When leaders see a recurring problem, the first fix they choose may be aimed at the wrong target. A new policy, a team meeting or a reorganization can look decisive while leaving the behavior that prompted it untouched. The question is whether the intervention matches the problem.
Here are four signs that conflict is being managed around rather than addressed.
1. The reorganization
Sometimes reporting lines need to change because strategy or work has changed. Other times, two executives cannot work together, so their teams are moved apart. A manager avoids addressing an employee’s behavior, so the employee is transferred. The boxes on the chart change, but the pattern travels with the people. As a consultant, I often look for hidden conflict by looking at when and how an organization decides to reorganize.
The solution: Before restructuring, ask: Is the structure blocking execution? Are decision rights unclear? Or is a conversation about behavior, trust or ownership overdue? If the problem is structural, fix the structure. If it belongs in a conversation, changing the chart will only relocate it.
2. The new policy
“The new policy isn’t working,” a manager says. But the policy may be perfectly clear. An employee still arrives late, ignores an approval step or misuses remote-work flexibility. The manager expected the written rule to change the behavior without having to address it. Putting a policy in writing does not relieve a leader of the work of leading.
Policies establish standards; managers have to apply them. That means noticing when expectations are missed, talking with the person involved, listening for obstacles and following through consistently.
The solution: If several people misunderstand the rule, clarify the policy. If one person repeatedly disregards it, have the individual conversation.
3. The global meeting
A leader calls a meeting with the entire team and says, “We all need to be more respectful in meetings.” The real issue is one disrespectful employee who repeatedly interrupts colleagues, rolls eyes and discounts ideas. The leader doesn’t have the courage to have a difficult conversation about behavior with the one person who needs coaching. The leader hopes the one person will take the hint. They never do. The conscientious employees wonder whether they did something wrong, while the person who needs the feedback ignores the message and assumes innocence.
The solution: Address a team pattern with the team. Address an individual behavior with the individual. That distinction reduces confusion and gives the employee a fair chance to understand and change what is happening.
4. The feedback sandwich
The leader opens with praise, slips in a concern and closes with another compliment: “You’re a valued member of the team. Several people have complained about how you speak to them, but I know you care about our success.” The leader wants to preserve the relationship, but the employee leaves without understanding the consequences of behavior.
The solution: Describe what you observed rather than relying on vague reports from others. Explain the business impact, ask for the employee’s perspective, state what needs to change and agree on when you will follow up.
Clarity gives both people something to work with.
Getting resolution
At the core, these four approaches, the reorganization, new policy, global message and feedback sandwich, attempt to resolve some type of friction. But these approaches are quick fixes that are not sustainable. In short, a conversation needs to happen but is not happening. As a result, execution eventually breaks.
When execution fails, managers often believe the core issue is accountability, but accountability is a lagging factor. Execution breaks at the conversation that should have happened but didn’t.
In my work, I share the alignment chain: clarity leads to conversation, conversation creates accountability and accountability protects execution.
Before taking action, identify what is actually happening and what should happen instead. Decide whether the issue is structural, widespread or specific to one person. Then ask who needs to be in the conversation and what you have been reluctant to say plainly.
When it comes to organizational conflict, the aim is not to confront every irritation. The objective is to choose an intervention that fits the problem. When the conflict is specific, the conversation should be specific, too.
Opinions expressed by SmartBrief contributors are their own.
Subscribe to SmartBrief’s FREE email newsletter on leadership. It’s among SmartBrief’s more than 250 industry-focused newsletters.