Conflict management: when should you leave the message thread?
In organisations, some conflicts continue through messages whose authors each consider their tone perfectly clear. The managerial question is specific: when should that exchange be paused so that a conversation can clarify what each person believes they have understood?
What the literature establishes
Justin Kruger, Nicholas Epley, Jason Parker and Zhi-Wen Ng (2005, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) show, in experiments involving email, that people overestimate their ability to convey tone, particularly sarcasm or seriousness. The authors link this gap to the difficulty of moving beyond one's own perspective: the sender knows the intention behind the words, whereas the recipient does not. These findings establish a risk of misunderstanding, not proof that email necessarily creates conflict.
Ambiguity is not a shortage of information
Richard Daft and Robert Lengel (1986, Management Science) distinguish uncertainty, associated with insufficient information, from equivocality, associated with the coexistence of different interpretations. Their theoretical framework explains why a medium allowing immediate feedback and multiple communication cues may be better suited to an ambiguous situation. In a tense exchange, adding a document therefore does not necessarily address the problem if the participants disagree about what a request means.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that a telephone call is always required as soon as disagreement emerges. These studies do not justify such a general rule: a spoken exchange removes neither incompatible objectives nor a regulatory constraint. The useful distinction concerns what remains to be resolved: checking facts, negotiating a trade-off or clarifying an intention attributed to the other person. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence does not allow us to promise
The experiments on email tone are not an intervention trial involving Zurich teams in conflict, and the media richness framework provides no universal threshold for switching to a conversation. Applying them to instant messaging, multilingual exchanges and hierarchical relationships therefore requires local testing. In regulated activities, oral clarification does not remove the need to keep an appropriate record of decisions.
A practical check in Zurich
As part of SHR's conflict management programme, a Zurich team in financial services, insurance, tech or the European headquarters of an international group could test a rule for four weeks: when a message triggers disagreement about intent, propose a brief spoken clarification, then record the decision in accordance with internal rules. Before the conversation, each party notes what they think the other is requesting; afterwards, each restates that request and asks for confirmation or correction. The indicator is the proportion of cases in which both parties confirm the restatement of their own request, with any continuing substantive disagreement recorded separately. This monitoring checks mutual understanding without confusing it with agreement or claiming a demonstrated causal effect for the procedure. To go further: explore the Conflict Management training in Zurich, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Conflict Management in Zurich
- conflict management
- Zurich
- research
- training zurich