The employer-employee relationship has faced significant challenges recently, including a severe pandemic, frequent market fluctuations and rapid technological changes and disruptions. This period has been difficult on both employees and employers. It has also led to a range of ‘avoidant’ behaviours and attitudes trending on social media, such as quiet quitting, its managerial equivalent quiet firing, coffee badging, rage-applying, and virtual layoffs, to name a few. What’s common about these trends is that they’re examples of people and organisations tackling problems in passive-aggressive ways instead of discussing them openly and transparently.
The precise financial costs of silent conflicts are hard to measure. However, sustained conflict in any organisation undermines productivity, morale, wellbeing and customer experience. That is why some of the most successful businesses cultivate meaningful conflict – Jeff Bezos, for instance, is a fan of ‘disagree and commit’, or the concept that people can debate and dissent during the decision-making process, but once the decision is made, they must jointly own the plan and the consequences that follow.
From the vantage point of a seasoned HR professional, I’d like to share some views on the causes and consequences of silent (or hidden) conflict within teams, and how it can be resolved effectively.
Why does silent conflict emerge?
I was once part of a pedigreed organisation that had set up a division for investing in new-age companies. Several young Ivy-league graduates were hired for this division. However, issues soon cropped up because of the drastically different working styles of the experienced leaders, who were more measured in their ways, and the young candidates who favoured a ‘move fast and break things’ approach. Neither group directly addressed this issue with the other or with the top management. With both sides viewing each other with distrust and resentment, things eventually came to a stalemate.
The above is an example of intergenerational conflict. However, there are many other causes of silent conflict. Ambiguity of roles (which is more common in start-ups) can lead to people inadvertently treading on each others’ toes. Reporting to multiple managers can lead to frustration arising from communication or alignment gaps. Then there are the pressures of high-growth environments, where people are under constant stress to “do or die”.
To summarise, conflict is inevitable in any dynamic environment. But the real issue is the lack of an outlet for these conflicts. People and teams only internalise stress when their leaders haven’t done enough to create safe workplaces where they feel free to be authentic and honest.
How unaddressed conflict hurts workplaces
Before getting to the solution, let’s touch upon the consequences of unaddressed conflict. A 2022 report by The Myers-Briggs Company found that employees, on average, spend 4+ hours a week dealing with conflict. And 22% of the respondents said that their manager handled conflict poorly.
Mismanaged conflict can have serious consequences. It reduces the wellbeing of individuals and teams, who feel unable to voice their concerns without punishment or humiliation. It can lead to anxiety, lessen job satisfaction, and increase absenteeism and attrition. Silent conflict can cause affected people or teams to avoid contact. Aggrieved parties may even try to ‘get back’ at the other in subtle ways, such as by being uncooperative or sharing wrong information.
It’s not difficult to see, therefore, why unaddressed conflict has serious repercussions on team mental health and productivity; product/service quality; and the brand image of the organisation.
Tackling ‘silent conflict’ wisely
To start, organisations must introspect on whether their culture encourages open expression. Let’s be clear: the job of leaders and the HR team is not to end conflict (that is neither desirable nor possible). Instead, the goal should be to make cultural and systemic changes that: a) welcome different views as long as they are respectful and genuine; and b) create mechanisms for building consensus in this plurality of views.
The first step has to do with organisational culture. And that is driven by two things:
1. Clearly articulated values: The company’s values must spell out the importance of an equal and diverse workplace. For instance, Yulu’s values emphasise workplace equity, the importance of acknowledging our own biases, and of respecting our colleagues regardless of the position they hold. In the absence of clear values that encourage diverse viewpoints, people will toe the line set by leaders or managers, even if they have strong reasons to disagree with the latter on specific issues.
2. Actions of leaders: Culture always starts at the top. Through word and action, leaders must demonstrate that no one will be harassed or punished for genuine and polite disagreement, and that the organisation will back unconventional views or ideas as long as they move the discussion, and the organisation, forward.
At the structural level, organisations must create mechanisms to identify and resolve conflicts promptly and satisfactorily. Employers can run awareness campaigns about the mechanisms available to employees who want to be heard or who need support to deal with protracted conflicts. In serious cases, a detailed RCA (root cause analysis) intervention may be necessary.
In addition, companies can offer workshops on topics like bias training, healthy emotional self-expression and collaborative problem-solving. Managers and leaders must be sensitised on detecting and addressing hidden conflict in their teams. By implementing these measures, employees will gain the tools they need to reframe conflict in more positive terms and realise that it can unlock new ideas and avenues of personal wellbeing and organisational growth.
(The authored is written exclusively for BW People publication, by Rupini Raman, Head HR, Yulu)
_20241031122721_original_image_34.webp)
