One of the things any Chief Compliance Officer (CCO), or indeed any business leader, must manage is team conflict. In a recent Harvard Business Review (HBR) article, entitled “How to Preempt Team Conflict”, Ginka Toegel and Jean-Louis Barsoux reported on their study of team conflict. The article posits that team conflict can erupt not solely from the differences in opinion of disparate corporate disciplines but also from “perceived incompatibility in the way different team members think.” In other words, it is about the process and not about the content. (I am sure about now my process analyst wife is thinking, as I told you many times…) To remedy this problem, the authors promote a five step approach which considers how team members “look, act, speak, think and feel, to immunize the team against unproductive conflict when the pressure is on.”

The authors believe that leaders should allow team members to meet and engage in ‘five conversations’ around these areas. Through these conversations, they believe leaders can identify areas of potential friction, which might arise when the pressure is on the group. By getting these areas out into the open before the pressure hits, they believe the “teams establish a foundation of trust and understanding and are able to set ground rules for effective collaboration.” The five areas can be broken down as follows:

Look: Spotting the Difference

The authors believe that team members often have reactions “triggered by differences in the way people present themselves” so the goal of this discussion is to have “team members reflect on how they intend to come across to others—and how they actually do.” This can be as broad as dressing in a suit where the atmosphere is business casual to a lawyer using literary references in a technical software or engineering meeting.

The authors suggested this conversation could be facilitated with some of the following questions:

In your world…

• what makes a good first impression? A bad one?
• what do you notice first about others (dress, speech, demeanor)?
• what does that make you think about them (rigid, pushy, lazy)?
• what intangible credentials do you value (education, experience, connections)?
• how do you perceive status differences?”

Act: Misjudging Behavior

It is almost axiomatic that “on diverse teams, clashing behavioral norms are a common source of trouble.” This prong can include issues as broad as personal space to being punctual and respectful of the group’s time. Equally, it can be such things as keeping the group on a tight schedule or building in flexibility for project direction changes. Here you can simply think of the difference manner in which an American, German, South Korean and Saudi Arabian (and anywhere in between) might act. The authors conclude, “It’s important to establish team norms around all these behaviors up front to avoid unnecessary antagonism.”

The authors suggested this conversation could be facilitated with some of the following questions:

In your world…

• how important are punctuality and time limits?
• are there consequences of being late or missing deadlines?
• what is a comfortable physical distance for interacting in the workplace?
• should people volunteer for assignments or wait to be nominated?
• what group behaviors are valued (helping others, not complaining)?”

Speak: Dividing by Language

Unfortunately for Mr. Translations, this section does not mean you need to employ a translation service but it does recognize that different cultures use different communication styles. The authors recognize that even native speakers of the same language can have differences in the way they express themselves. Yet when your team consists of a wide variety of cultures, this effect can be magnified. The authors note that “depending on context, culture, and other factors, “yes” can mean “maybe” or “let’s try it” or even “no way.”” Moreover, “even laudable organizational goals can engender troublesome communication dynamics.”

The authors suggested this conversation could be facilitated with some of the following questions:

In your world…

• is a promise an aspiration or a guarantee?
• which is most important: directness or harmony?
• are irony and sarcasm appreciated?
• do interruptions signal interest or rudeness?
• does silence mean reflection or disengagement?
• should dissenting views be aired in public or discussed off-line?
• is unsolicited feedback welcome?”

Think: Occupying Different Mindsets

As a recovering lawyer and the son of an engineer, I can certainly appreciate the differences in a legal approach from an engineering perspective. The authors do as well, writing, “Perhaps the biggest source of conflict on teams stems from the way in which members think about the work they’re doing. Their varied personalities and experiences make them alert to varying signals and cause them to take different approaches to problem solving and decision making. This can result in their working at cross-purposes. As one executive with a U.S. apparel company noted: “There is often tension between the ready-fire-aim types on our team and the more analytical colleagues.””

The authors cited to two separate examples of how this gulf was breached. In the first example the leadership of a team was rotated to align with the phase of the project so that “During the more creative and conceptual phases, the free-thinkers would be in charge, while analytical and detail-oriented members would take over evaluation, organization, and implementation activities.” In a second example, involving scientists and executives in a biotech company, “a facilitator used role play to help the two groups better understand each other’s perspective.”

The authors suggested this conversation could be facilitated with some of the following questions:

In your world…

• is uncertainty viewed as a threat or an opportunity?
• what’s more important: the big picture or the details?
• is it better to be reliable or flexible?
• what is the attitude toward failure?
• how do people tolerate deviations from the plan?” 

Feel: Charting Emotions

Often there will be a wide variation in the way team members convey emotions and even passion and how they manage these same emotions. This can be true for both positive, including enthusiasm, and negative emotions, such as venting or even keeping thing bottled up for too long. The authors noted, “The tendency to signal irritation or discontent indirectly—through withdrawal, sarcasm, and privately complaining about one another—can be just as destructive as volatile outbursts and intimidation. It’s important to address the causes of disengagement directly, through open inquiry and debate, and come up with ways to disagree productively.”

The authors suggested this conversation could be facilitated with some of the following questions:

In your world…

• what emotions (positive and negative) are acceptable and unacceptable to display in a business context?
• how do people express anger or enthusiasm?
• how would you react if you were annoyed with a teammate (with silence, body language, humor, through a third party)?”

This article provides solid guidance for the CCO or any business leader on not only how to anticipate conflict but concrete steps to head it off. The author’s conclude by noting that a benefit of these five conversations is that, “We’ve found that they include greater participation, improved creativity, and, ultimately, smarter decision making.” If you can achieve this on any project involving any corporate team, you have achieved something significant.

[View source.]