Walk into an office of any company or organization and it’s there, quietly seizing unwitting victims into its grasp. At first glance, the malady is not obvious. But spend a month or two in the environment and you start to see debilitating signs of the Namby-Pamby Syndrome.
The heart of the syndrome is communication, or lack thereof, particularly interpersonal communication. Rather than being proactive and dealing directly with conflict, employees and management prefer to ignore problems and challenges. Working with colleagues should be invigorating, inspiring, and enjoyable. Yet, office relationships can sour quickly. That is a far cry from a job seeker’s hopes to find the perfect place to work. There are few perfect jobs. An adage says, “If you find the perfect job, don’t work there,” suggesting that the individual would make the environment imperfect.
In an article on Zippia’s website, Jack Flynn noted there will always be workplace conflicts, ranging from fellow employees to management. He says research showed that nearly 40-percent of conflicts were related to communication problems. Jennifer Herrity, writing on Indeed, says conflict can happen whenever people interact. Given the ubiquitous presence of conflict, the million-dollar question is, “How do you deal with those situations?”
The present article discusses the different ways people manage conflict. It focuses on Herrity’s article that presents the five approaches to conflict in the Thomas-Kilmann model: avoiding, competing, accommodating, collaborating, and compromising.
Avoiding
Dodging workplace conflict is a big part of the Namby-Pamby Syndrome. As Conflict Avoidance Theory states, people agree with anything to avoid conflict. According to the Flynn article discussed earlier, research showed that just over three-quarters of employees use this method to deal with conflict at work. A oneAdvanced website article stated that people want to belong and, therefore, stay away from conflicts. It’s like the notion of having a pink elephant in the room. Everyone attempts to ignore the situation, despite the animal’s presence. Left unresolved, the conflict grows rather than ends.
Competing
This response to conflict pits one worker against another. It creates a stalemate with one party believing their position is non-negotiable. As the assertive person digs in their heels, progress on a project grinds to a halt. You might be familiar with the idea of someone being willing “to die on that hill” to get their way. The competing approach is that person. They win a lot of battles, but never the war. This aspect of Namby-Pamby syndrome sides with some employees over others.
Accommodating
There is nothing wrong with accepting another person’s ideas. It can be healthy for a work setting when someone yields to a coworker. The problem is the person who consistently believes their ideas are never as good as someone else’s. Advocating for handling a project their way might have introduced creative elements or processes that might have saved their company money or time.
Collaborating
Workers who use this method of conflict resolution experience the best of both worlds. Their contributions to the discussion are welcomed by others, while also recognizing that colleagues’ input is equally valuable. Participants each bring individual experiences and knowledge to the table, resulting in an outcome that incorporates the best ideas from different perspectives. To avoid the Namby-Pamby Syndrome, this approach needs to be intentional. Management should be an active, supportive part of the process rather than only giving lip service to team cooperation.
Compromising
This form of conflict resolution sounds good in principle but can affect the product and the people who work on the task. It can decrease quality, shorten essential discussions, and reduce creativity. The caution is the idea of sacrificing the best for good in the name of compromise. This solution to conflict can keep a task moving ahead. However, Herrity says compromise should be a temporary fix, but only for the short term.
Summary
The seemingly easiest approach to workplace conflict is to avoid a problem, but that does not resolve the issue. Instead, it becomes like a dam in a river that will eventually reach its breaking point. Company morale is destroyed, people avoid each other, and employees continue being disgruntled or leave the organization. Competing can also create worker discontent, feeling they could never measure up to another person. Employees should not compare themselves with other workers who have different skills and knowledge. Individuals have different backgrounds, years of experience, and knowledge of systems. Admittedly, companies that produce goods have positive competition between sales staff that result in such rewards as bonuses and trips. However, employers do their staff a disservice when they attempt to “motivate” workers by comparing one person to another.
The other three options for dealing with conflict are certainly better. As noted in the above discussion, accommodating is a better approach and can be necessary for a group. However, participants can accommodate to the extent that they might easily give up input that could be highly effective for the company. The same concerns could be applied to compromising in that some employees are more focused on getting along rather than product quality. Collaboration is the best option. It can allow each employee or team member to participate based on their skills and knowledge. That means each person is seen as valuable to the process and organization.
When confronted with workplace conflict, consider which of the four approaches your employees most often use. Good communication does not happen on its own. Rather, it is achieved by intentional effort by everyone from management to departments to work groups.