Read an Excerpt

Introduction

How well do you manage conflict with your boss or other superiors at work, or with the more difficult employees you need to supervise? 
   Belligerent bosses, petulant employees, demanding and disrespectful clients, former peers you now supervise, psychopathological CEOs. No matter how old you are, how long you have been in the work world, how many conflict-management trainings you have attended (or slept through) or how many best-selling books on difficult conversations you have read, problems with characters like these — up and down the food chain at work — are exhausting and can feel impossible. What can you do when your boss holds all the cards and enjoys being a jerk? Or when an employee you really depend on is constantly whining and being difficult? Or when vitally important clients insist on being demeaning?
 
When Sam heard that the reorganization of his company had him reporting to a woman thirty years younger than him, he went quietly to his office and stewed. He liked and respected Isabella; the sting he felt was not personal. But he had come up through the ranks of manufacturing in the eighties and nineties and had the battle scars to prove it. Now he’d be taking orders from someone a few years out of an MBA program. He tried to avoid contact with her and quickly acquiesced to her at the first hint of a difference of opinion. It made their working relationship excruciating for both of them.
 
Tammy responded differently. When her friend Susan became her supervisor at the nongovernmental organization they worked for, Tammy mumbled, “She’s one of them now.” Tammy believed that all people in positions of power grew to like it and abuse it. Although her former friend tried repeatedly to collaborate with her, Tammy treated her as a defector. Eventually Susan had to fire Tammy for a series of disciplinary problems and insubordination. Tammy pushed Susan to be confrontational and punitive and so confirmed her own bias about those in power.
 
Like many executives, Carlos, the new CEO of a $300 million textile firm, knew that his company’s move toward global business required them to transform their transfer-pricing model, a method of profit allocation that helped to minimize their tax burden. The current system for setting transfer prices often benefited individual manufacturing sites but in effect punished the company for overseas sales. Carlos had to initiate a major change in transfer pricing, which would likely encounter stiff resistance.
   Carlos started by asking Tony, his chief financial officer, to design a transfer-pricing model and suggested he get input from others. Tony was extremely bright and knowledgeable; he quickly developed a very good model. But he did it by himself. Feeling the urgency of the situation, Tony rolled out the new pricing model to the company. It was soon mired in conflict, as managers throughout the organization haggled over details. There was more resistance than expected — much more. Carlos had asked Tony to use a more-participatory process for the development of the model but had not insisted.
   “We ended up having to start over because my leadership had been weak,” Carlos reflected. “Tony and I had been equals for years. He’s got a sharp mind and a strong will. It had never been within my power to give him orders. But this time I should have directed him. I should have insisted he act more collaboratively on this initiative. Instead I watched Tony roll out a model created in a one-man vacuum. It was a great model, but I knew the process was wrong and I didn’t follow my instincts.”
 
When Richard took over as division head of a large communications technology company, his direct reports (and their reports) soon learned that stifling ideas might hurt innovation and problem solving, but sharing ideas could lead to career extinction.
   Ernie, a quiet but thoughtful young accountant, got the point quickly. Richard invited him to participate in a “diagonal slice group.” Specifically designed as a forum for top leadership to listen to employees from various functions at all levels of the organization, it was advertised as an open, nonthreatening environment where an administrative assistant’s opinion carried as much value as a chief engineer’s.
When Ernie asked an innocent question about budgeting during one of the group’s early meetings, Richard interjected with, “Let me tell you why that’s a stupid question.” Ernie decided then and there never to question Richard again.
   A pattern of such comments from Richard eventually led to fewer and fewer questions being raised — and no disagreement. From anyone. After a few months, his arrogant behavior had eliminated all candid, constructive feedback, but he concluded that he was doing such a great job leading and communicating that he had achieved “near total alignment” within the division. This delusion lasted until new ideas and products dried up and sales followed.
 
This is a book about conflict, power, and change. It chronicles the challenges and opportunities we face when we find ourselves in conflict with those in authority — bosses, executives, regulators, police officers, professors, and parents, to name a few — and with those we have authority over. It also addresses what to do in those precarious situations in which power shifts occur and we face new conflicts with former peers we now supervise, or with former supervisees who have now become the boss.
   Conflict is a lot like fire. When it sparks, it can intensify, spread, and lead to pain, loss, and irreparable damage. It can distract, distance, derail, and occasionally destroy opportunities and relationships. It makes most people anxious, and as a result it is often mishandled and made worse. It can waste time and lessen productivity, impair teamwork and morale, increase counterproductive behaviors like stealing and sabotage, and poison the physical and mental health of employees. So conflict can burn.
   Power is often likened to energy, which physicists define as the capacity to do work — to get things done. But for all our efforts to acquire power, both having it and not having it are riddled with traps, constraints, consequences, and misunderstandings. Having power and authority in relationships often comes with high expectations, demands, duties, and responsibilities that can be surprisingly constricting. Ask any new parent or president or CEO. And not having it is much worse.
   When conflict and power mix, the results can be explosive.
   Unfortunately, conflict and power tend to travel together. When people find themselves in conflict, they immediately — almost automatically — become aware of the balance of power in the situation or relationship: “Hey, you work for me, so back off!” Or: “Wow, he is much bigger and drunker than I thought he was before I told him to shut up. Bad idea.” Or: “If you say one more insulting word to me, I will rally my fleet of attorneys to devote the rest of their careers to making you wish you had never met me.” Conflict puts power differences into focus.
   Similarly, power shifts and disparities in power often create conflict. Class conflicts, race conflicts, gender conflicts, generational conflicts — just about any intergroup conflict is essentially about power. When disadvantaged minority groups organize to demand their rights, it’s about power. When unions strike, it’s about power. At work, when people are demoted in rank, it creates conflict. Promotions too tend to stir envy and resentment, which often show up as conflict sooner or later.
   Understanding how conflict and power affect each other is vital to effective conflict management, but talking about power differences openly is still taboo in most places in society. It is almost wholly absent from discussions over work conflicts, negotiation planning, and even conflict-management trainings, despite the fact that most workplace conflicts are not between equals and ignoring power dynamics is absurd. It’s especially costly in today’s work environments, where 25–40 percent of managers’ time is spent mired in conflict with aggrieved board members, supervisors, clients, peers, and subordinates.1
   We have seen this power taboo in organizations we work with across the globe.
   The United Nations is an excellent case in point. To fulfill its mission of promoting international cooperation and peace, UN leadership and staff needed to understand and apply constructive conflict-resolution methods in their work. The UN’s human resources (HR) department contacted our International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution at Columbia University (usually referred to as the ICCCR) and asked for help developing a program of training for UN personnel, based on a model of collaborative negotiation originally created by ICCCR’s founder, Morton Deutsch.