By Martina Peskoller-Fuchs
Ombudsperson, European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL),
In the workplace, how we label and discuss issues can significantly impact their resolution. Terms like "conflict," "bullying," and "discrimination" carry strong connotations and can influence perceptions and outcomes. Understanding why people might avoid these terms and exploring alternative approaches can lead to more effective and empathetic problem-solving.
1) Why People Avoid the Term "Conflict"
a) Fear of Escalation: Labeling a problem as a conflict can make it seem more serious and intractable. People may worry that calling it a conflict will escalate the situation and make it harder to resolve.
b) Professional Image: Admitting to being in conflict with a colleague can be seen as unprofessional or a sign of poor interpersonal skills. Employees may fear it will negatively impact their reputation or career progression.
c) Desire for Harmony: Many workplaces value teamwork and cooperation. Employees might avoid the term "conflict" to maintain a facade of harmony and prevent disrupting the workplace atmosphere.
d) Conflict Aversion: Some individuals are naturally conflict-averse and feel uncomfortable dealing with confrontational situations. They might downplay issues to avoid the stress and discomfort associated with conflict. This also relates to how conflicts are seen by the workplace environment. e.g. are conflicts considered a natural occurrence in human interactions, or are they seen as not acceptable, as flaws etc.?
e) Hope for Resolution: Employees may believe that the problem can be resolved without formal intervention or without labeling it as a conflict. They might hope that the issue will resolve itself over time.
f) Cultural Factors: In some organizational cultures, there may be an implicit or explicit expectation that conflicts should be handled privately and not acknowledged openly.
g) Fear of Repercussions: There can be concerns about retaliation or negative consequences, especially if the colleague involved is in a position of power or has strong relationships with management. It might also relate to a lack of trust in the organizational culture and its ability to deal with conflicts once they escalated.
h) Communication Style: Some people prefer indirect communication and might find it difficult to articulate issues openly. They may downplay problems to avoid direct confrontation. Equally they might not want to use any language that has a sense of it being emotional, unprofessional etc.
i)
Personal Boundaries: Many people worry that addressing a conflict might delve into private
[1] matters, which can be uncomfortable and seen as unprofessional. They think there is no place for personal issues at the workplace and want to keep them separate.
j) Emotional Avoidance: Conflicts are often associated with strong emotions. People may avoid labeling a situation as a conflict because they don't want to deal with the emotional aspects or give space for emotions to surface, which they may perceive as disruptive or unprofessional.
2) The Challenges of Using the Term "Bullying"
Similarly, the term "bullying" carries heavy implications and can be problematic in a workplace context:
a) Victim and Perpetrator Roles: The terms "victim" and "perpetrator" are highly charged and can trap people in fixed roles, making it difficult for either party to move beyond the situation.
b) Defensiveness: Labeling someone as a bully can put them on the defensive, making them less likely to engage constructively in resolving the issue.
c) Stigma and Shame: Being labeled a victim can feel disempowering and stigmatizing, while being labeled a bully can bring shame and damage reputations, complicating resolution efforts.
d) Polarization: The term "bullying" tends to polarize the parties involved, framing the situation as a battle between good and bad, which can hinder collaborative problem-solving.
3) The Challenges of Using the Terms "Discrimination" and "Racism"
The terms "discrimination" and "racism" are particularly sensitive and can be difficult to address in the workplace:
a) Intense Emotions: These terms evoke strong emotions such as anger, guilt, and shame, which can make constructive dialogue difficult.
b) Defensiveness: Individuals or groups labeled as discriminatory or racist may become highly defensive, obstructing open discussion and resolution.
c) Fixed Roles: Similar to bullying, these terms can create fixed roles of victim and perpetrator, making it harder for both parties to move forward and find common ground.
d) Stigma and Alienation: Accusations of discrimination or racism can lead to significant stigma and alienation, both for individuals and the workplace as a whole.
e) Legal Implications: The terms carry significant legal weight, which can escalate the situation quickly and make informal resolution more challenging. This can also be true for bullying, but definitely for ‘racism’.
4) The Importance of Appropriate Terminology
Using the right terms is crucial in addressing workplace issues effectively. It is important to note that what are ‘right’ terms cannot ‘only’ or ‘rarely’ be assessed by the nature of the issue, but their correctness depends on the context they are used in. Whereas at times it might be helpful or necessary to ‘call something out’, there are times where using terms such as conflict, harassment or discrimination might create barriers instead of stepping stones for resolution.
It is also important to bear in mind that the issue of terminology, can be a source of dispute between one or both of the parties with those who are assisting in resolving the situation. This is not only a matter between the parties, but between the parties and the process.
By the way, many do forget, when calling something harassment or discrimination/racism, it is an allegation. They are very likely not those who are in a position to rightfully determine something to equate to such misconduct or offense. So, one should at least add qualifiers such as: a suspicion of, an allegation of, a concern of etc.
5) When to Call It Out
While using less charged terminology can be beneficial, there are times when it's crucial to call out behavior for what it is. Using terms like "conflict," "bullying," or "discrimination" can be necessary, inter alia, when:
a) Clarity is Needed: If the behavior is clearly defined and harmful, using the appropriate term can bring clarity and urgency to the situation.
b) Accountability is Essential: Naming the behavior can help hold individuals accountable and ensure that appropriate actions are taken.
c) Legal and Policy Implications: Certain behaviors need to be identified accurately to comply with legal standards and workplace policies.
6) When to go Easy on Calling it Out
Finding alternative terms, can be beneficial given the difficulties employees might have in using certain terms, as described above, in addition to the power alternative terms might carry in themselves.
a) Fostering an open dialogue on eye-level: Avoiding charged terms like "conflict," "bullying," or "discrimination" can reduce defensiveness and stigma, encouraging more open dialogue. By reframing issues in neutral or less emotionally loaded language, individuals are less likely to feel attacked or defensive, fostering an environment where all parties feel heard and respected.
b) Encouraging Resolution: By framing issues in a less confrontational manner, parties may be more willing to engage in finding solutions. When terminology is chosen carefully to focus on the underlying issues rather than assigning blame or judgment, it can promote a collaborative approach to problem-solving. This encourages parties to work together towards finding mutually beneficial resolutions rather than becoming entrenched in adversarial positions.
7) Alternatives to "Conflict," "Bullying," and "Discrimination"
What can be good alternatives to those words, when calling them out is not helpful. Maybe as an initial consideration we could borrow what is taught in mediation: Facts are what the parties have agreed to be facts. Thus, the same could be used when agreeing to a term that would describe the conflict, instead of looking what a dictionary definition might dictate and apply it to the present context. Rather than relying solely on external definitions, one could aim to establish common grounds by identifying terms both parties agree upon. Where there is no agreement, maybe it is even helpful to use the two (or more) terms endorsed by the parties alongside each other, as being equally valid. They could be a first token of differing views co-existing next to each other in a peaceful manner.
With this in mind, those seeking to resolve the situation, could offer terms that focus on the nature of the issue without the emotional baggage:
a) Issue: A neutral term that indicates something needs attention without implying confrontation.
b) Challenge: Suggests a problem to be solved collaboratively.
c) Concern: Highlights the importance of the issue without suggesting blame.
d) Disagreement: Indicates a difference of opinion without the weight of the word "conflict."
e) Tension: Recognizes strain in the relationship but leaves room for resolution.
f) Perceived Inappropriate Behavior: Describes actions without assigning fixed roles of victim and perpetrator.
g) Perceived Unprofessional Conduct: Focuses on behaviors that need to change without the loaded term "bullying."
h) Conduct or behavior issue: Explains what it is about without judging if it is appropriate or unprofessional. One could add the qualification depending on whether any formal process has been contemplated/triggered: e.g. a complaint of, an allegation of, a suspicion of etc.
i) Bias Incident: Highlights specific behaviors that may reflect unconscious bias without labeling individuals as discriminatory or racist. Maybe this could also be seen to apply to both parties, e.g. also the bias that someone could seem to be the target of racism as potentially their own bias?
j) Equity Concern: Focuses on the need for fairness and inclusion without the heavy connotation of "racism" or "discrimination."
8) Navigating Conflict with Flexible Terminology
In conflict resolution we want to be mindful of the terms we use to describe a situation. As mediators we are used to paraphrase what we hear from the parties, so as to ensure that the language can be more constructive. Provided we master this skill, all we need is the awareness that it is key from the very beginning and requires us to be mindful when ‘giving a heading’ to a situation we are dealing with. Just like in being open in finding solutions, instead of applying a fixed mind, we can remain open to the use of terms throughout the process. In particular in informal conflict resolution we might want to bear in mind:
a) Collaborative Language: Work with the parties to define the problem in terms they are comfortable with.
b) Avoid loaded Labels: Focus on specific behaviors and impacts rather than labels that carry judgment.
c) Empathy and Understanding: Use language that emphasizes understanding and resolution.
By being mindful of the terms we use and respecting the preferences of those involved, we can foster a more constructive approach to workplace issues. Whether we call it a conflict, a challenge, or a concern, the goal remains the same: to find a resolution that works for everyone involved.
[1] Maybe the fact that very often people use the terms personal and private interchangeably might create some confusion and also some barriers. One way of looking at it and using the terms could be that what is private is confidential, something not to be known by others. What is personal instead underscores the individual relevance/significance.
Thank you for your thoughtful and supportive comment! I’m glad you found the concept of using flexible terminology resonant. It’s remarkable how a shift in language can significantly impact people’s willingness to engage in constructive dialogue. Your example of offering mediation in a rephrased, less intimidating manner is a perfect illustration of this principle in action. By focusing on understanding and productivity, we can often bypass the defensiveness that certain terms might trigger. Thank you for sharing your experience and for your kind words!
Excellent article, it demonstrates that the words we use make a huge difference. Thank you, Dawn
I love the concept of using flexible terminology, Martina, precisely because of what you describe as “loaded labels”. The presumptions that go along with some words can get in the way of our work and add baggage because they become more important than they should be. I’ve offered mediation to folks who’ve refused it only to agree to a “confidential, informal, facilitated conversation to help gain understanding and move forward more productively”…flexible terminology indeed. Thank you for writing this!