Better way to think about conflicts

What’s the hardest conflict you’ve ever encountered at your work?

It’s hard to avoid conflicts, but there are various ways in which we could mitigate conflict as much as possible. As a product person, apart from keeping the team running, working with stakeholders, shipping successful products, you’re also tasked with resolving conflicts. As Feynman once said, ‘Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings’. While dealing with people and emotions, It takes time and effort to identify conflicting situations in advance, and to nip them in the bud if possible. And this requires expertise maneouvring the field space of ‘feelings’.

My first line of thinking was to look at conflict in two major buckets. You have task conflicts. These are arguments over specific ideas and opinions (eg. “What should we eat for dinner?”). The second bucket can be termed as a relationship conflict. These are personal feuds and arguments (eg. “You are mean!”). Task conflicts are almost always beneficial, and can help the business lead to better outcomes, but they might also tread the path of turning into relationship conflict. This is when it gets ugly. I’ve struggled in the past deciphering events before they turn ugly, and was looking for examples from how product leaders approached it.

Recently, while researching about design patterns surrounding conversational AI, I came across this unique pattern called as conversational implicature. It’s an example wherein humans don’t always mean what they say, or say what they mean. A lot of it is implied, and in the context of a conversation, the AI should draw the larger context of the entire chat thread, before making an observation. For example, if customers are complaining: “I’m not able to get online”, as well as “I think my internet is broken”, they’re indicating that “lack of internet is a problem”. While researching about this pattern of human behavior, I realised that we are good at “knowing” what the other person wants. We don’t need people to use a specific set of words for us to understand. A lot of conflict resolution is around “knowing” what a person wants or needs.

Graciously borrowing ideas from Paloma Medina and Sasha Laundy, I use the BICEPS framework for identifying budding conflicts. This serves as a checklist to understand and prepare for the worst case scenario, especially when there is an important change, knowing how this might affect people is important.

How might this change upset people?

Core Needs: BICEPS
There are six core needs researchers find are important for humans (both at work and in our personal lives). Each of us have a personal hierarchy for the six however: You might find that equity and belonging are most important to you, but choice and status are most important to your employee, your partner, your child.  Getting to know them is a shortcut to better communication, as well as greater inclusivity at work. 

Paloma Medina https://www.palomamedina.com/biceps

In these scenarios, I run it through the BICEPS list:

Belonging

• Do team members feel a sense of community?
• Is there a focus on overall team well-being?
• Are there strong connections between team members?

Improvement

• Is there visible progress towards important goals?
• Can team members see how their work impacts others positively?
• Are there opportunities for personal growth and skill development?

Choice

• Do team members have flexibility in their work?
• Is there clear ownership and autonomy in specific areas?
• Can team members make decisions about matters important to them?

Equality/Fairness

• Is access to resources (time, money, space) equitable?
• Is relevant information shared transparently with all team members?
• Are support and reciprocity balanced among team members?
• Are decisions made fairly, with equal consideration for all?

Predictability

• Is there certainty about available resources?
• Are timelines and schedules clear and consistent?
• Can team members anticipate and prepare for future challenges?
• Is the overall direction and strategy stable?

Significance

• Does the work have a clear sense of purpose?
• Can team members see how their work contributes to larger goals?
• Do team members feel part of an important, positive movement?

While drafting an email consciously thinking of ‘How might this change affect people’, I go through the BICEPS list as a checklist to anticipate preventable core need button jabs.