How a Project Manager Can Mitigate Interdepartmental Conflicts
The following contribution comes from the CIO portal, which describes itself as follows: CIO brings together the largest concentration of Chief Information Officers (CIOs) and enterprise technology executives, offering unparalleled insights and perspectives from industry peers on business strategy, innovation, and leadership. CIO readers gain key information for professional development—both for themselves and their teams—covering everything from certifications and hiring practices to skills development, while also building a solid foundation in their companies’ digital transformation.
The author is Moira Alexander, a member of the team.
Interdepartmental conflicts have always been a challenge for companies. However, project managers are in a unique position to help smooth over these conflicts as they arise—though it should be noted that not all conflicts are the same.
The causes of interdepartmental conflict are numerous, but to what extent can a project manager intervene to resolve them?
Let’s examine some of the most common conflicts that today’s project managers might face, and what steps—if any—they can take to improve the situation.
Leadership conflicts that cascade downward
If an interdepartmental conflict originates at the top of the organization, it is virtually impossible for a project manager to resolve it. Such conflicts are often so deeply rooted that they permeate multiple facets of the company, subsequently affecting relationships between different departments.
What further complicates the situation is that this conflict is often embedded in the very foundation of the organizational culture. That said, it is the project manager’s responsibility to highlight the risks this poses to the project to the company’s leadership. The challenge lies in how receptive—or resistant—those leaders are to addressing their own role in the existing problems. This is a delicate situation for any project manager: one must act with great caution, yet without avoiding dialogue with senior management, as the impact on the project’s success is too significant to ignore.
Communication breakdowns and misunderstandings
There is no work environment that does not experience daily communication breakdowns or misunderstandings, whether among employees or involving leadership. Wherever people are involved, this is bound to happen—it is quite normal. For a project manager, it is essential to be able to identify the root cause of these misunderstandings and work to resolve them as quickly as possible. What may seem like a minor issue can rapidly spiral out of control if the project manager does not intervene to ensure that all parties involved are fully satisfied with the solution and prepared to move forward without lingering resentment. Addressing such conflicts is a routine occurrence and an essential part of a project leader’s role. The sooner these conflicts are resolved, the smoother and faster the transition between the various stages of a project will be.
Lack of accountability and the “blame game”
Conflicts stemming from unmet expectations or requirements often become a source of friction between departments, leading to mutual accusations, a “blame game,” and a lack of accountability. This is a delicate area for a project manager to navigate. A good leader should strive to identify the root cause of the problem and address the related issues, without the need to assign blame. The key lies in helping everyone involved understand what went wrong and learn from the experience, without isolating or shaming anyone.
The struggle for limited resources
This type of conflict tends to arise in virtually every project, so it should come as no surprise to any project manager. In most companies, resources are limited, which creates constant friction due to differing objectives and varying perceptions of priority. The project manager plays a crucial role in identifying and planning for these priorities, as well as determining the resources required to address them—a task that falls squarely within the project manager’s scope of responsibility. Effective project managers strive to keep such conflicts under control—or, better yet, to anticipate them whenever possible—in order to prevent further negative consequences down the line.
Egos and Personal Issues
The way you interact with others and conduct yourself plays a fundamental role in the successful execution of a project. Conflicts stemming from ego or egocentrism are the responsibility of the individuals involved; however, the project manager (PM) also has a responsibility to help team members, stakeholders, and even sponsors moderate their personal biases and aspirations, keeping them separate from project activities.
At any given time, one or more of these factors can trigger conflict within a project. While the burden of identifying all such potential triggers—or finding a solution—should not fall solely on the project manager, they are responsible for helping all parties remain focused on the project’s objectives. The project manager is uniquely qualified and positioned to facilitate conflict resolution. Furthermore, it is important for project managers to know when to seek additional support or assistance to resolve a conflict.
It is worth remembering that even the most trivial personal difference can sometimes escalate out of proportion and negatively impact the outcome of business activities. Although most people act with good intentions, situations can spiral out of control when personal biases of any kind come into play. This type of issue is somewhat easier for a project manager to address, as they can engage in dialogue with the individuals involved to help draw a clear line between the personal and the professional.
Competition and Professional Aspirations
Much like the personal differences mentioned above, individuals may have professional aspirations that fuel intense competition, leading to conflicts that can overshadow even day-to-day tasks. Worse still, such conflicts have the potential to completely derail project activities and objectives. For a project manager, this can be more difficult to identify and manage, as the problem often remains latent and is not always apparent. Regardless of the cause, the project manager has a responsibility to stakeholders to address any problematic behavior or motivation, redirecting efforts and activities toward the project’s objectives.
Who is responsible for misunderstandings: the sender or the receiver?
The following contribution comes from the portal of Sharon-Drew Morgen, who is described as follows: Sharon-Drew Morgen is a disruptive innovator and original thinker who has developed new paradigms in areas such as sales (creator of Buying Facilitation®), listening and communication (author of *What? Did you really say what I think I heard?*), change management (author of *The How of Change™*), coaching, and leadership. She is the author of several books, including her most recent work, *HOW? Generating new neural circuits for learning, behavior change and decision making*; the *New York Times* business bestseller *Selling with Integrity*; and *Dirty Little Secrets: why buyers can’t buy and sellers can’t sell*. Sharon-Drew provides coaching and consulting services to companies seeking innovative solutions to drive coherent change—grounded in “servant leadership”—across sectors such as leadership, healthcare, and sales. Her award-winning blog features original articles every week that offer fresh perspectives.
Listening skills. There is a long-standing debate in the field of communication: whose fault is it when a misunderstanding arises? Is it the sender’s, for communicating poorly, or the receiver’s, for misinterpreting the message? Let’s look at a few facts:
- Speaking is an act of translation: it consists of expressing—through words—what is happening inside us (feelings, needs, or unvoiced thoughts) so that others can understand what we wish to share. However, the choice of words is, to a large extent, an unconscious process that may not provide an accurate representation to the person listening. 2. Receivers interpret what they hear through a series of unconscious filters—biases, assumptions, triggers, habits, and imperfect memory—that have taken shape over the course of their lives, based on:
their worldview;
their beliefs;
similar situations experienced in the past;
previous interactions with the same speaker;
biases present before the conversation even began (for example, a salesperson listening solely to identify a specific need).
To complicate matters further, sound reaches our ears as electrical and chemical vibrations—in neuroscience, words are described as “bursts of air”—that pass through various filters and screening processes before being converted into brain signals. These signals are then compared against existing neural circuits that house “sufficiently similar” patterns. It is a mechanical and electrical process—beyond our conscious control—that is profoundly shaped by subjectivity. In other words, what we believe we have heard is only a fraction—of unknown extent—of what was actually intended to be conveyed.
Not only do we listen subjectively without realizing it, but because the brain discards signals that do not fit without alerting us, it is impossible to know which parts of what was said have been omitted or misinterpreted.
Consequently, we might end up hearing “ABL” when the person we are speaking with actually said “ABC”! And since our brain presents us only with the “ABL” version, we have no way of knowing that it has discarded elements like “D,” “E,” “F,” and so on. We are left with no choice but to believe that what we think we heard is, in fact, the correct version! It is no wonder we often feel that others are not listening to us, or that they are misinterpreting us on purpose!
- According to David Bellos in his excellent book *Is That a Fish In Your Ear?*, no sentence contains all the information necessary for its own translation. And this, in turn, provides a perfect opportunity for our brain to “invent” things—without letting us know.
For the listener, this creates an obstacle to accurately grasping what others are saying: even when we intend to do so, or when we employ “active listening” or take notes, it is unlikely that we will understand exactly what the person we are speaking with intends to convey. Instead, we end up perceiving a message that we have inadvertently misinterpreted. The studies I have consulted indicate an accuracy rate ranging from 10% to 35%.
From the speaker’s perspective, there is an attempt to use the most appropriate language for the person being addressed—based on the (often mistaken) assumption that they will be understood.
WHY WE STRUGGLE TO UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER
Since communication involves a complex web of conscious and unconscious decisions—with much of our brain activity occurring automatically—achieving mutual understanding requires both parties to mitigate their own biases and set aside their assumptions. In short, each person must take responsibility in their own way.
While researching my book *What? Did You Really Say What I Think I Heard?*, I realized that the responsibility for effective communication seems to fall, in large part, on the speaker.
Example
However, given that listeners are influenced by their own unconscious brain processes—regardless of how carefully a speaker chooses their words—what can the speaker do to ensure they are understood correctly?
It’s an interesting challenge: since the listener has no way of knowing which part of the message might have been misinterpreted, it is up to the speaker to probe by asking:
“Could you tell me what you understood? That way, I can clarify things if there’s been any confusion. I get the feeling I might not have explained myself clearly, and I want to make sure our communication is precise.”
This approach allows you to keep the conversation on track, rather than jumping to the conclusion that the other person simply isn’t listening.
And if you are the listener, and you want to ensure you have understood and responded correctly, you might ask:
“I want to make sure I’ve understood you correctly. Would you mind telling me exactly what you heard? That way, we can confirm we’re on the same page moving forward.”
By using these tactics, both parties are much more likely to move forward from a place of shared understanding. These are the questions we should ask ourselves in any communicative process: as listeners, how can we know whether we are interpreting a message accurately? Is it possible to avoid biases? As speakers, are we choosing the most appropriate words?
As previously mentioned, it is unlikely that the participants in a conversation will grasp the intended meaning with complete precision. The best approach is to work together to find ways to manage the communication.
Who, ultimately, is responsible for conflict resolution?
The following contribution comes from the website of Julia Menard, who describes herself as follows: “I am the daughter of a refugee, displaced by war. My mother lost her family, her community, her homeland, and her identity because people were unable to find a way to live together in peace. I experienced the cost of war firsthand. It took me many years to realize that it was my mother’s lived experience that led me to my career in conflict resolution. I invite you to watch my TEDx talk, below; in it, I share my personal story, how I became a mediator, and what my mission is as a result.”
An Apple for the Mediator
I began my professional journey as an educator—a role that remains a fundamental part of who I am. For one year, I taught English as a foreign language in Japan, an experience that strengthened my own sense of community values. Upon returning to Canada, I helped launch the first Fringe Theatre Festival in Victoria, British Columbia; I later married the man who spearheaded these festivals. This took me to Edmonton, where, for four years, I directed a support program for refugees, connecting over 1,000 newly arrived, government-sponsored refugees with volunteers to foster mutual understanding.
Community Mediation
When I discovered mediation in 1993 in Edmonton, I was still working as the coordinator for the refugee support program, but I found myself captivated by volunteer work as a community mediator. I received training at a local community mediation center, which offered a 70-hour program; part of this training was led by Gordon Sloan, one of Canada’s most prominent conflict resolution trainers. I was filled with hope! And then came my first case! I still remember that mediation: my fellow mediator, Susan Sharpe, and I headed out on a freezing January night in Edmonton. I spent most of the session with my legs tangled up like a pretzel! I was scared. It involved two neighbors who had lived side-by-side for years, yet they absolutely loathed each other. What was I supposed to do? After that challenging start, I spent the next five years mediating a variety of community and civil matters, as well as victim-offender mediations. In total, I mediated over 100 cases alongside other volunteer mediators, using a co-mediation model.
Authored by Julia Menard.
Over the past month, I’ve had the privilege of working with several senior leadership teams. Each of these teams is composed of leaders who, in turn, are responsible for managing their own teams.
Together, we’ve been delving into an eight-step model for navigating difficult conversations—a key tool for managing complex situations.
Last week, we examined the role leaders should play when conflicts arise among their team members.
Leaders are the ones who reach out to me for help. Typically, they are also individuals interested in coaching and training to learn how to handle difficult conversations. As a result, I’ve had many discussions with people who manage other professionals.
Whether in my capacity as a mediator or within the private setting of a training session, I’ve heard a wide range of opinions on what a leader’s role should be when conflicts emerge among their team members.
