Subordinates at Fault for Workplace Conflict?

I, generally speaking, do not enjoy conflict, and therefore, I don't always deal with it very well.  Suffice it to say, in the moment I usually handle it ok (although I am known to back down too easily), but I absolutely hate it, and it will run through my mind for days afterwards, resulting in an all-out effort to avoid such a situation ever again.

So, naturally, I'm constantly looking for advice and suggestions for dealing with and reacting to workplace conflict.

Today Forbes was my resource (I find myself perusing this website like a snake on water these days), and I found this article: 5 Keys of Dealing with Workplace Conflict.  Seems like a good article for someone such as I - and, generally speaking, the article had good advice.  But there was one excerpt that really stuck out to me, and at the end of the day, speaks volumes about the author that made me less likely to "take his word for it" on other aspects of his advice:

"One of my favorite examples of what I described in the paragraph above is the weak leader who cannot deal with subordinates who use emotional deceit as a weapon of destruction.  Every workplace is plagued with manipulative people who use emotion to create conflict in order to cover-up for their lack of substance. These are the drama queens/kings that when confronted about wrongdoing and/or lack of performance are quick to point the finger in another direction. They are adept at using emotional tirades which often include crocodile tears, blameshifting, little lies, half truths and other trite manipulations to get away with total lack of substance. The only thing worse than what I’ve just described is leadership that doesn’t recognize it and/or does nothing about it. Real leaders don’t play favorites, don’t get involved in drama, and they certainly don’t tolerate manipulative, self-serving behavior."

The first thing that shocks me is that he is coming out and saying this in a public article when, in my opinion, it only defines him as an ineffective leader.  It appears that he feels that his subordinates are the cause of his problems, and if they wouldn't spend so much time reacting like children, conflict in the workplace would be easier to manage.  The clearest message to me here is that he does not have an understanding of how different personality types (and just different people in general) react to and deal with high stress and/or conflict situations.  And that he is a sucky listener.

But I want to point out some specific phrases that lead me to this conclusion, and are concerning to me from a psychological perspective:


One of my favorite examples
I find this a very strange way to start the paragraph.  As if he almost enjoys watching the circus of these leaders trying to manage their drama queens?

the weak leader who cannot deal with subordinates
This is a clear judgement without any substance.  He does not attempt to understand why a leader might respond in what he considers to be 'weakness'.  He insults his fellow leaders (who may have differing opinions) right out the door without regret.

Every workplace is plagued with manipulative people who use emotion to create conflict in order to cover-up for their lack of substance
Ok, here's my problem with this one: I get it - these people exist.  I've worked with them, for them, under them, you name it.  But I would say they are few and far between.  "The workplace is plagued" with them???  Come on!  This guy needs to spend more time paying attention to the reasons for these kinds of behavior, and understanding the motivations and needs of his workers instead of shutting them down everytime they show a reaction to stress.

They are adept at using emotional tirades which often include crocodile tears, blameshifting, little lies, half truths and other trite manipulations
Again, I don't think he's listening to his employees to understand their frustration.  I am one who has been known to cry in front of my boss once or twice in the past.  It's not manipulation; I'm just a sensitive person and sometimes I can't hold the tears back (and believe me I'm trying)!  And I'll tell you that there have been times in the past when I have resorted to things like blameshifting, little lies, half truths because I had tried being open and honest with my boss previously and the result was always the same: I get yelled at, blamed, punished, whatever because mistakes are unacceptable.  I'm happy to take responsibility for my mistakes.  But I'm not okay with angry inferences about my abilities or attitude as a result of my mistakes.  Just admit that you're human, I'm human, we're going to make mistakes, and when it happens we'll work through it to fix it, and examine options for preventing it in the future.  Is that so hard?

Real leaders don’t play favorites, don’t get involved in drama, and they certainly don’t tolerate manipulative, self-serving behavior."
I actually agree with this statement (outside of the wording "real leaders" which I think implies judgement against the "weak" referenced earlier in the paragraph), but I can't agree with it completely in the context of this paragraph.  It seems to imply to me that this leadership characteristic is expected to be applied quite often in the workplace, rather than on the rare occasion.


I was shocked that no commentators made any mention of these things at the end of the article.  Of course, his article doesn't exactly wreak with openness to disagreement or criticism. 

What do you think?  Do you agree with him?  Is there something I'm missing?  Am I irked about this simply because I am one of these manipulators he describes?