Excerpts

Chapter One CONFLICT IN ORGANIZATIONS * * * We all are of two minds about conflict. We say that conflict is natural, inevitable, necessary and normal, and that the problem is not the existence of conflict but how we handle it. But we are also loath to admit that we are in the midst of conflict. Bernard Mayer Conflict exists in all human relationships; it always has and probably always will. We are continually in conflict with our parents, our teachers, our partners, our children, our colleagues, and almost everyone else we deal with. This does not make us bad people or even innately aggressive. Conflict is natural. It stems from the fact that we each have our own interests (needs, concerns, goals, and priorities) and are concerned that others may prevent us from satisfying them. In this chapter we explain that two interacting forces cause conflict in the workplace. The first is diversity--the fact that organizations are filled with people with different personal and professional perspectives and interests. The second force is interdependence--the fact that these very diverse people must work together to accomplish their personal and organizational goals. We also consider whether workplace conflict is increasing while our tolerance of it is decreasing. CONFLICT BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS Because conflict has been around for so long and is so prevalent today, you might expect that we would accept its presence and be good at resolving it. However, most of us are not comfortable with conflict, and we do not have a broad range of strategies and skills for dealing with it. We have inherited from our mammoth-hunting ancestors a fight-or-flight approach to conflict. Those of our forebears who survived long enough to procreate did so because they had developed superior skills for fighting or for running away, along with the good judgment to know which approach was called for in different situations. When we are faced with conflict, most of us (like our forebears) either confront our opponent aggressively in order to win or withdraw from the situation. For most of us these are not strategic decisions; our choice depends, in large part, on our personal comfort level with conflict. Some people are uneasy with conflict and withdraw from it; others thrive on conflict and seek it out. The fight-or-flight dichotomy that served our ancestors so well is insufficient for our modern needs. It is often socially unacceptable to lash out verbally and usually illegal to strike out physically against our parents, teachers, partners, children, colleagues, or others in society. And running away is seldom the solution. It is unfortunate that many of us have not developed other strategies to replace these outmoded ones. CONFLICT IN ORGANIZATIONS It should not be surprising that our discomfort with conflict has carried over into our organizations. Organizations generally hate conflict. Until recently conflict was viewed as abnormal and treated as a shameful corporate secret. In fact, as recently as ten years ago when we offered training programs in organizations, we were often asked not to use the "c-word" in our title. Clients preferred names like "Reaching Agreements That Last" or "Dealing with Differences," as if admitting the need for conflict resolution skills would disclose some serious corporate flaw. Of course conflict was there. People had opposing interests and different perspectives at work just as they had at home, except that it was unacceptable in most organizations to acknowledge these differences. One reason for suppressing conflict was that managers did not and still do not welcome contrary opinions from their subordinates. Another reason was "company etiquette"; it was more diplomatic to sweep differences under the mat than to risk offending colleagues with whom you had to work every day. Certainly it was bad taste to lose your temper, and emotional responses were usually career inhibiting. Over the past ten to fifteen years, the situation has improved in that more organizations accept that conflict is natural and not something to be ashamed of. Frontline and managerial employees are more and more often identifying conflict resolution skills as necessary tools for dealing with coworkers, managers, and customers. Perhaps this greater openness reflects the fact that the amount of conflict in organizations is unavoidable and is increasing, for reasons we will discuss shortly. Conflict is a product of diversity and interdependence (see Figure 1.1). Organizational conflict arises because people who have different personal and professional interests must work together to achieve the organization's goals. Because these people have different interests and may actually be in opposition to each other, they often become concerned that others may block them from meeting their needs. DIVERSITY IN ORGANIZATIONS Organizations are made up of people who have different and quite often opposing values, goals, beliefs, perspectives, interests, personalities, and communication styles. These differences arise from a variety of sources, some personal and some organizational. Individual Differences Individuals have unique mixes of personal characteristics and cultural identities that alter the lens through which we view our experiences. Skin color, ethnic origin, socioeconomic class, religious belief, sexual orientation, and physical challenges are some of the influences on our values and outlook. While these characteristics help us connect with other likeminded people, they can also create tension and misunderstanding with those who are different. Other important differences are our personalities and personal preferences. For example, some of us are goal oriented while others are more laid-back. Some of us value high income the most and still others put the highest priority on family life. Some of us like working alone while others prefer working in teams. Some are good with details and others have a broader perspective. And so on. Professional Differences In addition to these individual differences there are differences that flow from the professional or functional areas we work in. Marketing people tend to see the world differently from financial people. Human resources specialists often have different values and perspectives than do accountants. This diversity frequently arises because different kinds of people are drawn to different fields of work. It is compounded by the influence that the profession has on the people in it. For example, an outgoing, imaginative, entrepreneurial person is more likely to become a marketer than an accountant. Once in the marketing business, the person will probably be rewarded more for vision, risk taking, and intuition than for caution and accuracy. Barbara: I was the chief of service of a hospital unit that treated adolescents. The staff came from a wide variety of professional backgrounds, such as nursing, occupational therapy, recreational therapy, psychology, social work, and medicine. Each discipline was totally committed to the well-being of the adolescents, but there was often little consensus on the priorities for care. For example, nurses were concerned about medication schedules, infection rates, and clinical symptoms. Occupational therapists focused on developing job skills and career planning, and arranged outings into the community that played havoc with nursing schedules and, according to the nurses, "exposed clients to infection." Recreation therapists planned strenuous physical activities to occupy the teens in the evening, but unfortunately this was at the point when nursing coverage was at its lowest, creating a risk in case of accidents and also competing with social work's priority of having family visits. Unclear Vision When you have many people working in specialized groups, it is important to provide them with a clear idea about the goals, direction, and values of the overall entity. This enables them to carry out their responsibilities in ways that contribute to the success of the enterprise. We need this direction and expect our leaders to provide it. However, when we become leaders we often fail to provide it to others. As a result many people in many organizations are forced to invent their own corporate vision. When you have different versions of goals, direction, and values among different individuals and groups, you increase the probability of unproductive conflict. Sy: In a museum we worked with, the CEO and the board had not articulated a clear statement of their vision for the enterprise. As a result senior executives were allowed or forced to make their own assumptions. Two key executives had very different visions, consistent with their own backgrounds and areas of responsibility. One visualized the museum as primarily an educational institution, whereas the other saw its primary goal as entertainment. The business of the museum could not be carried out without the collaboration of these two officers, but unfortunately the difference in their views was a barrier to their cooperation. Their relationship quickly deteriorated and spread to members of their respective staffs. Eventually members of the board became concerned and put pressure on the CEO to resolve the conflict. Conflicting Responsibilities Groups are often given responsibilities that are in opposition to those of other groups. To some extent this is inevitable and is in the nature of organizations. Salespeople want to sell as much as they can, and their job is made easier if the product can be customized and the price kept low. Production managers want to keep costs low, and this is best accomplished through long runs of similar items. Finance wants the sales to be profitable, so the price cannot be too low. Everybody is right--to a point. Conflict centers on trying to find the right point. Similar tensions exist throughout all organizations. Barbara: In one large plant of a public utility, serious tensions developed between the members of one group that operated the equipment and the members of another group responsible for preventative maintenance. The maintenance group had the authority to shut down equipment for maintenance at their discretion. The shutdowns inconvenienced the operators, who doubted the need for many of the shutdowns yet had to work extra time to make up for the closures. The result was serious tension with workplace safety implications. Unclear Responsibilities Conflicting responsibilities may be inherent in the nature of organizations, but management sometimes creates additional conflict by being unclear about responsibilities. Even when people have jobs that are quite distinct, overlaps may occur in areas on the margins. An important purpose of job descriptions is to clarify these areas. However, in many organizations job descriptions are several years old, so that even if they were clear when they were written, subsequent developments have rendered them hopelessly out of date. Conflict arises when two or more people, usually acting in good faith, find that they are interfering with one another in carrying out their perceived duties. Daryl: I was asked to mediate a conflict between a supervisor and his employee. The supervisor wanted to discipline the employee for taking certain actions without waiting for the supervisor's permission. The employee argued that he needed the autonomy to act in crisis situations and that his job description supported his right to do so. Both parties saw themselves as teammates but could not agree on their respective roles and responsibilities. Sy: In one financial institution a special task force was established to introduce a program of continuous improvement. There was already an organizational effectiveness group in the company. Nobody clarified where the task force was to leave off and the organizational effectiveness group was to pick up. The resulting bitterness between the leaders of these two groups caused confusion among their clients, and eventually the task force leader had to leave the company. Conflicting Information People act on the basis of their understanding of the information available to them. People who have different information or who interpret information differently will act in different ways. Information is not always shared in organizations. Sometimes there are good competitive or legal reasons for this, but it still causes trouble; so does providing complex data without helping people interpret them. Conflict arises because people act on information in ways that others do not understand and therefore misinterpret. Sy: An engineer employed by a large public utility complained bitterly that his expert advice was not followed in the construction of a large power facility. His recommendations were, he said, "watered down" by people who "knew nothing about" his field of engineering. When asked who opposed his views, he identified the legal department and the public relations people. He saw their actions as reducing the quality of his work, undermining his authority, and blocking his career development; he even hinted that they might be racially motivated. When we explored the problem, it turned out that there had never been a sharing of information among the various departments. Everyone recognized that the engineer had the necessary expertise to make decisions about technical matters. However, he did not realize the difficulties his decisions would have created by breaching zoning and environmental regulations or the uproar in the media from environmental activists and local citizens who were concerned about the impact on local habitat and on real estate prices. His frustration could have been alleviated and a plan devised that better met the broader range of interests if all relevant parties had shared information and discussed all of the consequences. All of the types of diversity described in the preceding examples created the potential for conflict. The left circle in Figure 1.1 (p. 7) represents this diversity. If the people holding diverse views had been working independently, conflict would not have arisen. Conflict emerged because these very different people had to work together (see the right-hand circle in Figure 1.1). INTERDEPENDENCE IN ORGANIZATIONS In simpler times it might have been possible for people to work independently on their own tasks. A craftsman could work alone to create his product; a saleswoman could call on customers by herself to sell merchandise; an accountant could single-handedly prepare statements; a health professional in a hospital could, without assistance, treat a patient with a particular need. This kind of independent activity may still be occurring in some small enterprises, but it is the exception, not the rule. In order to meet the complex challenges facing them today, most organizations must bring together smiled and motivated people from a variety of backgrounds and encourage them to work collaboratively to meet common organizational goals. Marketers, salespeople, designers, craftsmen, and financial experts must work together to create products that can be sold profitably. Salespeople often have to bring designers or financial experts on sales calls in order to sell complex products. Health care professionals now work in multidisciplinary teams to ensure that patients receive more holistic treatment. This combination of diversity and interdependence gives rise to conflict. If we study the examples of diversity, it becomes obvious that although the differences were necessary contributors to the conflict, they were not sufficient. In each case if the people holding the different views had worked in separate settings, their differences might have provided the subject matter for interesting mealtime or conference debates, but they would not have been in conflict with one another. It was the need to take unified actions that made the conflict real. Barbara's team of diverse professionals had to agree on plans for managing the same group of adolescents. The engineer could not implement his ideas without the concurrence of the legal and public affairs people who saw things very differently. The continuous improvement task force and the organizational effectiveness group worked for the same company on similar issues. Many factors compound the effect of interdependence. One is the competition for scarce resources. Another is the struggle for power. Yet another may be the organizational structure itself. Scarce Resources In most organizations the demand for people, equipment, and money exceeds supply. This could be because resources are actually short or because there is an abundance of ideas on how to use them. Regardless of the reason for it, the result is a belief among members that their personal and professional objectives will be thwarted because other people will be given "their" resources. This often results in colleagues undermining or even sabotaging each other to ensure that they get the resources they need. Sy: A group of news producers working for a small television station were in a continual state of conflict with one another. Their whole work day was filled with the competition for scarce resources: who would be assigned the high-profile story, who would get the most competent camera person, who would get first crack at the limited editing facilities, and whose story would get the best and the most air time. Power Struggles Despite efforts to flatten out structures, most organizations are still hierarchical. Position in the hierarchy conveys the power to affect how things get done, so people with agendas and ambition covet key positions. These people quite naturally view their colleagues as potential roadblocks to their careers. Thus people behave competitively when they should be cooperating in the corporate interest. Management often encourages such competitive tendencies out of a belief in natural selection. Sy: Several years ago some tenured faculty members at one of the campuses of a large state university system anticipated funding cuts that could lead to reductions in the faculty. In order to reduce their own vulnerability, they decided to block tenure appointments in areas that might be valued more than theirs. A few of these plotters managed to be appointed to the tenure committee and began to implement their plan. The resulting conflict eventually required the intervention of the academic vice president. Organization Structure and Procedures The organization structure itself can cause conflict. Structures formalize and rigidify the way people are supposed to work together. A structure that forces people to work together who have opposing or ambiguous responsibilities creates "rub points" that cause raw wounds. Sometimes organization structures that once made sense have not kept pace with changes in direction or strategy; sometimes the structures never made sense at all. Perhaps a structure was designed to take advantage of the strengths of a particular individual, or to compensate for someone's weaknesses, or to keep two incompatible people apart. Those people may no longer even be in the organization. Whatever the reasons, there is a saying: "If you put good people in a bad organization structure, the bad structure will win." Barbara: In one organization a conflict between two departments had continued unabated for about nineteen years. At the time of our involvement, almost none of the original staff remained, but the conflict persisted. One department was responsible for the design and construction of equipment, and the other was responsible for operating and maintaining the equipment. The two departments should have been working closely together; in fact, they had no formal contact. The two managers who had led the departments nineteen years before had been unable to get along, and senior management had decided that the solution was to have each department report to a different vice president. The structure of the organization was changed, and the conflict apparently disappeared. However, by the time we were called in, the two departments were in public competition with each other. Over the years both had hired additional staff to replicate the work of the other rather than work with their "rival." Customers were playing one department off against the other, and complaints to the head office were increasing. The organizational structure that was intended to solve the problem was now causing dysfunction because it hampered communication, left customers unhappy, and added unnecessary expense to the organization. Sometimes it is not the structure that causes problems but the systems, rules, and procedures that are either out of date or nonexistent. Daryl: A young educational institution had not created the systems for handling discipline problems with students. Neither did they have hiring procedures for staff or decisionmaking procedures for the many unresolved problems in the school. The lack of structure opened the door to power struggles between the administration and the teachers. The power struggles fueled racial divisions among the staff. As a result the future of the school was jeopardized. (Continues...) Excerpted from From Conflict to Creativity by Sy Landau, Barbara Landau, Daryl Landau. Copyright (c) 2001 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. Excerpted by permission. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.