I have often wondered what the origin of games might have been; how they were invented or evolved, and believe that each game was devised with a real life situation as the basis. For example, the basis for Tennis would be marriage. It begins with ‘love all’, requires both players to throw the ball into the other’s court and each wants to score an ace while claiming to ‘serve’. Played with a low net and on green turf, it has spectators all round following each move and shaking their heads, in pin drop silence.

Keeping this in mind, ‘conflicts at work’ must have lead to the founding of ‘Rugby’. One holds the ball and runs to score a goal and, when tackled, passes it on to a team member backing him. The other team furiously attacks anyone who has the ball in hand to prevent another goal being scored. The ball is not the usual round one but a conical shaped, odd looking ball and is neither kicked nor dabbled nor thrown but just held tightly till touchdown.

Conflicts at work make a person as adamant as a rugby player; being trained not to demonstrate any flexibility, holding on to the ball very tightly, their focus remains on trying to score a goal and trampling over others as they race towards their finish line.

Conflict at work exists for a variety of reasons ranging from ego issues to workplace romances and politics and even religion. Some conflicts stem from the use of obsolete strategies and adhering to age-old methods of working. Whatever the reason, the fact is that conflict at work is a slow poison, a sure sign of a dying organisation. In many organisations, the young entrants usually display an arrogant attitude towards the older employees who have held the fort through the years. In their stance, they often lose sight of respect and, even if inadvertently, end up showing gross disrespect for seniors. This sparks off tension and both the seniors as well as the enthusiastic newcomer then get on to a path of hostility. Work suffers, quality suffers, revenue and profit suffers, image suffers and eventually those in conflict suffer heavily too.

Those in conflict are unable to see the drawback of their behaviour and this calls for others in the organisation to instil sense in both the parties, hoping that wiser counsel prevails.

When the modern day executive believes that everything done in the past, and all who use those techniques, are obsolete, the friction begins. It is difficult for a senior to accept that what was being successfully implemented for several decades is utterly useless and what is being recommended now is the only way. Neither party is ready to display any flexibility and, most of the time, issues begin to be taken personally. With a good management eye and a team of sincere workforce, some transfers, relocations and the HR Department’s set of games and seminars, the situation can be muffled.

In larger organisations, both in the private as well as the public sector, but much more in the public sector, workplace conflicts often hang on a razor’s edge. The factor that leads to such drastic conflicts is that these are based on two very fragile elements: politics and religion.

An advisable strategy is that whilst there are two groups in conflict, there is a third group as well that supports neither faction, thus enabling the third group to play a very vital role in diffusing the situation. The third group should neither choose one of the groups to back, nor play a double game but should take up a very constructive position. Beginning with the leader, or the spokesperson, in each group, the third group must instil the belief that it is only the achievement of corporate objectives that can make individual personal gains possible. Workplace conflicts are a definite deterrent towards the realisation of corporate objectives and, consequently the individual personal goals shall remain unfulfilled.

The second element, which is even more perilous, is conflicts due to religious beliefs and sects. Both management as well as the third neutral group should ensure that discussions, comments and criticism on religious beliefs and practices be strictly kept away from office.

Peaceful co-existence demands that personal opinions and feelings remain strictly personal and in public the focus should be on intellect and understanding.