Don'T Talk About "Personality" In Workplace Conflicts.

Conflicts are everywhere, and workplace is no exception.

People often blame the conflict in the workplace for their personality differences. However, the real reason for most workplace conflicts is the incident itself, which has little to do with the people involved.

So, why do we blame our colleagues when we have a problem? They are all strange psychology and organizational politics, and some of these two fields have made us look too simple to draw a one-sided conclusion that is unfair.

The biased conclusion is derived from limited information. The reason for this tendency is that most of us have the instinct of "cognitive laziness".

"Cognitive laziness" is a concept put forward by two people, Susan Fiske and Shelley Taylor (Shelley Taylor). It describes a tendency to preserve cognitive resources and focus only on important matters.

They believe that because of their limited mental resources, human beings instinctively choose a time-saving and labor-saving way to reduce their cognitive burden in the cognitive process.

It is because our cognitive capacity is extremely limited. If something takes a lot of time and effort, the mental capacity that can be invoked will be further reduced.

In the course of human evolution, the quick identification of enemy and friends is the essence of survival.

In order to survive, people have to quickly judge the character and intention of others or other tribes.

"To man" is simpler and quicker than "right thing"; focusing on people but not analyzing the complex personality from the whole, only looking at some characteristics, is also a easy and easy way to go.

Judging from stereotypes is such a shortcut to preserve cognitive resources. The conclusions drawn in this way may be inaccurate, unfair or harmful, but can really explain human behavior quickly.

Few people openly talk about others with stereotypes of race, race or gender. However, many people are keen to generalize other people's behavior by using some personality type tests such as Meyers Type Indicator (MBTI), nine character personality form (Enneagram) and Myers-Briggs (Color Code), for example, "she is really a INTJ type (introverted intuition thinking judge) person" and "he is a typical Challenger type eight".

[3]

In fact, MBTI, type nine personality, DISC personality test (DISC Assessment), Herman's mental superiority scale (Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument) and Thomas Gillman conflict mode test (Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument) and so on, "the reliability and validity of a series of personality tests has not been proved or yet to be discussed" has been a controversial topic in the psychology field.

However, according to the Association of Test Publishers, the Society for Human Resources and MBTI publishers, these tests have been widely used in selecting talents, training executives, organizing teams and resolving conflicts, which are used millions of times a year.

The book "The Cult Of Personality" has some insight into it. The author Anne Murphy Paul (Annie Murphy Paul) pointed out in the book that this classification of personality is like a constellation, at best, it can only capture a small part of people's differences in behavior, and can not explain in depth the dynamic character of the workplace.

Conflict.

But these tests are often used as a basis for resolving workplace conflicts. For example, some people would say that ENTP (extrovert intuition thinking and understanding) and ISTJ type (introversion feeling thinking judgment) can not work at work. In fact, this statement is not as good as two Capricorn and Sagittarius, and none of us can get along with it.

The conflicting two employees made up a safe and stable explanation, for example, "my colleague is the kind of person who intertwined the details" and "my colleagues basically changed the wrong place," so that they do not have to disagree with the company or avoid offending others.

For them, rather than go to the boss to ask for a replacement partner, or ask the human resources department to develop a more effective cooperative incentive mechanism, it is better to assume that "if you can understand each other's personality (or personality patterns) can cooperate better", it will be easier.

Besides, there is another possibility: the cause of the contradiction may be that a member of the team is neglacting work.

In such a case, it is too much to talk about character.

Some people even use character mode to cover up their mistakes, and give the excuse that I am improvised, so I can not finish work according to the prescribed deadline.

Impromptu or other types, if you do not want to dispute with colleagues or customers, you have to finish the work on time and quality.

Blaming workplace conflicts for unrelated personality causes may be just fun and irrelevant in the short term, but in the long run, this practice conceals the real causes of conflicts, and conflicts can never be resolved, which will inevitably lead to crises.

How to deal with it properly?

What is the contradiction?

First, to observe the situation that causes conflict and aggravate the conflict, the whole situation may be very complex and requires a lot of consideration.

Think about whether the solution to conflicts requires the help of others or other teams in the company.

For example, if the problem is improper role positioning, it is necessary for the boss to clarify the main body of responsibility. If the incentive mechanism pays more attention to the individual than the team, it can ask the human resources department to help set up the organizational goal and adjust the incentive mechanism.

Then consider if there are some changes in the current system, responsibilities, processes, incentives and management at all levels, what risks the two sides may take.

For this reason, we must first jump out of the limitations of personal perspective, and take the contradiction as the two kind of role to analyze the conflicts arising from different duties and not to treat them as a problem between two people.

For example, I am a businessman and you are in charge of risk management. Our respective starting points and priorities are quite different.

Let's discuss how to grasp the factors and indicators of interests and security, risk and reward in order to achieve the best results, not to put your data driven conservative decision-making style on the front, and to tit for tat with my intuition based adventure style.

Finally, if anyone feels that conflict resolution must refer to the results of personality tests, please refer to the verified and non categorized personality tests, such as the Hogan Personality Questionnaire (Hogan Personality Inventory) and IPIP-NEO's five personality traits (IPIP-NEO Assessment of the "Big Five" Personality Personality, the free test to see this.

The two sets of tests have been fully peer reviewed. Their effectiveness and reliability are supported by psychological evidence. They can better explain the difference in behavior between people and do not classify people like MBTI. Therefore, they can better explain the crux of the contradiction.

Moreover, the results of Hogan personality questionnaire and the five personality traits tests are not MBTI's style of "Hello, I'm good at everyone." the results of those who have the courage to accept these tests almost invariably hit the sore point, pointing out the problems in personal development, such as pointing out that you are self assertive, impetuous and irritable, and easy to take others' attention.

Opinion is regarded as personal attack on oneself.

Such feedback is often unacceptable, but only in this way can the two or more people involved in contradiction build up their self-awareness and mutual understanding.

One of my colleagues often said, "no treatment is a mess."

Even if it is diagnosed before treatment, if it is misdiagnosed, it will not be effective.

To resolve conflicts, we must first find out the problems and then analyze them to clarify the causes and consequences.

"Character theory" can not really solve the problem.