Striking a Balance
155,000 Canadian federal government workers are on strike.
Let me say upfront that I’m not anti-strike and I’m not anti-union. I’m just an observer. Hear me out!
Labour strikes are nothing new. The first recorded labour strike dates back to ancient Egypt. I’m talking 1152 BC, when workers went on strike to protest lack of compensation.
So by my rough math (using a calculator), humans have advocated for labour changes the same way for….3,175 years.
Undeniably, a lot has changed in those intervening years. So why do we still strike?
Put simply, we strike because it works. A strike escalates conflict in a way that necessitates a response.
A strike starts out as two sides in conflict, but it soon involves more than those two sides.
A picket line is visible, so the public has awareness. Services cease, traffic is disrupted, and the public is otherwise affected enough to chime in with calls for a resolution. Workers who voted against a strike face consequences if they don’t participate.
The conflict spreads far and wide, so to speak.
Usually, the opposing sides come back together and negotiate a settlement. Then everyone goes back to work.
I am not here to talk about how this strike could be resolved or even how it could have been avoided. I only use the strike as an example of high conflict, which is something you want to avoid at work.
The conflict at your work may never escalate to this point, but a strike has elements you don’t want to show up in the conflicts that do exist.
Here are some factors you’ll want to watch out for:
Clearly defined groups of “us” vs “them”.
Opposing sides who describe themselves as reasonable and the other side as unreasonable or untrustworthy.
Either side using language or behaviour designed to draw more people into the conflict.
At your work, a worst case scenario can come to life when these factors are ignored and the conflict lingers or gets forgotten until it flares up again down the road.
If the conflict is not ignored, some neutral party or representative usually takes the lead. Maybe the boss unilaterally decides what to do. Or maybe lawyers start negotiating with one another.
But when representatives take over for the affected person or group, things can get lost in translation, so to speak.
The issues are often oversimplified, misunderstood or misstated. When that happens, neither side can really hear what the other is trying to say.
When either side feels unheard, they are less likely to reevaluate ideas, acknowledge inconsistencies or make concessions.
And it’s harder to listen when the message doesn’t arrive directly from the source.
It can get even worse if the representative starts making the decisions on behalf of the affected groups.
That’s why, I always suggest we all get in the same room.
Obviously, that isn’t workable for groups of 155,000 people. But like I said, this isn’t about the current strike.
I’m talking about the conflict in your business. Conflict with your clients, suppliers and within your teams.
For early, healthy and meaningful conflict resolution, those who are directly involved should be at the table. So it can start with a conversation.
By conversation, I mean actual two-way dialogue and a willingness to learn. I do not mean threats of consequences, threats of legal action or some other mans to weaponize with words.
When that conversation happens, people start to feel better even while they continue to disagree. Because when people feel heard, the conflict is healthy.
By continuing to disagree in that manner, you can find out what the real issues are. How those issues impact the people involved. Why that impact is a problem. And how best to move forward together or separately, even if there are potential negative consequences to discuss at this point.
Healthy conflict is not about maintaining the status quo. It’s about making change that makes sense.
As many of us know, things make sense when we understand them. And that’s much more possible when we listen to the people involved.