The Researcher’s Conflation Trap

I have been thinking about a possibility that sits at the heart of workplace conflict research.

What if disagreement and conflict are not the same thing?
Reference: Understand Conflict

Most conflict researchers seem to define conflict broadly enough to include disagreements. At first glance, this seems reasonable. After all, many disagreements eventually escalate into disputes, arguments, and damaged relationships.

But what if that classification is creating a blind spot?
Amy Gallo: How to become an Expert in Conflict

My argument is simple:

1. Disagreement and conflict are different phenomena.
2. Researchers combine them under the single label of conflict.
3. Disagreement is then treated as an early form of conflict.
4. Organisations adopt systems designed to manage or resolve conflict.
5. Over time, teams can become wary of disagreeing.

If this chain is true, then we may have fallen into what I call the Researcher’s Conflation Trap.

This is not a criticism of researchers. It is a criticism of a category or framework they choose to maintain.

History is full of examples where useful observations were grouped together in ways that later proved less useful. Whales were once classified as fish. Pluto was once classified as a planet. Heat was once thought to be a fluid.

The people were not foolish. The classification simply evolved.

I suspect something similar may be happening with disagreements and conflict.

Consider the statement:

“I think your proposal has three flaws.”

Most people would see this as disagreeing, not conflict. In fact, many innovative teams depend on this kind of challenge. Yet under researcher’s conflict frameworks, it is already classified as a form of conflict. “Possibly a good conflict,” subjectively speaking.

This matters because the solution changes depending on the category.

If disagreement is conflict, then we need some form of conflict management.

If disagreeing is simply a disagreement, then perhaps what we need to manage is any objectionable behavior that occurs during them.

That distinction sits at the heart of SpatzAI.

Team members should feel unencumbered and free to agree or disagree with the content of a discussion. And accountability comes from how they treat each other while doing it.

Perhaps the goal is not less disagreeing/conflict.

Perhaps the goal is less objectionable behavior when we disagree.

I think there is a difference, and I think it matters.