The sound of Matt and Peter’s arguing is familiar to everyone in the office by now. In an effort to make the best use of space and ensure a free flow of discussion and ideas, the founder of Markay Design had decided to convert the one-floor office of the company to an open plan with no walls between workers. The goal of such a layout is to eliminate boundaries and enhance creativity. But for Matt and Peter, the new arrangement creates a growing sense of tension.

The argument boils down to the question of workspace order and organization. Peter prefers to keep his desk completely clean and clear, and he keeps a stack of cleaning wipes in a drawer to eliminate any dust or dirt. Matt, on the other hand, likes to keep all his work visible on his desk, so sketches, plans, magazines, and photos are scattered everywhere, alongside boxes of crackers and coffee cups. Peter finds it hard to concentrate when he sees Matt’s piles of materials everywhere, while Matt feels he can be more creative and free flowing when he’s not forced to clean and organize constantly. Many of Matt and Peter’s coworkers wish they’d just let the issue drop. The men enjoyed a good working relationship in the past, with Peter’s attention to detail and thorough planning serving to rein in some of Matt’s wild inspirations. But of late, their collaborations have been derailed in disputes.

Everyone knows it’s not productive to engage in conflicts over every small irritant in the workplace. However, completely avoiding conflict can be equally negative. An emerging body of research has examined so-called conflict cultures in organizations. The findings suggest having a culture that actively avoids and suppresses conflicts is associated with lower levels of creativity. Cultures that push conflict underground but do not succeed in reducing the underlying tensions can become passiveaggressive, marked by underhanded behavior against other coworkers.

Ultimately, finding a way through the clutter dispute is probably going to be an ongoing process to find a balance between perspectives. Both Matt and Peter worry that if they can’t find a solution, their usually positive work relationship will be too contentious to bear. And that would be a real mess.

Questions 

1. Describe some of the factors that led this situation to become an open conflict. 

2. Do you think this is an issue worth generating conflict over? What are the potential costs and benefits of Matt and Peter having an open discussion of the issues? 

3. How can Matt and Peter develop an active problem-solving discussion to resolve this conflict? What could effectively be changed, and what is probably going to remain a problem?