How School Leaders Can Develop the Key Skill of Conflict Agility

Words matter, of course, but never more than in conflict situations in which sensitivities and emotions run high. The words that leaders choose have the capacity to elevate tensions and widen the gulf between polarized stances... or open people’s hearts and minds and bring them together, yielding collaborative relationships and productive results. We believe it is possible to express almost any message constructively: You just need to find the right words and practice, as you would to develop any muscle. We coined the term conflict agility language to describe how this works.

Many administrators avoid conflict because they feel uncomfortable and lack language to resolve difficult situations. But left neglected, dissension tends to fester, exacerbating divisions and spreading ill will. Instead, communicating about conflict in a healthy and respectful manner enables leaders to find the root causes of conflict and find areas of common interest. Leaders can then mobilize staff to engage in problem-solving and the search for novel solutions. As with any other skill, we have found that using the language of conflict remediation improves with practice. As leaders model conflict resolution techniques, they transfer on a broader scale to members of the school community.

Administrators can deploy conflict agility language in three stages: calming yourself under high-tension conditions, initiating an inquiry approach, and then finally normalizing conflict.

A Conflict Agility procesS

Step 1: Calm yourself. We begin with the person you probably communicate with the most: yourself. We all spend the day engaged in an internal dialogue. Imagine a contentious interaction such as a principal facing oppositional teachers during a committee meeting developing the school’s AI policy for student writing, or a difficult parent conference. How do you respond? Your reaction to such situations could lead to further escalation. Alternatively, you might be able to create a plan to reduce the emotional overload among all parties and constructively address the issue.

First, take a breath. Picture your happy place, maybe midsummer on a sandy beach or a family birthday celebration. Tell yourself to remain calm, don’t reciprocate—or evoke another mantra. Imagine your facial expression as an emoji. Ask yourself: Which emoji do I appear to be? Annoyed? Stern? Welcoming? Tranquil? Are my arms crossed in the universal sign of displeasure? Maintain an even tone of voice. Question your own motives in the moment. Am I trying to persuade? To win an argument? To find common ground? To learn?

Remember that the internal dialogue you hold with yourself, including your emotional response, your assumptions about the intents that other people hold, and your subterranean objectives in the conversation, will determine the outcome of your interactions. In short, start with you!

Step 2: Encourage inquiry. The next objective is to learn as much as possible about the contrary thought. We suggest beginning with a neutral statement, “That’s an interesting point. Can you tell me more about it?” This response offers a number of benefits promoting conflict resolution, including this: It focuses on ideas, angling further discussion toward the realm of concepts. The first principle of conflict resolution is, “Don’t make it personal.” Interchanges over ideas are appropriate and constructive, as opposed to personal attacks or accusations regarding motive.

Whether subtle or overt, disparaging another person’s personality, brainpower, or moral constitution deters continued exploration of the actual issue, whether it is curriculum design, instructional practices, or a new policy under development, and creates an us-versus-them climate. The other advantage of “That’s interesting” is its affirming nature: It affirms that the person’s contribution has value and is worthy of further exploration.

The leader may also ask the group whether anyone else has questions. We suggest that leaders first train groups to recognize language that may negate the information-gathering process. For example, queries that begin with the phrase, “Don’t you think...” are really meant to assert one’s personal view. “But,” as in “It sounds like a good idea, but...,” is another roundabout way to interject one’s personal view.

Back to our example of an angry teacher speaking out in the AI policy meeting, the first response applies Stephen Covey’s premise that one must “seek first to understand.” “Tell us more...” is a good start, with follow-up questions from the leader and committee members that are nonjudgmental and truly inquisitive.

3. Normalize conflict. One problem associated with conflict is that people assume that disagreement is inevitably divisive and degenerative, and so once it’s aired, dispute quickly becomes a conversation stopper. A related belief holds that pursuing contentious issues only makes things worse. Too often, we fail to acknowledge that other points of view might hold legitimacy, too. The common denominator is an outlook that disagreement is out of the norm.

Groups trained to exercise conflict agility accept conflict as the normal state of affairs, given the diversity of thought in a school community and the complex and overlapping structures and processes at work in any school. Conflict-agile group members are able to truly listen to each other and talk about their differences. They see opportunity in conflict and find that subsequent conversations, even tense ones, can lead to a better place, improving collaboration and morale.

To reach this lofty goal, the false association between disagreement and discord needs to be broken. Below are some phrases we’ve employed to normalize conflict.

This is where we agree: _____, and this is where we disagree: _____. Rather than conceal differences, this phrase helpfully clarifies them. We’ve found that groups often overestimate disagreement. When both areas of existing accord and issues for continued consideration are clearly articulated, the road to consensus seems shorter and less bumpy. Confidence rises in the group’s ability to achieve resolution. The leader’s follow-up observation might be, “We agree more than we disagree.” 

In the case of the fractious AI policy meeting for essay writing, the leader might conclude with the comment, “We agree on policy concerning gathering information and editing, and we agree that we want to promote critical thinking. We just don’t agree on the role of AI in initially brainstorming ideas. That discussion will be our next meeting agenda.”

There are different legitimate points of view. Some think _____, while others believe _____. This remark is similar to the last, except there is an emphasis on legitimacy of different belief systems. Again, our experience has shown that when differences are articulated, they often seem less profound and intractable. Returning to our AI scenario, it is helpful to remind the group that AI is a new challenge, and there is no consensus in or out of schools as to where the boundaries should be. Educators everywhere are working to figure it out. 

We disagree on how to get there, but we all want what’s best for our students. Addressing people’s motivation is our go-to response to seemingly intractable discord. Looking to find some common ground, even the smallest patch, the leader acknowledges dissent, while highlighting the most vital mutual concern. A meaningful follow-up remark could be, “We’ll have to keep talking.”

Given the myriad challenges facing educational communities today, leaders require a skill set to help school communities face differences honestly, respectfully, and productively. Adeptly channeled by school leaders, conflict agility language offers potential to be a positive force for school improvement and understanding among stakeholders.