|
|
|
|
|
|
Lesson#30
|
Interpersonal and Group Process Approaches-2
|
|
|
|
Interpersonal and Group Process Approaches
3. Third-Party Interventions
Third-party intervention focuses on conflicts arising between
two or more people within the same
organization. Conflict is inherent in groups and organizations
and can arise from a variety of sources,
include differences in personality, task orientation, and
perceptions among group members, as well as
competition for scarce resources. To emphasize that conflict is
neither good nor bad per se is important.
Conflict can enhance motivation and innovation and lead to
greater understanding of ideas and views. On
the other hand, it can prevent people from working together
constructively, destroying necessary task
interactions among group members. Consequently, third-party
intervention is used primarily in situations in
which conflict significantly disrupts necessary task
interactions and work relationships among members.
Third-party intervention varies considerably depending on the
kind of issues underlying the conflict.
Conflict can arise over substantive issues, such as work
methods, pay rates, and conditions of employment;
or it can emerge from interpersonal issues, such as
personalities and misperceptions. When applied to
substantive issues, conflict resolution interventions often
involve resolving labor-management disputes
through arbitration and mediation. The methods used in such
substantive interventions require
considerable training and expertise in law and labor relations
and generally are not considered part of OD
practice. For example, when union and management representatives
cannot resolve a joint problem, they
can call upon the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to
help them resolve the conflict. In addition,
“alternative dispute resolution” (ADR) practices increasingly
are offered in lieu of more expensive and
time-consuming court trials. Conflicts also may arise at the
boundaries of the organization, such as between
suppliers and the company or between a company and a public
policy agency.
When conflict involves interpersonal issues, however, OD has
developed approaches that help control and
resolve it. These third-party interventions help the parties
interact with each other directly, facilitating their
diagnosis of the conflict and how to resolve it. That ability to
facilitate conflict resolution is a basic skill in
OD and applies to all of the process interventions. Consultants,
for example, frequently help organization
members resolve interpersonal conflicts that invariably arise
during process consultation and team building.
Third-party consultation interventions cannot resolve all
interpersonal conflicts in organizations, nor
should they. Many times, interpersonal conflicts are not severe
or disruptive enough to warrant attention.
At other times, they simply may burn themselves out. Evidence
also suggests that other methods may be
more appropriate under certain conditions. For example, managers
tend to control the process and
outcomes of conflict resolution actively when they are under
heavy time pressures, when the disputants are
not expected to work together in the future, and when the
resolution of the dispute has a broad impact on
the organization. Under those conditions, the third party may
resolve the conflict unilaterally with little
input from the conflicting parties.
An Episodic Model of Conflict:
Interpersonal conflict often occurs in iterative, cyclical
stages known as “episodes.” An episodic model is
shown in Figure 39. At times, issues underlying a conflict are
latent and do not present any manifest
problems for the parties. Then something triggers the conflict
and brings it into the open. For example, a
violent disagreement or frank confrontation can unleash
conflictual behavior. Because of the negative
consequences of that behavior, the unresolved disagreement
usually becomes latent again. And again,
something triggers the conflict, making it overt, and so the
cycle continues with the next conflict episode.
Figure 39: A cyclical Model of Interpersonal Conflict
Conflict has both costs and benefits to the antagonists and to
those in contact with them. Unresolved
conflict can proliferate and expand. An interpersonal conflict
may be concealed under a cause or issue that
serves to make the conflict appear more legitimate. Frequently,
the overt conflict is only a symptom of a
deeper problem.
The episode model identifies four strategies for conflict
resolution. The first three attempts to control the
conflict and only the last approach try to change the basic
issues underlying it. The first strategy is to
prevent the ignition of conflict by arriving at a clear
understanding of the triggering factors and thereafter
avoiding or blunting them when the symptoms occur. For example,
if conflict between the research and
production managers is always triggered by new product
introductions, then senior management can warn
them that conflict will not be tolerated during the introduction
of the latest new product. However this
approach may not always be functional and merely may drive the
conflict underground until it explodes. As
a control strategy, however, this method may help to achieve a
temporary cooling-off period.
The second control strategy is to set limits on the form of the
conflict. Conflict can be constrained by
informal gatherings before a formal meeting or by exploration of
other options. It also can be limited by
setting rules and procedures specifying the conditions under
which the parties can interact. For example, a
rule can be instituted that union officials can attempt to
resolve grievances with management only at weekly
grievance meetings.
The third control strategy is to help the parties cope
differently with the consequences of the conflict. The
third-party consultant may work with the people involved to
devise coping techniques, such as reducing
their dependence on the relationship, ventilating their feelings
to friends, and developing additional sources
of emotional support. These methods can reduce the costs of the
conflict without resolving the underlying
issues.
The fourth method is an attempt to eliminate or to resolve the
basic issues causing the conflict. As Walton
points out, “There is little to he said about this objective
because it is the most obvious and
straightforward, although it is often the most difficult to
achieve.”
Facilitating the Conflict Resolution Process:
Walton has identified a number of factors and tactical choices
that can facilitate the use of the episode
model in resolving the underlying causes of conflict. The
following ingredients can help third-party
consultants achieve productive dialogue between the disputants
so that they examine their differences and
change their perceptions and behaviors: mutual motivation to
resolve the conflict; equality of power
between the parties; coordinated attempts to confront the
conflict; relevant phasing of the stages of
identifying differences and of searching for integrative
solutions; open and clear forms of communication;
and productive levels of tension and stress.
Among the tactical choices identified by Walton do those having
to do with diagnosis, the context of the
third-party intervention, and the role of the consultant. One of
the tactics in third-party intervention is the
gathering of data, usually through preliminary interviewing.
Group-process observations can also be used.
Data gathering provides some understanding of the nature and the
type of conflict, the personality and
conflict styles of the individuals involved, the issues and
attendant pressures, and the participants’ readiness
to work together to resolve the conflict.
The context in which the intervention occurs is also important.
Consideration of the neutrality of the
meeting area, the formality of the setting, the appropriateness
of the time for the meeting (that is, a meeting
should not be started until a time has been agreed on to
conclude or adjourn), and the careful selection of
those who should attend the meeting are all elements of this
context.
In addition, the third-party consultant must decide on an
appropriate role to assume in resolving conflict.
The specific tactic chosen will depend on the diagnosis of the
situation. For example, facilitating dialogue
of interpersonal issues might include initiating the agenda for
the meeting, acting as a referee during the
meeting, reflecting and restating the issues and the differing
perceptions of the individuals involved, giving
feedback and receiving comments on the feedback, helping the
individuals diagnose the issues in the
conflict, providing suggestions or recommendations, and helping
the parties do a better job of diagnosing
the underlying problem.
The third-party consultant must develop considerable skill at
diagnosis, intervention, and follow-up. The
third-party intervener must be highly sensitive to his or her
own feelings and to those of others. He or she
also must recognize that some tension and conflict are
inevitable and that although there can be an
optimum amount and degree of conflict, too much conflict can be
dysfunctional for both the people
involved and the larger organization. The third-party consultant
must be sensitive to the situation and able
to use a number of different intervention strategies and tactics
when intervention appears to be useful.
Finally, she or he must have professional expertise in
third-party intervention and must be seen by the
parties as neutral or unbiased regarding the issues and outcomes
of the conflict resolution.
Application 6 describes an attempt to address conflict in an
information technology unit. How does this
description fit with the process described above? What would you
have done differently?
Application 6: Conflict Management at Balt Healthcare
Corporation
Pete and Dan were managers in an IT department that was part of
the information services group at Bait
Healthcare Corporation, a large organization that provided
health-care products to a global market. Pete
was the general manager of the IT department and had been
working in the unit for most of his 16 years
with Bait. The IT department had global responsibility for
developing and maintaining the organization’s
intranets, Websites, and internal networks. Pete ran his
department with a traditional and formal
management style where communication traveled vertically through
the hierarchy.
Dan recently had been assigned to Pete’s department to operate a
small experimental group charged with
developing e-commerce solutions for the organization and the
industry. This was state-of-the-art
development work with enormous future implications for the
organization as it explored the possibility of
sales, business-to-business and other supply chain opportunities
on the Internet. Dan, in contrast to Pete,
had a management style that stressed the value of open
communication channels to promote teamwork and
collaboration.
The biggest challenge in Dan’s work was managing the transition
from design into production. Senior
management at Bait believed that by assigning Dan’s team to
Pete’s organization, the resources required to
manage this transition would be more readily available to Dan’s
group. In fact, it was generally agreed that
Pete’s strengths complimented Dan’s weaknesses. Whereas Dan was
a better designer, Pete had operational
expertise that would help in bringing Dan’s ideas online.
Unfortunately, the trouble started almost as soon as the
assignment was announced. Although in front of
their bosses Pete had agreed to work with Dan to make the
project a success, his support was lukewarm at
best. Dan and Pete had a history of conflict in the
organization. Neither one respected the other’s style, and
prior conflicts had been swept under the carpet, creating a
considerable amount of pent-up animosity.
Operationally, when Dan’s group needed resources to bring an
idea online, Pete announced that all of his
people were busy and that he couldn’t assign anyone to help.
Similarly, anytime Dan needed access to a
piece of hardware within the IT unit. Pete made it complicated
to get that access. Dan became increasingly
frustrated by Pete’s lack of cooperation and he was quite open
about his feelings of being sabotaged. His
complaints reached the highest levels of management as well as
other members of the information services
staff.
After several frustrating attempts to speak with Pete about the
situation,
Dan consulted Marilyn, the vice
president for information services. Marilyn, like others in the
organization, was aware of the conflict. She
requested assistance from the human resources manager and an
organization development specialist. The
OD specialist met with Pete and Dan separately to understand the
history of the conflict and each
individuals contribution to it. Although different styles were
partly to blame, the differences in the two
work processes were also contributing to the problem. Pete’s
organization was primarily routine
development and maintenance tasks that allowed for considerable
preplanning and scheduling of resources.
Dan’s project, however, was highly creative and unpredictable.
There was little opportunity to give Pete
advance notice regarding the experimental team’s needs for
equipment and other resources.
The OD specialist recommended several strategies to Marilyn,
including a direct confrontation, the
purchase of additional hardware and software, and mandating the
antagonists’ cooperation. Marilyn
responded that there was no available budget for purchasing new
equipment and admitted that she did not
have any confidence in her ability to facilitate the needed
communication and leadership for her staff. She
asked the OD specialist to facilitate a more direct process.
Agreements were made in writing about how the
process would work, including Marilyn meeting with Dan and Pete
to discuss the problem between them
and how it was affecting the organization. But Marilyn did not
follow through on the agreement. She never
met with Pete and Dan at the same time and, as a result, the
messages she sent to each were inconsistent.
In fact, during their separate conversations, it appeared that
Marilyn began supporting Pete and began
criticizing Dan. Dan began to withdraw, productivity in both
groups suffered, and he became more hostile,
stubborn, and bitter.
In the end, Dan felt sabotaged not only by Pete but by Marilyn
as well. He took a leave of absence based
on Marilyn’s advice. His project was left without a leader and
he ended up leaving the organization. Pete
stayed on, but staff at all levels of the organization were
upset that his behavior had not been questioned.
Similarly, the organization lost a lot of respect for Marilyn’s
ability to address conflict. Losses in
productivity and morale among staff in many areas in the
organization resulted from the conflict between
two employees.
|
|
|
|
|