Conflict Resolution Made Simple
Disagreements happen. Especially in creative endeavours like the development of a videogame, it is to be expected that people have different opinions, and that conflict will occur. Not every conflict can be easily resolved, however, and unresolved conflicts tend to fester and lead to bigger problems down the line.
So how can we help our people to resolve conflicts quickly, peacefully and to everyone's satisfaction?
A simple conflict resolution model
In Reinventing Organizations, Fredric Laloux examines what he calls "Teal Organizations": organizations that have moved beyond the typical "command and control" structures and processes, and towards teams that are more self-directed.
One thing he notes is that most of these organizations train their people in a number of basic competencies to improve ability to work and problem solve independently. One of these competencies is conflict resolution. Additionally, he notes that most of these organizations use a codified process to help their people resolve conflicts, and that the steps to this process are virtually the same across organizations he examined.
In the book, he uses the example of tomato processing company Morning Star, and it struck me as a framework that would be just as useful in a game development setting.
Morning Star uses a very simple 4 step framework for conflict resolution, which they call the Direct Communication and Gaining Agreement process:
Step 1: Discuss the issue privately with the relevant colleague
In the first step, people are encouraged to discuss whatever issue they might have with the person they have an issue with. Codifying this step is incredibly important, as it embeds direct communication in your culture. Do this effectively, and it makes complaining about colleagues virtually impossible, as everyone will simply tell you to take it up with the person you have a problem with.
If you can't solve the problem and reach agreement this way, you move to step 2.
Step 2: Agree to have a colleague assist in resolving the issue
If two people can't work out their conflict between themselves, they have the option of asking a third party - who is appropriate for the issue at hand - to assist. I love the idea of baking this into your rules of engagement, as this undercuts the step most people tend to take when they have an issue, which is complain to their boss or the boss of their colleague. This way has several upsides:
- The explicit focus from the outset is on mutual agreement, not getting your way
- you have to both agree to get support, so there's no one-sided complaining - you are both aiming for a resolution, and you can look for the most appropriate person
- the most appropriate person might not be someone's manager, but can be someone with relevant expertise, or sometimes simply someone who is impartial to the problem at hand
If this still doesn't lead to a resolution, you move to step 3.
Step 3: Form a panel with 3-7 colleagues from the affected work environment or those with knowledge related to the issue
Getting more eyes on the issue means more potential solutions, and more people to provide a reality check. It also seems very natural to me that if two people can't figure out a way to resolve their conflict, the next step is to involve people that would be affected by their conflict.
The objective of this panel is not to force a resolution, but to support the two parties in resolving the conflict to their mutual satisfaction. If no agreement is reached in this step, preparations are made to move to the next step:
The issue is documented, and the disagreeing parties have to certify that the process for gaining agreement was followed. The document identifies any potential resolution options and who came out in support of each of these options. Everyone then signs the document, which is then forwarded to the company president for step 4.
Step 4: The President
In this step, the president of the company makes the final call based on the information made available to him. He will do so in one of three ways:
- Call a meeting with both parties and the panel;
- Decide the issue and provide a written summary of the decision to both parties;
- Designate a colleague to decide the issue
Taken together, this process acomplishes a number of things at the same time:
- It outlines exaclty what steps can and should be taken, in which order, when conflict arises
- It very explicitly keeps conflict resolution away from team managers, and puts the responsibility back on the shoulders of the people themselves.
- It gives a voice to the people who might be affected by the conflict
- It saves leadership intervention as the very last step, after all options have been exhausted. This is in contrast to most organizations, where the first instinct for many people is to go to someone with more power who might help settle the conflict in their favor.
Using this model in game studios
A couple of thoughts on using this in game development:
- This works best in environments with a lot of trust, where everyone can trust that their counterparty is genuinely looking for the best solution, not just to get their way at your expense.
- this is most powerful when adopted as official policy, and when everyone is vigilant that the process is not skirted. This way, everyone knows exactly what to expect and there are no power games, which can be enough to take the venom out of most disagreements.
- When you expect your people to solve their own disagreements, you should consider providing them with (non-violent) communication training to improve their odds of success.
- The 4th step might not have to be the studio president or CEO. Depending on your team size, it might make more sense to settle this with your department head. Not every dispute in a 400 person company should escalate from local all the way to company president.
If you liked this article, consider giving it some love on LinkedIn by liking it or reposting it to share with your network.
Press "S" to support!
Right Now
Playing - Pokopia
Who knew minecraft and pokemon would be such a wonderful combination? Everyone did, of course, so it's great that Nintendo has finally delivered.
Reading - Reinventing Organizations by Fredric Laloux
Very interesting book about the ways we can move beyond "command and control" type organizations.
Watching - Industry
Recently started watching Industry. It hits the same way for me as Succession did: there's not a single likeable person in this show about new recruits at a big UK bank, but I can't stop watching them stumble through one bad decision after another.
See you in two weeks!
Martijn
