Category Archives: Conflict Resolution

The Urge to Merge: Ambivalence at its Best

Posted on by
Reply

Scene 1: Our air conditioning repair man Luigi was just telling me how he caught his wife painting their bathroom red, just after he had just painted it white (over the red it used to be). He smiled, while clearly still irritated: “I love her dearly but she drives me crazy. She is a free spirit and I am anal retentive.” 

Attraction to people who, on some core dimensions, are very different from us is commonplace.  So it seems quite paradoxical, that many of us combat the very differences in our partner, that we once found attractive.

Scene 2: Allied Engineering, a large bureaucratic firm, acquires upstart Stevens Tech to streamline its IT processes and systems, in order to more quickly respond to its customers in real time. Stevens however never gets the chance; upon integration, Allied forces Stevens to adopt Allied’s procedures and systems, thus preventing Stevens from accelerating Allied’s customer response time.

Completely illogical, yes? Completely common – absolutely! Research shows that the majority of integrations fail, not because of finances or legal ramifications, but as a result of this inherent resistance to change. Clearly, this ambivalence to change needs to be identified and addressed prior to the integration.

How do you understand this paradox? Do you see it in other organizations? in your own life?

Masterful Meetings – Part II

Posted on by
Reply

So you know the basics of running a meeting but worry about when group dynamics get complicated? In this blog, I will address one possible and unfortunately, quite frequent complication: the phenomena of “Groupthink”, identified by Irving Janis.

Janis found a frightening tendency, on the part of groups under pressure, to exhibit a culture of conformity. He wondered why top leaders who made critical decisions around the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the escalation of the Vietnam War and more recently, the Challenger’s ”O” rings, would inhibit dissent.

So what does Groupthink look like in action?

  • Team members all agree when you are pretty sure that they don’t really.
  • They look like they want to speak but then choose not to.
  • And, just when one person looks ready to share his/her concerns, s/he stops upon seeing a host of clear, non-verbal signals from teammates looking at their watches, tapping their feet, shaking their heads.

Why you ask would Groupthink occur during critical decision-making?

(1) The boss intimidates his/her staff, giving them the message that dissent is not kosher

(2) Team members don’t want to look incompetent and figure if no one else disagrees but them, they must be wrong;

(3) There is a “felt” sense of pervasive pressure in the group/organizational culture that suggests “Thou shalt not disagree.”

Add time pressure and Groupthink only gets stronger.

So you ask, how the heck do you handle this one as a faciliator, leader or even a team member? (And it is your responsibility as teammember to speak up during Groupthink, even if no one else does). You can ask:

  • If this decision does not work, what are its possible consequences?
  • What are the strengths and weaknesses of this decision?
  • What are potential obstacles implementing our decision?
  • Are there other possible solutions for us to consider?
  • What are at least two other strategies we could employ instead?
  • What are their strengths and weaknesses?
  • Who, outside our group, could take a look at our decision from a different perspective?
  • If we were the client, what weaknesses would we find in this solution?
  • What suggestions might a competitor make? a board member?

While asking these questions may move the group out of Groupthink, if conformity is strong, it may just result in zero response. Here are some methodologies for ensuring a discussion of alternatives:

1. Create a debate with 2 people “for” and 2 “against” the decision at which the group has arrived (no matter one’s real view)
2. Have someone play the role of “devil’s advocate.”
3. Break the group up into several small groups and ask each group to come up with 2 other strategies or, 2 reasons why the original strategy may not be viable.
4. Bring in a panel of experts with different views to address viable solutions.

All of these methodologies have one constant — you must break up the group’s boundaries so that it becomes safer to disagree. If you structure the task as one in which people must come up with alternatives or obstacles or play the role of “devil’s advocate,” team members will feel far safer doing so.

On important decisions that are potentially life threatening, clearly it is worth the time and energy to surmount Groupthink. And not a difficult task once these methods are employed.

Accessing the Wisdom of the Body during Organizational Change

Posted on by
Reply

Body sculpting can be incredibly illuminating when it comes to understanding one’s experience of change. When I was working with a group of senior leaders who were facing  a major leadership change, I had the sense that there was a lot of resistance about the change itself, most of which had gone undiscussed. While the next agenda item was to  make important implementation decisions related to the change, my intuition told me the team was not ready. There were too many feelings left unaddressed. But these feelings were clearly not easy for them to articulate.

So I asked these leaders to show the group how they felt about the change by creating their own personal body sculpture. One had one foot stepping into the change, one foot outside of it. Another had trouble balancing. Several were leaning backward but trying to force themselves forward. Another couldn’t quite demonstrate her position because she felt she was floating above the change untethered.

Once these leaders depicted their experience through their bodies, they were able to identify and explore their feelings. By naming these feelings as a result of the sculpting, and being heard by other team members, they were ready to then move ahead to implementation issues. Body sculpturing can help circumvent the mind and elicit data through the body.

How ironic that the very messages we learn growing up about being a “good soldier” and staying positive, can actually impede the initial stages of the change process. Simply sharing concerns and feelings about loss and betrayal (when heard nondefensively) help team members go from disheartened to optimistic, often leading to constructive teamwork, decision-making and implementation.

Greetings Matter

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday I went to see a potential client at Sodexo. Given the cold, rainy day, I was not at my cheeriest. The second I entered the building, the guard behind the desk called out a warm “good morning”, asking my name and smiling upon hearing it. He told me he was expecting me and my client was looking forward to our meeting. He then called her to let her know I was onsite and asked her how long she would be.

Contrast this. Several months ago, Joe Mancini and I co-facilitated a retreat of Sodexo VPs in New Jersey. The meeting site for the retreat was rented office space at another company. When we arrived (thanks to Sodexo’s clear instructions), a woman (from the other company) with quite the sourpuss face, coldly told us to sit down and wait. No eye contact whatsoever. We told her we were from out of town and needed to set up for our retreat. She didn’t answer, nor pick up her head to note our existence. After handing us innumerable forms to fill out, she yelled out our names (despite our being the only visitors) and told us there was a problem and we would “just have to wait”. When we asked about the nature of the problem and how it would be addressed, you guessed it — no answer. I texted my Sodexo contact who came running out to the lobby apologetically and promptly took care of things.

So I ask you, where would you want to work? With which company would you want to do business?

Leveraging Workplace Conflict

Posted on by
Reply

Given the increased complexity of today’s technological, political and economic environment, one must not only prevent and resolve conflict but also, leverage it to enhance creativity and innovation at work.

Once dysfunctional conflict occurs between individuals or groups (e.g., control battles), working relationships and processes often break down. Each person or group creates stories about the other that are often inaccurate and based on his or her own view of the world.

So how do you make conflict functional and useful and build on differences to enhance work relationships and positively impact organizational effectiveness?

  1. Active Listening: Don’t think about what you have to say next, or nod your head understandingly while thinking about your “to do” list, but really truly get curious. What is this person thinking? Experiencing? Worried about? What must that be like for him or her?
  2. Unhook!: To unhook, you first have to know that you are hooked (feeling reactive) and then how to unhook yourself.
    Let’s just say that you are finding another person or group antagonistic. What can you do? Ask yourself if this is really about you. In most cases, it’s not. Ask yourself what is the person or group truly worried about? Then take a deep breath, settle into your chair and imagine shaking off the antagonism. Try to empathize with their concerns. Repeat them back to the person or group and then ask if you “got” their concerns and always, always say: “Tell Me More”  – the 3 simple words that can create a communication breakthrough!
    If you can’t stop reacting, ask for a break before you say something you will regret. Before you break, make sure you set a specific time to regroup. Make the effort to come back calmer and more neutral. Focus on the goal you are trying to achieve.
  3. Move to Interests: Ask questions about what is most important to them. Here are some questions that work for me: “What would you most like? What would that look like? How would that serve you or your organization? How do you think I can help you?”
  4. Share Your Interests: If others truly feel listened to, they will be likely to return the favor and listen to you. If they don’t, offer your thoughts in a clear, neutral, non-accusatory way. Don’t focus on your desired end results (your position) but WHY you want what you want (your underlying interests). Discussing positions rather than interests often exacerbates the conflict because people tend to get into black and white thinking, believing that only one party can get his/her way.
  5.  Explore Options: Introduce the idea of a “Third Way”, – a possible option in which both parties can meet their underlying interests with a little creativity. Invite them to brainstorm (remember no critiquing) options. Don’t stop at 2-3 ideas. Sitting through lulls during brainstorming can lead to paradigmatic shifts and brilliant ideas. Make sure to separate inventing from deciding and have fun generating crazy ideas.
  6. Create Win-Wins: Together group the options, analyze their costs and benefits and agree on one that meets both of your interests. Or incorporate pieces of different options to create a unique Win-Win. Remember, the final option is unlikely to look exactly like either of your initially desired end results (and that’s a good thing!).