Best Practices for Conflict Prevention in a High-Stress Work Environment

Over the past year, SMBs, SMEs and Large enterprises have had to make changes, both fundamentally and incrementally, to their business models due to the limitations and challenges presented by the global COVID-19 pandemic.

The pandemic has highlighted which functions and attributes of the workplace are irreplaceable and which characteristics can be minimized or modified to accommodate our “new” socially distant/remote work environment.

You may not be able to control input but you can control output.

In a high-stress work environment, the stimuli causing the stress are both internal and external, and while you cannot control external factors, you can almost always control the internal ones. I will provide two examples, one as experienced in the legal field and one as experienced in the medical field. What is often common about these experiences is the recipients’ ability to be aware of the energy directed towards them and the ability to reflect upon and in many ways change the energy flowing out/ coming from the “recipient”.

This example can be applied throughout one’s life, however, it is most valuable in the workplace because of the fact that the workplace requires coordination of people with different habits, experiences, social upbringings to work together towards a common goal. Oftentimes these “colleagues” and “co-workers” do not have sufficient time to understand each others’ habits and methods of communication, and therefore people may not be able to comprehend or translate behavior in a meaningful way.

Social groups (e.g. friends) usually benefit from similar interests, behaviour and socializing not to mention the length of acquaintance which allows communication techniques to be fairly compatible within the same circle.

Family interactions benefit from the length of interaction and familiarity which allows people, even those who may not communicate in the same manner or fashion, to acknowledge through repetition or habit, how a particular person may interact.

Oftentimes workplace environments attempt to foster these conditions through social interaction inside and outside of the workplace. These quasi-mandated workplace social gatherings may or may not be successful depending on the type of co-workers. The purpose of the quasi-social co-worker gathering is to develop camaraderie among peers with the hope that if colleagues care for each other they will more likely help each other out in the workplace tasks and thus build stronger teams.

Although these efforts help to artificially bridge the gap between people, who outside of work, may never interact with each other, it is nevertheless important to help each individual address their own specific work environment.

A case study in a Legal setting

In my experience at a medium-sized law firm, the office was divided into teams based on a senior partner. Our firm was set up so that a Senior Attorney (usually a named Partner) would have a number of associate attorneys under him/her. The attorneys would be grouped together and share support staff (e.g. paralegals, secretary, etc.)

In my experience in the legal field, specifically in litigation, factors out of the control of the partners are often the triggering event that sets into motion the flow of energy in any given scenario. Sometimes these ‘triggering’ events are small and the chain reaction is fairly short-lived or brief (imagine a partner misplacing his keys or some other trivial matter). In other cases, the ‘external trigger’ would be an adverse court order or negative trial outcome.

What is important in any business or undertaking is the ability for the person with a supervisory role (position of authority) to constantly and consistently dissect the external factors which create the negative energy from the top (in my legal example: order from the court, determination by the mediator, a negative report from 3rd party as to the position of the client) into what is controllable/ can be changed and what cannot. It is a fairly simple exercise, but in order for it to be effective in alleviating a stressful work environment, it must but continuously adopted.

In my example, the partner must utilize their skill and expertise to place the client in the best situation but often times the negative outcome which is the initial triggering factor creating the stressful environment is wholly controlled by a party outside of the partner/leader’s control.

It is imperative that companies that seek to cultivate a healthy work environment incorporate into their training and hiring process, an element of mindful reflection. Oftentimes employees with supervisory/ authority roles create teams that reflect their healthy or unhealthy habits when it comes to addressing negative outcomes.

Take, for example, a judge’s negative ruling on a matter. A partner will undoubtedly be upset by this negative determination. This can be broadly based upon two possibilities, (1) the partner/ team’s understanding and analysis of the situation was improper or poor thus leading to unreasonable expectations or (2) his/her preparation as the matter was insufficient and did not persuade the judge. In the first scenario, the issue is resolved by making an adjustment in one’s understanding of the underlying issue, in the second scenario the leader must deconstruct where during the chain of preparation, did the team fall short.

Both scenarios are driven by setting a reasonable expectation as to the outcome and being prepared to accept an adverse outcome.

Diversity in the workplace allows for different perspectives which guards against the unanticipated outcome. 

A related aspect to having reasonable expectations of an outcome and open-mindedness to accept an adverse outcome also relies on having a diverse set of voices in all aspects of a workflow. Diversity in the workplace is popular in all markets as it allows for better representation of experiences. In its own way having diverse workplace guards against being blindsided by unanticipated results by broadening the spectrum of input from various experiences, backgrounds and ideas.

In the event a negative outcome occurs, incorporating a workplace policy of resolve vs. revise to move forward in growth. 

In either of the scenarios, the next step is crucial in not passing on the perceived “negative” result to the team. If the result is not what is desired or anticipated, it is imperative that the leader not seek to lay blame or fault on a team member. It is perfectly acceptable to blame, processes, structure or external factors as that will strengthen the resolve of the team to determine the best way to either avoid the negative outcome or properly anticipate the outcome. It is rarely ever beneficial to lay blame on an individual unless there is a complete breakdown of an individual’s responsibility. Whether or not that is deserved is irrelevant. There is a fine line in diagnosing a shortcoming and addressing it and laying blame for a failure. Within that difference is the chasm between a conscious leader and a boss.

A case study in a Medical setting

Similarly, in the Surgery Center example, stress management comes from an understanding of what can be controlled and what can’t be controlled. This is applicable across fields and in professional and personal settings. At our facility, due to the constantly changing nature of patients’ health, doctors’ and staff scheduling, the surgery centre is required to constantly adjust to match the needs of the doctors, patients, and staffing. In doing so oftentimes the doctors will not have their ideal set up (e.g. time of the surgery, particular staffing requests, specific supplies or equipment). Due to the high-intensity nature of the surgery, doctors are known to lash out at staffing. This causes a chain reaction of negative energy transferring from patient to doctor, from doctor to staff, and so on and so forth.

At any given level of the transfer of energy, it can be stopped with an acknowledgment and understanding both up and down the chain by deconstructing the issue and determining whether the expectations were reasonable and for what reason did they fall short.

EXAMPLES