The 4 ‘Cs’
What conflict resolution frameworks tell us about leadership qualities and leaders’ needs.
According to popular culture, conflictual situations can reveal leadership. It is when circumstances are adverse, parties opposed, and interests blurry, that we find the best in ourselves.
Whether or not we adhere to this heroical myth, it is true that challenges are a valuable source of information and, if we are able to manage them safely and consciously, of learning. Indeed, conflict management frameworks put the emphasis on various leadership qualities useful beyond their reach. These qualities are encapsulated in the four ‘Cs’:
Facilitating Convergence – learning from the ‘dual concern model’.
The ‘dual concern model’ challenges leaders beyond fight or flight responses to conflictual situations. Effective collaborators go beyond compromise and the ability to strike a give-and-take deal by being able to assert their own needs and consider the needs of other parties simultaneously.
Bringing Clarity – learning from the Harvard program on negotiations (PON).
Effective collaboration is the bedrock of value-creation in the Harvard PON. With it comes the possibility to clarify parties’ perceptions, interests, options, alternatives, and criteria to assess it all. Yet, maximising value-creation requires resisting the urge to rush into problem-solving and risk overlooking relevant underlying interests or harming relationship dynamics.
Ensuring Consistency – learning from mediation models.
Effective process management is the key to bringing people together as a team of problem-solvers, focusing on different aspects depending on the phase of the process one finds herself in. From reframing key issues to outlining an agenda and options, mediating leaders will focus on a sense of ownership of the solution by all parties; this is a key ingredient to its sustainability.
Raising Consciousness – learning from intercultural conflict models.
Ownership depends on parties’ perception of the fairness of the solution and the problem-solving process in general. Yet, the understanding of what is fair and acceptable depends on organisational cultures. Effective leaders are able to navigate different cultural contexts and avoid being dogmatic.
“How can leaders develop the necessary qualities to achieve this?”, asked the Mouse.
Obviously, training in and practicing conflict resolution, or following one or several of the approaches described above, can be helpful. Their benefits are twofold:
On the one hand, they will help leaders develop methodologies and toolkits to analyse situations with complementary angles as opposed to classic management practices, thereby developing their collaborative skills.
On the other hand, getting familiarised with the principles underlying those approaches can help leaders understand that collaboration is not so much a moral impediment as it is a practical one. With it, one can manage emotions, maximise value creation, rally people, and ensure the sustainability of outcomes.
In the process, leaders will likely gain awareness of their own leadership style, depending on which school of thought or line of practice comes more naturally, revealing the ability to foster convergence, clarity, consistency, or consciousness as defining leadership traits.
At the same time, our ability to leverage such strength(s) will be informed by our reactions to conflictual situations. Clarity, convergence, consistency, or consciousness are also personal needs from leaders, potentially hindering their ability to navigate challenging situations. Hence, ambiguous people will be difficult to handle for clarity-seeking leaders, just as competitive personalities might be for convergence-seeking ones.
Indeed, all conflict management practices warn us of the risks of rushing into solutions, compromises, or any situation that would prevent leaders tapping into the transformative potential of conflicts because they were confronted by their own limits.
In other words, conflict management frameworks convey that leadership is not so much about being a leader in times of trouble, as it is becoming a leader through adversity. Hence, every leadership journey entails relieving control of the journey itself. A frightening and liberating paradox all at once.
Baptiste Raymond - 04/2022.