonomy or initiative. This can lead to a toxic work environment, burn out and damaged mental health which affects leaders as well as team members.

Domination can be appropriate in conflict resolution but it should be limited to specific situations. Imagine being in a burning building and you don’t know what to do. A fire fighter charges in, grabs your arm and shouts at you to get out. You refuse, saying you are scared and so he throws you over his shoulder and escorts you physically out of the building.

A dominant approach to resolving that disagreement was only appropriate because a life was in danger.

Contrast that with a discussion between a manager and a supervisee about a project they were delegated. The manager disagrees with the method and outcome of the project. The manager takes a dominant approach and tells the supervisee exactly what to do and how to re-do it. The supervisee feels undermined, undervalued, and argues back.

This approach leads to conflict because it is condescending and insulting. It also sets the supervisee up to fail as their confidence will likely diminish. Showing respect by acknowledging the work done and highlighting the positives would be a better place to start this discussion. The manager could then look to collaborate by asking questions about the methods used to achieve the outcome, offering guidance, making suggestions, coaching in areas of weakness and asking the supervisee for their feedback would be more appropriate. Good leaders are expert persuaders and they do that in the ways outlined above.

Good leaders also know when to compromise. You might want an external consultant to work 100% for you on a project but they can only give you 50% of their time, having committed themselves elsewhere. If this is the case, and a leader recognises their talent and expertise (as all good leaders are able to do that), then a compromise is needed for the time being. Good leaders also know that things change in the future and anything is up for negotiation.

Sometimes, as a leader, you may even need to be passive by avoiding conflict. Is it really worth arguing with a team member over an action that will have no impact on anybody else? I recall feeling frustrated that two team members had taken the same week’s holiday off. This was against the company policy but was it worth the argument ? No. Holidays are important to a team member and providing nothing urgent came up during that time, there was no need to argue. Sometimes, you need to lose a battle to win the war or better still, offer a golden bridge back to peace.

Strength is not aggression, bullying or diminishing others. This is often a sign of insecurity, a deep rooted lack of confidence and a total lack of understanding of how human relationships work. The same with conflict resolution. If you want to repair relations, build trust and find workable solutions which are necessary in any negotiation, domination will destroy all of that, especially when done in an openly aggressive and insulting manner.

Good leadership entails being aware of how people perceive you. Like conflict resolution, it requires flexibility and adaptability and empathy in assessing what the best strategy would be to attain your objective. The underlying substance of both concepts is recognising what motivates the people you lead and how to get the best out of them so that your life is made much easier, now and in the future.

What are your tips for good leadership and conflict resolution? What do you perceive as strength ? I’d love to read your thoughts and comments and if you are feeling generous and like my content, please feel free to leave a donation.