Is Confrontation the GOOD, the BAD or the UGLY? By TOM HEUER

Tom Heuer

Can confrontation be a "leadership tool?"  Or is it simply seen as a tactic to intimidate an individual?  Why is confrontation viewed differently than open, honest communications?  Or is it? Why is it viewed in some quarters as "a negative behavior?" Can confrontation  "make or break a relationship." These are important questions to consider as you develop your leadership strategies and communication skills.

Recently, I found myself in a discussion about the merits of confrontation with a company president. To talk about confrontation was difficult for him because the term seemed negative and the company's values were so different.  "We embrace collaboration not confrontation."   OK, I understand. But, sometimes for companies to achieve full-scale collaboration, confrontation (the non-violent variety) may become a strategically useful tactic. 

"You have been given plenty of time to talk with each other about this problem.  This is serious.  If you are not able to achieve the expected results with your partners, I will be forced to make some changes."

In this case, confrontation may encourage successful collaboration. 

Confrontation is perceived as a desperate move by an individual who can not gain results any other way.  It is commonly understood that "confronters" are unable to persuade, cajole, encourage, sweet-talk or influence.  Results are achieved by threatening, coercing, raising voices, or stomping feet.  This certainly happens in corporate America.  But, is this confrontation or intimidation?   Let me suggest that it is intimidation. 

Webster uses this terminology in describing "confront" - To bring face to face; To come up against; To encounter.  Confrontation jumps on the radar screen as a strategy when it is time to go face to face with someone who is underachieving, not following the rules or failing to deliver on their promises.  How will a leader respond to these situations?   Will the under-performer respond better to coaching, to encouragement, to an honest dialogue or to confrontation?    Think about it.   And which tactic will benefit the company?  It is situational. 

Many managers in companies today ignore these situations.  Taking action to deter such behavior is not a priority until it impacts a business unit's performance.  Avoiding the difficult discussions is the easy way out for most managers.  The "easy choice" allows the destructive behavior to continue.  It affects organizations beyond understanding.  Managers are unaware that such neglect is fostering cynicism and dissension.  No response is not the answer.  It may take "non-violent confrontation" to move forward.  Aren't people entitled to know when they are not living up to the boss's expectations and not fulfilling their potential?   It is about turning up the pressure properly so that performance can move to a higher level.

I covet honest communications.   Having a direct, candid and lively conversation with an under-performer can be stimulating.  It is back and forth with each party contributing to the conversation.  If you are convincing, you may be able to impact the person's performance. You also receive valuable information about your personal leadership.  It may also be information that you are not ready for.   Open and honest dialogue thrusts a mirror in front of your face and encourages you to fully understand the image that you are viewing.   You may be confronting a side of you that you have avoided for some time.  It is about having a personal encounter.  This encounter must be held periodically so that you can recognize the side of you that is "shorting-out."  Often the under-performers believe the disconnect side of their leader is causing their problems.  It could be; you won't know until you confront it.

Confronting or encountering - there is much to gain from the exercise.  It enables people to act; especially, those individuals who are "hearing great counsel from you."  Understand this.   You will not gain leverage if the confronting is conducted in an intimidating or bullying style.  The fruits of combat are raised blood pressure, wounded spirits and further withdrawal.  Combat raises the sparring back and forth.  It increases the probability that neither person will share the tough messages.

Conversely,  "the encounter" is about sharing information and helping people grow so that they can make a contribution.  Talk with the individual(s) about their shortcomings and their prospects for fulfilling their commitments.  Demonstrate your concern for them.  Raise the level of communication and show your willingness to support their new sense of urgency.  Be firm, direct and straightforward.  The encounter is a confrontational approach to move performance to a higher level.   This will happen if you are willing and able to make people feel uncomfortable about their performance and if you are also committed to their success. 

Copyright 2000 International Leadership Associates