I was honoured to deliver a session on “The Psychology of Conflict in Compliance” during MFxt Compliance Roundtable.
Conflict in
#compliance is often treated as a question of communication style. The more relevant issue is what happens to judgement when disagreement becomes consequential.
De Dreu and Weingart’s distinction between task conflict and relationship conflict is useful here. A disagreement may begin around evidence,
#regulatory interpretation,
#control effectiveness or
#risk acceptance. The dynamic changes once competence,
#authority, status or professional identity become implicated.
A challenge to a programme may then be experienced not only as a challenge to the programme, but also to those who designed, sponsored or defended it. A different regulatory interpretation may be perceived as a challenge to professional credibility.
Barry Staw’s work helps explain why these situations become difficult. Once time, money, reputation or executive sponsorship have been invested in a decision, people may become more likely to defend it even when new evidence suggests reconsideration.
The relevance to compliance is immediate: a programme repeatedly reported as “on track”, a strategic customer already approved, a control framework that absorbed significant investment, or a regulatory position already communicated. Changing course may then also mean acknowledging that an earlier assumption was wrong or that previous assurances were too optimistic.
Threat-rigidity theory adds another dimension. Under perceived threat, information processing can narrow and familiar responses can gain weight. A serious regulatory finding or approaching deadline should increase openness to scrutiny, yet the same conditions can also increase defensiveness and attachment to existing positions.
Amy Edmondson’s work on psychological safety is equally relevant:
“We may have assessed this incorrectly.”
“The evidence does not support closure.”
“We should revisit what we have already communicated.”
If the perceived professional or reputational cost of saying those things is too high, silence can easily be mistaken for alignment.
Power asymmetry complicates the picture further. Hierarchy, expertise, commercial influence, access to decision-makers and regulatory accountability are rarely concentrated in the same place. The person with the strongest technical understanding may not hold the formal
#authority to decide, while the decision-maker may depend on information controlled elsewhere.
Van Kleef’s work shows how emotional expression influences reciprocal behaviour. Defensiveness can produce stronger challenge; stronger challenge can reinforce defensiveness, even when the underlying regulatory facts have not changed.
Taken together,
#ConflictManagement in compliance is ultimately about protecting decision quality through better decision architecture.
That is where
#BehaviouralScience becomes genuinely useful to compliance.
#riskculture