4

The Triggers and Costs of Adversarial Factions

“People who are talking to you about others,
are talking to others about you.”

—Irish proverb

While teaching the following segment, more than one individual has burst out, “Why didn't someone tell me this before?!” Listening to the following material, many individuals find that the shoe does fit, and at some point in their careers, they have fallen into the trap of belonging to an adversarial faction.

In relationship to conflict escalation, “factions” have a negative connotation. Sometimes they're called power struggles or “politics.” They are not your friendly neighborhood group banding together to spruce up the park. Adversarial factions, the ones we're addressing in this chapter, exist to raise one's status at the expense of another person or group.

It is not malice that drives us to engage in some of the following behaviors. None of us were warned that seemingly innocent accusations will become toxic and spread, how easily bystanders will be drawn into the fray, how the other party will mirror our behaviors, how the visibility and stakes of the tension will increase, how we will lose control over the trajectory, and how we will find ourselves judged harshly by the organization as our personal vendettas hobble productivity.

In this book we're focusing on workplace conflict, but you can discern similar patterns in every group: families, schools, government, neighborhoods, faith communities, nations, and so on.

This chapter is a cautionary tale based on a synthesis of many conflicts I've worked to resolve. Individuals can spend days or years in any one of these stages.

When we are involved in a conflict it seems excruciatingly unique and personal, but in reality, it escalates in nine very predictable stages.

Stage One: Disagreement and disappointment

Let's name our two protagonists, Jada, the head of marketing and sales, and Martin, the head of operations. For many years, their work was interdependent; they updated each other constantly on their department initiatives and ideas for new markets and products. They enjoyed each other's company and relied on each other for support and feedback.

Since human nature is deeply flawed, an unfortunate event is inevitable. At a staff meeting, Martin interrupts and talks over Jada, and she finds his words disrespectful and insensitive.

Figure 4.1. Disagreement and disappointment. If Jada and Martin don't open the dialogue, their relationship is at risk.

If Jada is highly skilled, she might say something on the spot, or soon after the meeting, and give Martin an opportunity to apologize and make amends. However, because she's taken aback by Martin's behavior, she fails to make her feelings known.

In reality, Jada is hurt. But a few hours later, her primary emotion will convert to anger, and her initial reaction will morph into self-righteous indignation.

Stage Two: Avoidance

When tension builds between two individuals, avoiding the other person seem like a low-risk option. We revert to this strategy because dodging others can be seen as an effective ploy in our personal lives.

We have probably all ducked neighbors, relatives, or friends with whom we no longer wish to connect. In our personal lives avoidance can seem like a no-risk strategy without messy repercussions. We hope to avoid an awkward conversation, a confrontation, or an exchange that makes the situation worse.

However, in the workplace, avoidance is a catastrophe. Work is interdependent, and the attempt to isolate ourselves from colleagues, direct reports, leaders, vendors etc., carries unforeseen consequences.

When we stop communicating, we are forced to move ahead in relative isolation. Decisions are made under the pressure of tight deadlines without the benefit of the other person's expertise. The estrangement becomes known throughout the organization, and the tension becomes a source of widespread gossip. Avoidance draws scrutiny, and rather than evading the spotlight, we find ourselves in the attention bullseye. Let me say it again: despite the superficial effectiveness of avoidance in our personal lives, in the workplace, dodging a colleague is not a low-risk behavior.

Stage Three: “I need to vent”

Martin and Jada's work requires that they coordinate their efforts and knowledge, yet they are no longer sharing information or engaging in meaningful conversations. Instead of helping each other problem solve, they start to cover up work-related difficulties. Finding themselves in a bind with lots of questions and no access to answers, they turn to an old standby—assumptions. And because of the negativity bias of the brain, their speculation will most likely take on a mistrustful tone.

Jada starts ruminating over bothersome concerns, such as, “Why isn't Martin doing something about our product shortage? Why hasn't he filled those two vacant positions? Why did he exclude me from a meeting I used to attend?” Under normal circumstances, she would learn the reasons for all these worries. But she has cut off her conduit to answers.

Martin is busy speculating in a similar vein about Jada. His nagging concerns sound like, “Where was Jada all of yesterday afternoon? Does she understand our products well enough to represent us at the conference? Is she talking about me when she's golfing with customers?”

Figure 4.2. “I need to vent.” Since Jada and Martin are no longer communicating, their frustration mounts.

When we deal with the anxiety generated by doubting another person's motives, and simultaneously avoiding them, venting is a natural reaction. We have to talk to someone. Consequently, Martin and Jada both begin talking about each other rather than talking to each other.

There are many forms of venting, but for our purpose, let's focus on drama-venting and define it using three dynamics. Drama-venting is a form of First Assumption because it is personality based and exaggerated, plus it is subtly intended to convince others to agree with our opinion and eventually join our faction. Over time, both Jada and Martin are incentivized to use First Assumption to build support for their conclusion that the other person or department is the problem.

When individuals vent, they present a biased and incomplete version of events. In a drama-venting the listener typically supports the person who is upset, and consequently, the speaker receives validation for their views.

Validating the perspective of someone who is venting seems harmless, but it is actually quite problematic. When leaders vent to their direct reports, employees are reluctant to contradict their bosses, and leaders believe they are boosting staff support. Unfortunately, this shady validation further inflames their indignation, and each person makes it their mission to bring down the other leader.

Not long ago, the field of psychology was deeply invested in encouraging people to vent. There was a decade or two when clients were given plastic bats and a pillow and encouraged to beat out their frustration. But scholarly research has shown that venting really doesn't help—and it actually makes us more aggressive.

However, like many individuals, Jada and Martin have not gotten the message. Consequently, Martin seeks out a colleague to share his negative speculations about Jada.

Martin will analyze Jada using a familiar dynamic: focusing on Jada's personality and labeling her. Often when we label others, we're invested in justifying our own behaviors and fortifying our faction.

When we're upset, it does helps to problem solve with a trusted colleague. However, that's a Third Assumption conversation that sounds remarkably different. The alternative to drama-venting is to seek the counsel of a wise colleague to help us address the problem. Presenting a balanced and accurate review of the facts is critical. If we're looking too good (innocent and righteous) when telling the story, we're probably still in First Assumption.

The following is an example of the difference between these two approaches. First, let's look at a situation in a drama-venting framework, and then see how much the picture changes when Martin does not focus on Jada's personality, paint her with a broad brush of contempt, recruit a faction member, or ignore his part in their flare-up.

In a drama-venting approach, Martin seeks out his colleague Raul. “Raul, do you have a minute? You won't believe what Jada did!”

Raul: “Nothing Jada does surprises me.”

Martin: “This morning I presented an overview of our production schedule to the board based on Jada's sales figures. But halfway through my presentation, she interrupted and said, ‘Martin, I think you are using sales estimates from the wrong quarter.’”

Raul: “Seriously?! What did you do?”

Martin: “It was incredibly awkward. I mumbled something about checking the data and getting back to the group by email. It was so embarrassing, and I'm pretty sure Jada kind of enjoyed it. Do you have problems with her too?”

Raul: “Seriously, dude, we all have problems with her. In fact, I heard that everyone in her department has checked out. They are so caught up in creating our digital presence they barely show up for the nitty-gritty of our operations meetings.”

Martin: “I totally get it. Glad it's not just me. Well, I've got to run. Do you want to grab some pizza after work?”

Raul: “Sure. Maybe we can figure out how to take Jada down a peg.”

Martin: “Awesome. Thanks, buddy!”

Let's walk through the same scenario using Third Assumption and a more analytical, problem-solving approach. Martin seeks out a trusted colleague and steps into his office.

Martin: “Raul, do you have a minute? I'm blown away by something that happened this morning at the board meeting.”

Raul: “Really? I know that meeting was an opportunity for you to become more visible.”

Martin: “I presented an overview of our production schedule based on Jada's sales figures. But halfway through she interrupted me and said, ‘Martin, I think you're using the estimates from the first quarter, not second.’”

Raul: “Seriously?! Epic catastrophe!”

Martin: “Well I mumbled something about getting back to everyone after I checked the figures. And here's the worst part. When I pulled up the data, she was right!”

Raul: “No! How are you going to recover from that blunder?”

Martin: “Well, I'll talk to Jada first, and maybe we can figure out a reasonable next step. I am going to ask her if she'd coauthor an email to the board, with the correct data and a new schedule. I think it would create a sense of unity between Jada and me, rather than me sending it out and copying her.”

Raul: “Great idea. I think that's a really classy way to go. Jada might also agree to coach you a bit on how they create projections. She is really good at what she does.”

Martin: “If you have time, would you give me feedback on the first draft of the email?”

Raul: “No problem. Bring your laptop, and we'll grab some pizza after work.”

The latter response will strengthen Martin's relationship with Jada; he will look polished in the eyes of the board, and he will gain the advantage of using her skills to improve his expertise.

Martin's first attempt had the potential to destroy his relationship with his colleague and forfeit an opportunity to grow his competencies.

There's also a hidden cost to Martin's First Assumption approach. When he was drama-venting, Raul went along with the Jada bashing, but Raul learned that Martin is a backstabber.

Raul will stop sharing his problems with Martin, and he might warn others that Martin throws his colleagues under the bus when they disagree.

Stage Four: Adversarial factions form

Factions are fascinating. The only person who doesn't typically belong to a faction is the CEO or president of the company. Individuals at the top of the hierarchy have access to enough data and information. The rest of us join alliances across the organization that supply us with chatter, speculation, and information leaks. Gossip is the currency of factions.

Figure 4.3. Factions form. Jada and Martin are building a group of loyalists at the expense of the other person.

Most of us belong to more than one faction, and we slip in and out depending on who we're with and the nature of our goals. The boundaries of factions are permeable, and sometimes allegiance to a specific faction is painfully short lived and can shift from conversation to conversation.

In the workplace, criticism of another person or department may be subtle, such as eye-rolling or an off-handed comment such as, “What can you expect?” Or it might be quite detailed and openly derogatory. This kind of negative speculation is some of the hottest gossip in organizations. It's been the source of many invitations to “close the door,” so individuals can complain about others with impunity, or without fear of being overheard.

Stage Five: Negative speculation spreads and reaches the target

The worst is yet to come. After Raul and Martin's conversation, Raul has juicy gossip about their coworker, Jada. He runs into Becky, and with a slight twinge of conscience, Raul shares the conversation he just had with Martin. Perhaps he even embellishes what Martin said.

Figure 4.4. “Nasty!” Negative speculation and labeling leak between factions.

Becky will pass the negative speculation to another person, who will pass it along yet again. Eventually, the gossip gets back to the “target.” When Jada learns what Martin is saying behind her back, she feels betrayed. She has lost trust in Martin and from here forward she will doubt anything he says. She emails Martin and cancels the meeting they had set up for that afternoon. Imagine the cost of this standoff!

Jada will attempt to change the organization's narrative about which person is more at fault for their estrangement. She will try to defend her reputation and status, and build her own faction for validation and support. Martin is matching her behavior step-by-step.

Jada and Martin are playing with fire. Social scientists have identified a curious phenomenon called the social evaluation threat (SET). SET is the fear that an important aspect of ourselves will be judged negatively by others. We worry that we will be powerless to protect our reputation and status from harm.

Similar to the negativity bias of the brain, this deeply seated apprehension can be traced to the hunting and gathering days. If you were ostracized during the time of this formative epoch, it meant certain death. We could not survive without the protection of our clan. Hence, we have significant anxiety about being judged negatively by the people around us, and they have anxiety about being judged by us. This apprehension is both the backdrop to, and kindling for, the explosive nature of workplace gossip.

Figure 4.5. Both Jada and Martin feel betrayed when mean-spirited comments are conveyed back to them.

Martin, Jada, Raul, and Becky use negative speculations about others to attract loyalists, and to advance and protect their careers. Unknowingly, they are triggering an escalation of a small disagreement into a widening crisis over which they will now lose control.

Stage Six: Mistrust spreads to their groups

Whenever I listen to the stories of escalation, I'm struck by how distorted their speculations have become in contrast to the core decency of the individuals involved. They are loving parents, conscientious workers, and often morally mature human beings. Yet they are blind to the reality that although they feel like innocent victims, they are behaving like bullies. They inflame and misrepresent their case against the other party to justify their own behaviors.

At the end of a seminar, a professor approached me and said quietly, “You know what my takeaway is? I realized that although I've been exquisitely sensitive to people who have hurt me, I've been totally oblivious to the people I've hurt.” What an eloquent insight into the bully/victim dynamic! Jada and Martin's behavior is driven by fear. They cannot discern that they are locked in a battle of their own making, in which they are equally complicit.

Because Jada and Martin are both leaders, it is highly likely they're venting to their direct reports. Despite facilitating hundreds of conflicts, only once have I worked with two managers who, prior to my arrival, made a mutual commitment to not draw others into their quarrel. Leaders are often under the illusion that they are bonding their team when they denigrate others. There are always plenty of differences to pull teams apart: team members disagree politically, they may be at loggerheads about the direction of the company, or they might squabble over work distribution. Bonding by denigrating a targeted group or individual seems to provide a moment of welcomed unity.

Direct reports are vulnerable to becoming faction members because they are eager to please and align with the boss. Once they sense tension between Jada and Martin, they want to do their part to protect their department. Employees start to bring leaders incomplete or prejudicial information designed to inflame the group's outrage. After all, this steady stream of gossip is the essential glue for factions. In the past, Martin and Jada might have dismissed negative speculation about the other party, but now cynical interpretations are welcomed and rewarded.

Martin might use his negative speculation not only to bond with his team but also to explain away his group's poor quarterly performance, or his blunder in front of the board. Some employees realize that tension with the other department might be used to their advantage. Just as Martin can explain away his misstep in front of the board by blaming Jada, employees will use the same strategy to justify their poor performance.

If Martin and Jada allow this rationalization to continue, they will soon face the declining performance of both teams. Now the stakes are much, much higher.

Stage Seven: Elevate

Jada is at her wits' end. Not only is she collecting evidence of misconduct in operations, her faction members are also validating her concerns. Performance is deteriorating in both departments—not only because Martin and Jada no longer share information, but also because their teams are constantly distracted by the escalating tension.

Finally, Jada has had enough, and she insists on seeing Shawn, the VP, in a preemptive strike. Jada's accusations about Martin's shenanigans are very compelling because she truly believes her version of the facts, and Jada has validation from a variety of sources! Her anxiety-laden bottom line to Shawn is: “You must do something! We all agree!”

Figure 4.6. Elevate. “Boss, you have to do something!”

The VP is in a tough spot. When leaders are caught in the middle, they vacillate between shock that the situation has deteriorated so badly and concern that the employee's version of events is accurate. Cornered, and without a plan, most leaders will try to placate the complainer, weakly encourage Jada to talk to Martin, and rely on platitudes such as, “You're both valuable. Can't you just get along?”

Given that the organization is hypervigilant about this conflict, it won't be long before Martin learns that Jada was in a closed-door meeting for two hours with Shawn. What a threat!

He will contact Shawn and request a meeting at once! Martin is panicking and realizes he must meet with Shawn before she has a chance to spread Jada's concerns among the organization's leaders.

Martin presents a vastly different version of the story to Shawn, but he has the same basic demand. Again, the legitimacy of his interpretations are boosted by the fact that Martin believes his version of reality. “Everyone agrees that marketing is full of outliers. Shawn, you must do something. We've tried everything! We all agree!”

In my experience, leaders are totally unprepared for these situations (and subsequently, this is the topic of a popular Thera Rising seminar Conflict-Savvy Leader®). Being caught in the middle, between two direct reports, is not fun. Resolving a Stage Seven conflict requires specialized training and a fail-proof process.

However, in the moment, Shawn is adrift. She may stall, try to understand without agreeing, or explain to Martin why Jada feels the way she does. All of these reactions will fail.

If the conflict stalls at Stage Seven, Martin and Jada will carry ill will against each other for the rest of their careers. Without a skilled facilitator, the tension between them, and their departments, will fester.

Stage Eight: Termination

This unresolved, and now widespread, tension sets up the eighth stage. Shawn may reluctantly conclude that she has to terminate one of the leaders. The one she chooses can be based on subjective or objective rationale. The VP's decision may be influenced by other stakeholders, or she might decide based on who is more articulate, persuasive, or valuable.

Or, caught in a bind and not able to decipher who bears more of the responsibility for their power struggle, the VP may decide based purely on her personal affinity.

Shawn might have an unconscious bias toward Jada because they golf together, and after a few restless nights, she decides that her least painful option is to fire Martin. As word spreads throughout the organization, reactions will range from outrage and shock to relief and exhilaration. Martin's faction members are certain the organization will implode, but Jada's supporters are quietly thrilled.

Figure 4.7. “Unfortunately for you . . .”

Stage Nine: From afar and in the bar

I originally thought there were eight stages to escalated conflict. But working at a university, I discovered that the “Martins” of the world don't let go and go away.

Put yourself in Martin's shoes, and you'll see immediately that it would be almost impossible for him to accept his termination. The nightmare of the “social evaluation threat” has become his reality. Martin will continue to linger at the periphery of the organization. He will stay in contact with his former loyalists and hope that, with their help, he can discredit Jada. Martin hopes that Shawn will eventually realize she terminated the wrong person. He is intent in fanning the flames of discontent.

Martin and his entourage don't meet in a coffee shop or bowling alley. These small groups of disgruntled employees almost invariable meet in a bar—the perfect venue for negative speculation, ridicule of the target, and alcohol-fueled bonding. Energized by the terminated person's indignation, these alliances can continue for years. Unfortunately, most organizations are oblivious to these covert meetings and powerless to intervene.

Avoid these self-defeating mistakes

There is tremendous benefit to seeing the nine stages in print. As I mentioned at the onset of this chapter, there is dead silence when we cover this section in the seminar, because almost everyone has been caught up in a version of the nine stages sometime during their careers.

No one warned us about the hidden costs of faction building. No one said, “When you disagree, don't withdraw, don't vent, and don't build a group of loyalists at someone else's expense. These behaviors will destroy your reputation and your relationships; you will lose control over how this situation ends, and the fallout will interfere with your chances of promotion. You will be seen as someone who is willing to bankroll drama at the expense of solutions.”

However, from here forward, we can all learn to avoid these common mistakes. We can commit to the absolute necessity of talking to people rather than about them.

In Chapter Ten, we'll explore a powerful template to accomplish this goal.