Conflict handling

Conflict is inevitable in any organization because, well, Humans :)

The way we deal with conflict is really important - some conflicts are healthy and productive and drive improvement - other conflicts are ugly and political and suck the soul out of the culture. We obviously want more of the former and less of the latter!

Conflict handling gets a bit tricky with organizations like ours, with everything bottom-up and no managers. We’ve done pretty OK so far, but we want to get better.

Inspired by the book Reinventing Organizations, we’ve learned that self-organisation at scale really needs an explicit conflict handling strategy, a simple process that everyone needs to be bought into. So that’s what we’re experimenting with now.

Here’s our first take, basically a 3-step conflict escalation process.

Our conflict handling process (ongoing experiment!)

LEVEL 1: I take responsibility for bringing up and sorting out any issue (“gravel”) with the involved person(s) ASAP, or accept it and let it go for real (= don’t complain). If someone brings up issues with me, I will meet up.

… if the conflict didn’t get solved:

LEVEL 2: Invite a facilitator/mediator that both parties trust. The facilitator’s role is to help the parties find a mutually acceptable solution, not try to force his/her own solution upon the conflicting parties.

… if the conflict didn’t get solved:

LEVEL 3: “Road-kill” meeting at our office ASAP with the involved parties.

Gravel? Road-kill? Huh?

Glad you asked!

Gravel is a metaphor for small annoying problems that, if left unfixed, will get worse over time. For example a piece of gravel in your shoe. Best strategy is to stop and remove it as soon as you notice it.

Road-kill is a metaphor for a big ugly stinking issue that’s affecting our productivity and mood. Roadkill stinks in a way that triggers deep primeval reactions that override higher brain activities. It brings the mood down, and if it’s left there for too long, people become desensitised and/or don’t dare mention it or do anything about it.

The purpose of our conflict handling process is to catch Gravel before it becomes Road-kill!

How is this intended to be used?

The policy is something that we sign up to.

Signing is a personal commitment - “I intend to follow this process”. It also acts as a “permission” to hold each other accountable for following the process. That way we can help remind each other - “Hey Joe, I hear you complaining about Lisa. So are you going to bring it up with Lisa, or let it go?”

We don’t force anyone to sign, but part of the experiment is to see how many will :o)