Tour Guide Tim, Wildfires, & Conflict Resolution
I recently visited the Grand Canyon and its surrounding area for the very first time. It was really hard to take in all that I was seeing so I was grateful that we had a talented and seasoned tour guide. Tim was exactly what you would expect from a tour guide. While of retirement age, he dressed like an REI model, wore a bucket hat, believed that shaving was optional, and was slightly eccentric in his desire to share his knowledge with strangers. Tim was a walking encyclopedia of wisdom. I felt a little like a stereotypical two-year-old as I consistently asked, “Why is that layer of soil a different color from the ones above it and below it? Why does that rock formation look different from the others? Why did the types of trees we have been seeing on our drive suddenly change? Why, why, why?” But Tim had an answer for everything.
In between answering all of my questions, Tim shared with us about the intentional act of fostering growth by allowing a controlled forest fire to burn. The issue of forest fires was ever present on our minds since many of the surrounding national parks were closed due to wildfires.
Tim said, “A small, controlled forest fire is a good thing because it eliminates dangerous insects, thins the forest by removing the plants that are crowding others out, prunes the trees, and the fire creates nitrogen which is good for soil.”
I don’t know much about forest fires, but I do know that what he said directly applies to organizational health in regard to conflict resolution.
When I am invited to work with a new group often times my point of contact will share that my invitation is a result of conflict within the group. My experience has been that there are a variety of conflict types. Two that come to mind would be conflicts as wildfires and conflicts as controlled fires. We must approach those two types of conflicts very differently.
A “wildfire” as a metaphor for conflict in an organization or on a team is a conflict that doesn’t lead to growth because it kills the good and the bad at the same time. I tend to notice that this shows up in one of two ways. The first is when the leader chooses to ignore underlying issues and the conflict grows, spreads, and takes on a life of its own much like a wildfire. The second is when a member of a group feels that they aren’t being seen or heard, that they don’t matter, and in a moment of revenge or anger they decide to burn it all down. The danger in this type of conflict is that it often does a lot of irreversible damage. In this scenario, we have to work to put out the fire as quickly as possible.
In contrast, a “controlled fire” helps to eliminate or reduce those issues that are limiting the success of a group. The conflict may still be very painful, but this type of conflict ultimately works to benefit a group. This doesn’t mean a leader seeks to harm anyone by intentionally setting a “controlled fire” conflict, but rather they approach a natural conflict that arises in a team or an organization with an understanding that not all conflict is the same and sometimes we need to let conflict uproot those who are no longer interested in serving the good of the organization. The scenario also requires that we closely monitor what is happening, but it is far more methodical than the swift response to a wildfire conflict.
I was speaking with a leader in the medical field last week and he shared that 25% of his work force had resigned this year. I asked how he felt about the turnover, and he said, “It’s a very good thing; the people who left were not on board with our culture and we are a better and more cohesive group without them.” In a recent conversation with a college coach, I asked about a student-athlete who had just announced that she was transferring. The coach replied, “We did our best to work with her and get her on board, but she wasn’t happy here and she was sabotaging our team culture. When she said she wanted to leave we didn’t fight it.”
In both of these scenarios the leaders didn’t encourage, cause, or create the conflict, but they were intentional about how they chose to respond to it. They are in fact the type of leaders who seek to minimize conflict through clear communication and healthy relationships. My point here is that conflict in and of itself is not always bad, in fact, it can be a very healthy thing. In the same way that wildfires need to be put out and a controlled fire needs to be monitored, not all conflict needs to be resolved in the same way.
Smokey Bear may have become famous by saying, “Only YOU can prevent forest fires,” but the reality is there is a time and place for choosing to put out a fire and another time and place to monitor the burn. In both examples we are doing what is best for the group.
The next time a conflict arises ask yourself, “does this need a wildfire or a controlled fire approach?” The answer will directly influence how you choose to respond.
If you enjoyed this post, please use the social media icons below to share or tweet this blog so others may also benefit.