The pages of modern leadership tomes are replete with advice on dealing with workplace conflict, much of it coming down to this:  Do not fear conflict. Embrace it.

It would have been challenging advice for a group of UPS employees attending a team meeting on a Wednesday morning last June in San Francisco. Without warning, and seemingly without provocation, one employee suddenly brandished an assault-style pistol and exacted violence on eight of his colleagues before “walking away calmly” and taking his own life.

The companies and cities vary, but we see tragedies like this one unfurl in news headlines with almost predictable repetition. Violence. Panic. Resulting trauma. And the nagging question: Why did this happen? 

According to a police report issued that day, the shooter in the San Francisco tragedy felt bullied at work.  While this example is extreme and the mix of contributing factors likely go beyond office bullying, existing research suggests workplace conflict is ubiquitous.

A study by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) found that an overwhelming majority (85%) of employees at all seniority levels experience some degree of office conflict.  

Companies may not choose to embrace conflict, but if the BLS is study is right, managers certainly can't afford to ignore it.  

PRODUCTIVITY: MIA

For starters, conflict in the business context constitutes a drag on productivity, and workplace interdependencies can make the productivity drag's impact contagious. For example, when a widget-maker is less productive, the domino effect of that productivity loss can be felt by every department relying on that widget, and by every other department relying on the output of that department.  Worse yet, from the big-picture perspective, a drag on productivity is a drag on a company's fiscal goals.  

A study conducted by CPP Global revealed that American employees spend 2.8 hours per week grappling with conflict, representing more than $350 billion in lost productivity. Perhaps the gap lurks unnoticed in a quarterly spreadsheet, but the toll of missed opportunity can mount over time, weighing on overall employee performance and year-over-year growth rates.

The study further found that 27 percent of employees have witnessed conflict morph into a personal attack, and 25 percent admitted to missing work, even using sick days, to avoid internal clashes. If workplace conflict is not contained, a businesses’ productivity, operational effectiveness, and morale can suffer major blows.

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL COST OF CONFLICT AND ITS KINDRED SPIRIT, EMPLOYEE CHURN

Second, there’s the nagging issue of employee disenchantment. According to organizational coach Rajkumari Neogy, neurobiological research suggests on-the-job conflict causes a significant rise in cortisol levels -  commonly known as garden-variety stress.

“When people experience being disrespected, the brain codes that as physical injury,” she notes.  “For example, if someone gets interrupted in a meeting, their cortisol levels spike.  If that dread continues, they eventually experience what the body perceives as chronic trauma. The chronic trauma experience can lead to a kind of PTSD.”

Neogy has worked with some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley – including Google and Facebook – to consult with managers on how best to work through bias and conflict before disenchantment can set in.

Cortisol levels, she points out, assist with memory formulation, control blood sugar levels, reduce inflammation, maintain proper salt/water balance and regulate metabolism.

All of these functions make cortisol crucial to overall health and well-being, but when cortisol levels become out of whack, the whole house of cards can begin to tumble over time.

“If the cortisol-compromised employee stays in the company for several years, this dynamic can wreak havoc on the nervous system and max out their adrenals, so the instinctive reaction in a healthy economy is for that employee to hit the restart button and go to a different company. The cost to the company to deal with the churn...the potential health cost to the employee...all told, the impact of conflict can be astonishing.”

ON THE VIRTUES OF STRONG COMMUNICATION

When Neogy asks what her clients observe to be the main cause of conflict, many cite personality as the defining culprit. Work style clashes. Warring egos. Poor leadership, or no leadership at all. All are named as crippling contributors to the angst that leads to conflict.

The problem is often magnified by the fact that stress and workload – two factors sure to increase in a dynamic economy – are also cited among the leading conflict instigators.  

Larger companies with greater budgets and internal relations expertise are taking note of the issues behind workplace conflict and taking steps to resolve them. 

Budgetary constraints often keep smaller organizations from following suit. Yet the smaller the company, the more internal conflict can expose its bottom line, and the less likely employees are to have the benefit of conflict resolution training.

What many don’t know, says Neogy, is how to interact in a relational, or warm and caring, way - the work of the brain’s right hemisphere.

“Instead," she stresses, "what’s often most valued in traditional workplace culture is left-hemisphere, or transactional, thinking, which is focused on measuring, comparing and evaluating.  And that doesn’t always feel good.”

It establishes an environment in which employees miss opportunities to communicate relationally and invite others to feel valued, course-correcting their working relationships. The result can not only increase stress, but also hamper the brain’s “feel-good” secretions - dopamine, oxytocin and the body’s own opioids.

At the end of the day, it's like your mother always said: The key to resolving conflict lies in good old, empathic communication.

“When we speak to each other respectfully and relationally, we are constantly secreting oxytocin and therefore augmenting our levels of trust with each other.  So the key to shifting team culture is to learn to communicate more relationally, surface one another’s unmet needs and find a way to trust again.”