Words, so innocent and powerless as they are, as standing in a dictionary, how potent for good and evil they become in the hands of one who knows how to combine them.
—Nathaniel Hawthorne
The term rules of engagement (ROE) commonly refers to military directives meant to describe the circumstances under which forces will enter into and continue to engage in conflict with other existing forces. They are the orders issued by a competent military authority that delineate when, where, how, and against whom military force may be used. Rules of engagement are the result of a general recognition that procedures and standards are essential in formulating appropriate conduct and effectiveness in civilized warfare. Historically, this notion that civilized warfare must be regulated has been backed by a long list of international treaties and agreements. The most significant of these treaties is the Geneva Convention, which outlines the treatment of prisoners of war and civilians.1
During the Cold War, both the Soviet Union and the United States came to the realization that the potential advantages of attacking were not worth the consequences of retaliation. To prevent a minor incident from provoking nuclear warfare, they were inspired to establish procedures defining allowable actions. Without these rules of engagement, circumstances of conflict could easily spiral out of control and result in the decimation of masses.
Wherever people gather, there will inevitably be offense and conflict. We are, after all, human. This, of course, includes the work environment. If leaders want to preserve a healthy corporate culture and build strong teams, they must recognize this reality and find a clear path through which conflict may be resolved. Failure to proactively provide a plan for conflict resolution is to ensure implosion. And the best way to preempt bad behavior in the sandbox is to establish rules of engagement for teams.
No Throwing Sand
When I was in preschool, my favorite time of day was when we would go outside to the playground after lunch. It gave me the opportunity to burn off the excess energy that had been building for hours in a claustrophobic classroom. On the playground were swings, slides, monkey bars, and my favorite of all—the sandbox, where kid commandos could set up miniature military figures and play war.
One of our first skirmishes was so memorable that it left an impression on me that lingers to this day. Charlie and Robert had drawn a line in the sand and thrown down the gauntlet, challenging Mitch and me to rally our forces. They proceeded to build a makeshift bunker with a plastic sand shovel and established a stronghold to serve as their command center. Mitch and I created a fortified wall with some sticks we had gathered from under a big oak tree. When our miniature fighting forces were in position, we took turns lobbing a baseball into the war zone from opposite ends of the sandbox. Whichever figures came into contact with the baseball were eliminated from the battlefield. The army left with the last man standing was declared the victor.
Charlie initiated the aerial assault with the well-scuffed white orb. It dealt a deadly blow, wiping out a significant number of our shooters and two flamethrowers as it crashed through our line of defense. Our subsequent attack was equally effective and we alternated back and forth until only a handful of characters remained on the dunes of the contained desert. When it was his turn, Robert launched a precision strike. It was a thing of beauty. With a slight backspin and high arc, the stitched canonball landed on the backside of a dune and careened at a perfect angle, sliding in the direction of our last four action figures. We all leaned in to ascertain the effect of the aerial assault. Then, with dramatic flare incited by mild frustration, Mitch used both of his hands to scoop a mound of sand and launch it into the air to emulate a vast explosion. Before any of us could duck for cover, the damage was done. A cloud of sand shrapnel temporarily blinded Charlie, Robert, and me. We spent the better part of the afternoon dusting the granular debris out of our hair and clothing. We had all learned a valuable lesson.
Before we took arms on the battlefield the following day, we had established a single rule of engagement: Under no circumstances was anyone to throw sand!
More than fifty years later, I still remember that afternoon on the playground. And to this day, I still seek to help teams apply that single commitment as I coach and lead them to pursue healthier relationships in the workplace.
Relational Rules of Engagement
If you have to have a single rule of engagement, No Throwing Sand is a pretty good one. As we have said, conflict is inevitable. It’s the ability or inability to resolve conflict that will either enhance or diminish the effectiveness of teams. Resolving conflict effectively necessitates rules of engagement, setting forth principles and expectations as to how team members will treat one another. The purpose of such rules is to maintain a spirit of unity. That is not to suggest that everyone will share the same opinion but rather that everyone will have a common commitment to practice healthy forms of interpersonal communication when stressful situations, disagreements, and offenses arise.
These rules of engagement do not have to be exhaustive. Human resource departments are notorious for creating voluminous policies and procedures manuals to cover a broad array of interpersonal contingencies. The challenge is that once you have created a massive handbook of regulations, you have to enforce them by establishing a sort of police state to monitor and manage those who most likely never read the manual in the first place. I would like to suggest a much simpler solution. Give a few guidelines and expect people to act like adults. If they don’t, then coach them. After coaching, if they continue to throw sand, then you may have to restrict them from playing with everyone else at recess.
For the sake of simplicity, let me offer up five suggestions that, when applied consistently, could resolve the vast majority of workplace conflicts. We will call them relational rules of engagement. Each is stated with a first-person pronoun, reflecting what must be a personal commitment on the part of each team member.
1. I will talk to you before I ever talk about you.
Conflict is frequently exacerbated by gossip. Watercooler conversation cannot resolve issues with those who are not present. It simply taints the relational pool by spreading negativity to others who likely have nothing to do with the conflict and can play little role in its resolution. Side conversations and gossip can poison the atmosphere more than mustard gas.
People frequently engage in these conversations in an attempt to gain support for their position or justify their reaction to what they may deem to be unfair treatment. Like children playing Red Rover, they seek anyone who will come over to their side to garner the emotional support they desire. But when others are involved unnecessarily in a personal offense, the circle of conflict expands and collateral damage increases. Once other people have been asked to pick up an offense, it becomes far more difficult to go back and clear the air with those who are now carrying a negative impression based on hearsay.
When someone speaks about an individual who isn’t present, the story can easily be misrepresented to bolster the position of the person who is speaking. The person who is being called into question cannot explain or defend their position, so it isn’t possible to draw an unbiased conclusion. Like a spider spinning a web to entangle its prey, the one who gossips is seeking to emotionally entangle others in a relationally deadly game.
Casting aspersions on someone is akin to throwing sand in the air in an attempt to blind those nearby from being able to see the situation through objective eyes. As my buddies and I agreed on the playground, under no circumstances is anyone to throw sand.
The mature way to handle conflict is for the person who has been offended to go directly to the offender and attempt to work through the issues in private. If both individuals can conduct themselves with a spirit of openness and humility, then a quick resolution is often possible.
2. I will engage in candid conversations with humility, knowing I have room to grow.
Whether we are confronting someone or the one being confronted, it requires humility to be able to fully engage in a sensitive conversation without getting defensive or overly emotional. When emotion escalates, so does defensiveness. And becoming defensive is counterproductive. Once we become defensive, we are in essence saying we have no room to grow. We become more intent on justifying our position than we are on exploring and learning. Emotion can run deep, but when it hijacks the conversation, it’s rarely productive. It could be said that as emotions rise, intelligence falls. Often in the heat of emotion, we say stupid stuff and take dumb and destructive actions.
The key to remaining calm and not becoming defensive is to readily admit that we have much to learn. If we can remain curious rather than callous, then we can seek to understand the perspective of the other person and not merely defend our own. If we view one another as advisors rather than adversaries, then we can seek to extract insights from the conversation that may enhance our emotional intelligence. Our sensitivities can be sharpened and our communication skills honed when we are open to hear how our words and actions have impacted others.
Remember, healthy people want to grow. And relationship catalyzes growth. When someone cares enough about the relationship to come to you directly, you should honor that they are attempting to make things right with you in the correct way rather than talking behind your back.
Keep the focus on what you need to learn. It’s easy to focus on what you think the other person needs to know. This causes many to slip into a tit-for-tat kind of conversation in an attempt to balance the scales. Conversation that degenerates to this level immediately becomes scorekeeping and quickly loses its impact. It very well may be that the people to whom you are speaking need to examine their perspective and approach, but save that for a subsequent developmental conversation.
The key here is to enter into the conversation with humility and openness, seeking to learn what you can to connect more deeply with the other person. If that person reciprocates in seeking your feedback in order to learn, then you may have the opportunity to offer feedback for growth. If not, then work through the issues at hand and come back at another time if you feel it necessary to explore further issues related to the other person’s growth and development.
3. We will seek objective input if we come to an impasse.
We would be naïve to think that all conflict could be resolved simply by engaging in direct conversation with someone else. Defensiveness, blind spots, and triggers can easily impede our ability to effectively address issues that come between us and another person. Conversations can quickly slide sideways. Emotions can run amuck. Sparks can fly, despite our best intentions. And we can sometimes find ourselves spinning our wheels in an attempt to get the other person to see the situation from our perspective. If we find ourselves in a stalemate, we may need to seek objective outside input in order to get things off dead center and hopefully on track.
This is where the insight of a coach, mentor, counselor, or human resource specialist can play a significant role in resolving the conflict. An objective outsider—someone who has no vested interest other than the growth of both parties—can serve to clarify the issues and help move the conversation toward reconciliation. Every organization should have someone whom it trusts, either internally or externally, who can provide guidance in conflict resolution.
Conflict will inevitably arise. We must have a clear commitment to take our issues and grievances directly to the person or parties involved. We must be committed to reconciling and pursuing unity. But all of this does not guarantee that both parties will have the emotional intelligence or maturity to navigate rough relational waters effectively. Organizations that place an emphasis on culture will ensure that coaching resources are available for those who need assistance to navigate interpersonal conflict with objectivity and clarity.
4. I recognize that the objective of the conversation is to seek understanding, resolve issues, and move toward unity.
It’s important to state once again that even the best organizations and teams are not conflict-free. However, strong culture requires a clear commitment to the quick resolution of conflicts and the protection of relational integrity. Unity should never be misconstrued as like-mindedness. Diversity of thought is absolutely necessary to promote growth and innovation. However, like-heartedness, the commitment to certain organizational values, and the willingness to work through issues to seek deeper understanding is critical if we want to pursue relational health.
Unity means we have come to a deeper understanding of one another and that understanding has allowed us to connect on a more personal level. While we may not always agree, we have a commitment to help one another grow. That growth will hopefully lead to a greater sense of personal enlightenment that will allow us to move toward maturity, expanding our capability to relate more effectively to one another. This amounts to having one another’s best interest at heart. It may ultimately lead to the acknowledgment of our differences. But, more importantly, it should lead to an affirmation of our common values on which we can build a better future relationally.
This is not a matter of conflict management but rather conflict resolution. We must be committed to staying in the tunnel of chaos until we see the light. We must demonstrate the emotional fortitude to stick it out in constructive conversations until we feel we have reached a new level of understanding and respect for one another. And, at the very least, we acknowledge that we can disagree without dishonoring or disrespecting one another. We will remain steadfast in our commitment to relational integrity.
5. I will forgive quickly.
When a matter has been settled and the issues resolved, move on. Ruminating on relational failure can be demoralizing. Those involved should mark the lessons learned and make a commitment to grow beyond the limitations exposed through the conversation. Frequently revisiting the offenses can be life-draining. Holding grudges garners nothing good.
Unresolved offenses can certainly become rancorous. It’s equally toxic to work through difficulties only to have them revisited during subsequent tension-filled encounters. Forgiveness is the conscious commitment to move beyond the problem and not hold the issue over someone’s head. Forgiveness is the act of pardoning or no longer holding someone responsible for making things right. It means remitting or canceling a debt or obligation. Forgiveness means the issue has been resolved in one’s spirit. The future is unfettered by past actions when forgiveness is offered. Forgiveness is emotionally disentangling oneself from the anger and frustration brought about by the actions of another.
When an individual is unable to forgive, dregs of doubt remain. These suspicions may continue to taint the relationship, making someone prone to looking for signs that the issue still remains. These suspicions can morph into self-fulfilling prophecies, as the one jaded by an inability to forgive may interpret certain actions in light of their suspicions. They literally begin to see what they are looking for and the problem is compounded. The emotional baggage continues to pile up.
If the problem arises again, then it should be addressed without the emotional distress that may have been created by the previous encounter. Boundaries may need to be established to curtail bad behavior. The idea is to intercept the entropy before it becomes a problematic pattern. Sometimes it’s necessary to address an issue on multiple occasions before the perpetrator clearly sees the destructive nature of their activity. How many times someone is willing to address an issue depends on several factors. These factors may include:
If there is a commitment to continue the relationship, then forgiveness wipes the emotional slate clean and allows both parties to move into the future without being constrained by the failures of the past. True forgiveness frees the offender from the fear that past failures will be resurrected as artillery to be used against them in future encounters. More importantly, forgiveness frees the offended from the burden of being bogged down in a morass of mind-numbing negativity. Forgiveness gives each party the freedom to leave failure in the past and focus on building a brighter future. Forgiveness is the art of finding balance between downloading emotionally harmful debris, while establishing healthy boundaries so that bad behavior is curtailed.
Relational rules of engagement are guidelines that govern conflict resolution. They are a general recognition that certain expectations are essential in formulating appropriate conduct as to how we should relate to one another under duress. When we are committed to dealing with one another directly and respectfully, culture is enhanced. The strongest organizations are not conflict-free but rather have a commitment to maintaining unity by working through conflict to resolution.
››GAINING TRACTION: Questions for Consideration & Application