Achieving the Benefits of Conflict in Academia

We, like so many others, are tired of the toll unresolved conflict takes. Moreover, we worry that the toll could be getting worse – on our campuses, and in our society. Maybe less typical, we’re worried that the potential of conflict is getting lost. We think that potential matters greatly to who we are and who we want to become. If you’re interested in joining us in this conversation, consider signing up for one of our conflict skills courses.

Conflict’s Potential

We define conflict very broadly: to our way of thinking, it is any instance when ideas, needs, perspectives, power, or experience differ. Based on this definition, conflict may take many forms. Arguments or violence, yes – but too often we think only of those. It may also appear as discussion, conversation, questions, and silence. Conflict writ large is our experience of diversity, in all its challenges and potential.

That means we need to be able and willing to engage in conflict if we are going to make diversity work. This is true whether we’re talking about the diversity of our social identities, economic circumstances, disciplinary identities, personality quirks, analyses of data, or ideas about how to move our world forward. Actually, able and willing is not enough. We must seek conflict for it’s ability to reveal our differences. Through conflict, we deepen our understanding of what we can learn, see, and gain by bridging our divides.  These are some of the significant benefits of conflict.

Achieving the Benefits of Conflict

To make this possible, we need to feel like we can make sense of conflict and engage with it productively. We think that Ken Thomas and Ralph Kilmann have contributed a big step in this direction. Their conflict mode model and the accompanying 30-question assessment tool helps apply this model to ourselves. For more information on the Thomas Kilmann Conflict Modes, read this post.

We’d like to build on this model to help make conflict a more meaningful experience in academia. It can facilitate learning, expand horizons, enliven classrooms, and inform research. We’d like to see departments benefit from interaction across sub-disciplines and methodologies. We envision hiring and tenure decisions that engage the most difficult questions in ways that everyone comes out better, more thoughtful, more whole. We’re committed to conversations that escalate into insight rather than injury. We seek interactions which teach us how to respect others while standing for what matters. We think that the Thomas Kilmann model, paired with ongoing conversation among people who are willing to learn new skills, can make a difference.

 Join us if you’d like be part of the conversation, too.

Previous Post
Why Some Faculty Choose Leadership
Next Post
How Do We Create Better Departments?

On related topics

The Challenges of Making Change in Academia, Part I

Is making change in academia challenging? If so, why? We are so glad you asked. To understand the challenges of making change in academia, let’s take a look at the effects of different aspects of academic culture. We’ll also look at how existing change models fit – or not. Most change…
Separating and coming back together

Intent vs. Impact: Narrowing the Gap

Impact vs. intent: Yes, I’m talking about that much-dreaded moment when someone tells you that something you’ve just said or done hurts or has a negative impact in some way. Perhaps it came across as racist or sexist (or both), or demeaning in some other way. And you (and by “you”…

The Flexible Faculty

This series of posts describes what we’ve learned about the peculiarities of leadership in academia based on our work with the CPI 260® leadership assessment.  See the introduction to this series for background on this assessment. How does Flexibility relate to a role in academia? Today’s post is on the Flexibility…
keyboard_arrow_up