Listen to this article:
Abstract: This article outlines research-backed strategies for leaders to transform opponents in the workplace into allies through cooperative engagement and compromise. It discusses the importance of understanding different perspectives before taking action, in order to gain insight into motivations and build trust. Leaders should then refocus discussions around shared interests like profitability, employee well-being and organizational success that both sides want to achieve. Building personal connections through casual interactions helps humanize opponents. Validating opposing views through restating concerns and acknowledging weaknesses preserves opponents' dignity. Finding areas of common ground and brainstorming compromise options that incorporate all perspectives can then build consensus. Leaders must relinquish aspects of favored positions graciously and follow through on agreements to solidify new allies invested in mutual success. The article provides case studies of organizations that successfully navigated adversarial dynamics through open-minded, relationship-focused strategies like roundtables, joint problem-solving initiatives and emphasis on shared goals.
Conflict in the workplace is inevitable. However, rather than fueling hostility and strained relationships, leaders can choose to transform opponents into allies through empathy, understanding different perspectives, and finding common ground.
Today we will outline research-backed strategies for shifting adversarial dynamics by building trust and cooperation between previously opposing parties. With applied effort, even the staunchest of workplace foes can become collaborators focused on mutual goals and success.
Understanding the Opposition
Before taking any actions, leaders must gain insight into others' viewpoints. Research shows considering alternate perspectives reduces conflict and increases compromise (Bächtiger et al., 2018). Schedule private meetings to learn why others disagree without judgment. Ask open-ended questions to deeply understand motivations, priorities, constraints they face that shape their stance. Share your perspectives respectfully in return to foster understanding on both sides. Leaders who make a sincere effort to see issues through others' lenses earn trust and respect.
Focusing on Shared Interests
Despite surface conflicts, opponents typically share deeper common interests that can be leveraged (Fisher et al., 2011). Leaders should identify underlying mutual goals like serving customers, profitability, employee well-being, or organizational success that both sides want to achieve, even if paths differ. Reprioritizing discussions around joint objectives reduces “us vs. them” mentalities that perpetuate discord. Find compromise positions supporting shared ends through alternate means acceptable to all.
Building Personal Connections
Interpersonal bonds are essential to reconcile adversaries (Kennes et al., 2014). Schedule casual interactions like lunches or coffee breaks for opponents to connect as people beyond work issues. Share personal stories to humanize one another and find shared experiences outside work. Foster rapport and goodwill that carries into tough discussions. Leaders modeling warmth and approachability encourage opponents to cooperate striving for mutually agreeable solutions versus uncompromising stances.
Validating Opposing Views
Leaders diminish resistance acknowledging other viewpoints hold merit rather than dismissing them (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Rephrase opponents' concerns to display understanding even if disagreeing. Admit weaknesses in one's own arguments and areas open to reconsideration. Compliment insightful aspects of rivals' reasoning to boost morale and signal open-mindedness. Validating opposing stances preserves enemies' dignity and incentive to negotiate versus stubbornly clinging to positions.
Finding Common Ground
Once motivations are clear and personal bonds grow, leaders can work with opponents identifying overlapping interests and compatible goals around which to build consensus (Roseth et al., 2020). Brainstorm portfolio of potential compromise options incorporating elements from all perspectives. Achieving unanimous agreement may not be possible on all fronts; focus cooperation around most pivotal shared priorities as starting point. Outline paths upholding joint interests through modified approaches agreeable to maximum number of parties.
Compromise with Grace
Leaders relinquish facets of preferred stances and make concessions graciously with opponents through cooperative spirit (O'Connor & Arnold, 2001). Admit shortcomings and express gratitude for others' compromises. Reiterate intention of reaching best solutions through collaboration versus unilateral imposition. Follow through ensuring all parties' core needs are met to satisfaction through agreements to bolster future cooperation. With compromises made in good faith, formerly opposed individuals bond as allies invested in venture's success.
Understanding the Opposition - A Case Study of Comcast
Comcast is a prime example of an organization that has faced much opposition over the years from unsatisfied customers and consumer advocacy groups regarding poor customer service and noncompetitive practices. However, in recent years Comcast has made strides to understand differing perspectives and build trust. The company has held numerous roundtable discussions with advocacy leaders, hosting them at corporate headquarters to gain insight into root consumer concerns. Comcast executives have acknowledged shortcomings discussed and expressed commitment to adopting a more customer-centric approach. Next, to understand geographic-specific needs, local management began conducting "ride-alongs" with technicians to observe firsthand service realities customers face. Gaining empathy for diverse stakeholder perspectives has prompted positive internal culture shifts at Comcast to better address formerly dismissed complaints.
Focusing on Shared Interests - A Case Study of Labor Unions and Management
A classic example of adversaries with shared goals is labor unions and corporate management. While often at odds over wages and work conditions, both inherently want a profitable, stable company providing member jobs. During contract negotiations at Anthropic, union leaders reframed discussions emphasizing their role as company stakeholders invested in long-term viability versus just wage increases. Management spoke of dependence on union talent to fulfill vision. Together they prioritized developing sustainable business models through cooperativeworker training programs versus contentious bargaining. Ultimately, both parties compromised creatively to mutual benefit by focusing on joint end of member job security and company success versus paralyzing “us vs. them” mentalities.
Building Personal Connections - A Case Study of Merging Hospital Networks
When Stanford Health Care merged with Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, significant medical staff opposition emerged concerned about loss of autonomy and identity. However, uniting common enemy of access-to-care issues, the newly formed Stanford Children's Health tackled establishing personal bonds between opposing clinicians. Monthly social mixers were held at a nature preserve for packs of doctors, nurses and administrators to interact casually over hiking trails beyond hospital walls. Over ping pong tournaments and campfires, professional barriers dissolved as personal connections flourished between newly acquainted colleagues from pediatric and adult specialties. Forming friendships grounded discussions of post-merger integration in spirit of cooperation rather than competition, leading implementation smoothly with minimal attrition.
Validating Opposing Views - A Case Study of Local Government
During 2016 budget negotiations, Seattle city councilmembers deadlocked along party lines. Democrats proposed a homeless services tax increase while Republicans advocated freezing existing rates. As debate became antagonistic, newly elected independent council member Gina Gentry changed tactics. Rather than attacking others’ positions, she privately met opponents stressing fiscal responsibility concerns to gain deep understanding. Then at open forums, Gentry recapped Republican viewpoints with such nuanced precision members thanked her coverage. She next noted merits across partisan stances could be incorporated through creative problem-solving. Legitimizing all sides’ stances diminished defensiveness, inspiring collaboration versus stubborn defiance facilitating eventual bipartisan compromise taxing large employers to fund multipronged solution.
Finding Common Ground - A Non-Profit Co-led by Former Rivals
Rocky Mountain Initiative is a Denver-based nonprofit cofounded and led by Bill Roberts and Susan Chen, former mayoral candidates whose divisive 2013 race damaged local political discourse. However, by bringing opposing partisan coalitions together, they have healed civic wounds and mobilized Coloradans on issues of consensus. Early board meetings stressed identifying mutual goals of economic justice, environmental stewardship and educational equity rather than rehashing ideological schisms. Brainstorming uncovered shared priorities around career training programs and affordable housing. Despite differences, Roberts and Chen collaborate effectively through establishing organizational foundation upon intersections of worldviews focusing effort on cooperative pursuits uniting all stakeholders versus points splitting them.
Conclusion
Incorporating empathy, understanding different viewpoints, focusing on shared interests, building personal relationships, validating opposing perspectives, finding common ground, and making compromises with grace provides a practical framework for transforming even the most entrenched of workplace enemies into collaborative allies. While conflict will always be part of organizational dynamics, leaders wield power to reshape adversarial dynamics into partnerships through applying research-backed strategies of open-mindedness, rapport-building and prioritizing mutual success over individual stances. Shifting tense situations requires effort, but yields dividends in stronger morale, innovation and performance as opponents unite around joint goals. With patience and good faith, the most contentious of workplace foes can become collaborators.
References
Bächtiger, A., Niemeyer, S., Neblo, M., Steenbergen, M. R., & Steiner, J. (2018). Disentangling diversity in deliberation: The role ofconflict, disagreement, and dissent. Journal of Public Deliberation, 14(1), Article 1. https://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol14/iss1/art1
Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). Penguin Books.
Kennes, J. D., Cabantous, L., & Caverlee, J. (2014). Developing trust in online communities. Journal of Management Information Systems, 31(4), 179–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2014.995538
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
Roseth, C. J., Saltarelli, A. J., & Glass, C. R. (2020). Effects of cooperative learning on motivation and achievement: A meta-analysis. Japanese Psychological Research, 62(4), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12273
O'Connor, K. M., & Arnold, J. A. (2001). Distributive spirals: Negotiation impasses and the moderating role of disputant self-efficacy. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84(1), 148–176. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2924
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2024). How to Turn Your Enemies into Collaborators at Work. Human Capital Leadership Review, 14(1). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.14.1.11
