|
Feature, continued Necessary? Only if you want your company to grow and prosper. Let me clarify that statement before I loose your attention. The word conflict can represent anything from a difference of opinions to a state of open warfare between countries. This wide definition of a single word creates confusion on its own. I define conflict in business as people who have conflicting opinions about an issue or plan. That simply means that we recognize that differing opinions are common and should be regarded as a sign of a healthy business environment where people may contribute their ideas that are different from others. What many people describe as conflict is what I call turbulence. Turbulence is the arguing, fighting, game playing, and otherwise unwanted side effect of unmanaged conflicts. By using separate words we can separate the positive aspects of conflict from the negative aspects of turbulence. Let us examine a simple case. Many managers and business owners will establish and communicate a policy or direction for their company or team. An employee views the situation differently and offers an alternative direction or policy. This represents a conflict situation that needs to be managed appropriately. I call it conflict because we see two opinions that conflict, but does not need to represent a problem to the organization or lead to turbulence. In fact, it represents an opportunity for management to view the same situation from two different perspectives. The manager may view the situation in many ways, but here are a few.
Whether or not the idea is adopted, acceptance of the idea as an alternative gives the employee a feeling that his/her viewpoint and contribution has been considered. This can be good if the manager discusses the option with the employee and recognizes its validity. The temptation is to discuss the alternative recommendation, but the most effective method is to discuss the differences in the perspectives. The worst option would be to reject the alternative idea without giving it any consideration. Rejection of an idea creates the opinion of rejection of the employee and is perceived as being rude and unnecessary. At the very least, rejection of the idea will result in future reluctance to offer suggestions or alternatives and reduce future contributions from employees. It is more likely to result in an injury to the ego of the employee who might generate turbulence over the situation. Let's use an example that a manager adopts the policy that employees must call customers and explain why their order is late. The manager's perspective is that customers have a right to know when their order will be late and by requiring the employee to call, the employee may be motivated to work harder to fill the orders instead of having to call the customer to convey bad news. An employee perceives the situation as placing more work in those who are trying to fill the orders, that they are working hard, and this represents an additional burden on people who are trying to complete the orders. The employees recommend that a customer service clerk make the calls. Both sides are valid and represent a conflict in opinions and perspectives. Even the most tactful rejection of the alternative suggestion might result in a future reluctance to offer suggestions. This is not good in a world where employees may hold the secret to reducing costs or increasing production. A tactless rejection of the alternative might result in rumors being spread about the manager having no understanding of the business and the potential that employees start loosing respect and their willingness to follow. Tension and turbulence rises and effort must be expended to control the turbulence. A better method is to recognize that employees are intelligent and might offer good options to the perceived problem. When the alternate recommendation is received, ask the employee to offer his reasoning behind the suggestion before giving the logic behind your own suggestion. Seek to understand the other person's perspective of the situation before seeking to be understood by the other person. Find out what the other person is thinking before making a decision on the alternative. If the manager still feels it necessary to go with the original idea, explain the logic and the circumstances that lead to the decision in a respectful manner. Explore the differences of perspective and not the differences in the recommendation. Avoid being hooked by any lack of tact on the part of employees who have difficulty communicating. What happens when we manage to remove conflict in the workplace? This can be fatal to many organizations. The process starts with the discouraging of different viewpoints. People stop offering any different opinions or perspectives because management doesn't like them anyway. Employee morale and energy goes down as the job becomes just a place to earn a paycheck. In the absence of conflicting viewpoints and opinions, the managers start thinking they have all the answers and become more aggressive at discouraging anyone who makes the mistake of an unsolicited recommendation. Even solicitations for recommendations are soon ignored as the employees have been trained to not fall into that trap. They feel powerless so there is little allegiance to the company. When employees feel powerless and have no allegiance to the company, they may leave to work for a competitor, they may seek more competitive salaries, or seek to gain small amounts of power by playing the turbulence game. They look for little things to frustrate managers. This is the only way they can feel a sense of control so they seek unproductive tactics. This is not unlike the child who screams out in the store to get attention from a parent. This creates a downward spiral with management having to enforce rules that may not make sense to the employees and employees raising the ante in the turbulence game. Why do managers try to reduce the conflict if it helps the company? The answer is that it requires a different set of skills to manage conflict instead of managing turbulence. Turbulent behavior can be demonized and easily punished, but conflicting viewpoints require more understanding of human behavior and respect for employees. Most managers have been trained to take on an authority position and are afraid that working with the employees will make it more difficult to discipline an employee when the time comes. This is an unfounded concern because the process of working with employees to solve a business problem will make make many of the turbulence creating differences go away and be replaced by mutual respect for the skills and viewpoints of the other person. Employees are less likely to need disciplinary corrections when they respect their managers and appreciate the company problems from the manager's perspective. If disciplinary action is necessary, the employee is more likely to better accept the disciplinary action when it comes from a respected manager. I went to work for a company to oversee a team that was in revolt. I was told that the team cannot be managed and they are incapable of understanding the needs of the company. They had all recently threatened to walk off the job and leave the company stranded. I started asking them for opinions on how to fix things and followed most of their advice. That group came together as one of the best teams I have managed and completely rebuilt their part of the business. Within a year, they were devising and proposing new company products that were very successful. It was all a matter of respect and managing their conflicting opinions and positions. I have worked with several companies to help set up a continuous improvement program. In most continuous improvement programs, the people work together as a team to develop a list of alternate approaches to problems in the company. This is a variation of the Quality Circles approach, but allows management to have more control over the work of the team. In these programs, the problems are defined by management with employees offering their perspective of the problem. By including everyone's perspective of the problem definition, a clearer picture forms about the problem and everyone offers alternatives from their own frame of reference. Including alternatives from the different sides of the issues helps to let everyone better understand the initial problem and leads to a much better solution. Allowing all stakeholders in the issue to formulate the solution prevents the "them verses us" attitude that often generates the turbulence that follows unpopular decisions by management. Employees are much more likely to want to follow their own procedures. We live in a very competitive business environment and successful companies have learned to recognize the talents of their production workers who are the closest to most production problems. Conflicting viewpoints are the only way to get several brains working to solve the same problem with better alternatives. The companies utilizing all of the talents of their workers are becoming more competitive in the marketplace while those who continue believing a single manager's perspective is best are starting to decline. In closing, I would like to recommend that managers consider that they are not the ultimate authority on every job in the company. Take a lesson from Vance Anderson of Lynx and recognize that employees usually know their jobs better than the manager, and they can be motivated to contribute good alternatives if they are properly rewarded for their effort. It does not take cash, but simply the appreciation of their management. |