| T |
he scene still sticks in my mind. I was working with a company that had field and headquarters groups locked in what seemed like intractable conflict. I was individually interviewing members of each group in a small, windowless conference room. When it was their turn, I asked each one what the nature of the conflict was and what they thought was causing it. I took careful notes.
After relating some predictable complaints about never having enough time or information, one interviewee, a young home office staffer, had the courage to say what was really on her mind.
“Look, the problem is that Marian [one of the field people] isn’t very nice,” said the honest soul. “She’s a lot older than us, she doesn’t understand the database we use, doesn’t learn no matter how many time s we tell her, and she thinks we are all too young and inexperienced. Basically, she looks down on us.”
“Really?” I said. “If there was someone else in the field besides Marian, you wouldn’t have the problems you mentioned? It’s all about her?”
“Mostly, yes,” was the reply.
Was It All About Marian?
Eventually, I got a chance to have a heart-to-heart talk with Marian. She was a veteran salesperson, who worked fairly independently, had an earlier career as a high school teacher, and was a very determined woman.
“I’m dealing with people who don’t understand the pressures I’m under, what my priorities are and what I need to do my job. They are typical inward-looking home office wonders. This time around, they’re pretty green and concerned with making no mistakes from their end. They point fingers at me all the time for asking them to fix problems I think they should fix. Of course, they say it isn’t their job. They have created a database that is impossible to work with. They’re ridiculous.”
Perfect, I thought after I had heard from almost everyone. Two groups who didn’t like each other. In fact, they blamed each other for all sorts of problems. What a delicious opportunity to give both sides a lesson in human reactions to organizational flaws.
I knew from experience that the trigger to interpersonal conflict like this is often the word “blame”. “I blame him for making us miss our deadline.” “He’s to blame because he just doesn’t care.” “Who can work with people like that? Blame them, not me.” When I hear blame, I know the path to the solution with a high degree of certainty.
Follow The Blame
When individuals start blaming others, it is a sure sign that, most likely, there is something wrong, not with the people, but with the performance system they are working in. Why? You have to begin by believing that most people, given the right tools and resources, direction and clarity, will do--and really want to do--a good job. Remember the kind of best intentions they had on their first day of work? Almost everyone starts there.
In fact, think back on an interpersonal conflict you might have experienced with a an employee or one you observed as a co-worker. Notice that most people—with a small number of obvious exceptions—don’t come to work with built-in conflicts with others, ready to be unleashed on their co-workers or bosses. No, instead, the system creates disappointment for the worker that leads to the performance shortfall that results in blame. So, the trajectory that results in people being blamed or in co-workers developing unproductive behaviors and attitudes usually starts when a well-intentioned worker finds the system he or she is working is has a built in frustration or flaw and that flaw is not immediately fixable.
For example, imagine an eager new employee who is being asked to perform a particular task, say, testing chemicals in a production process. Things go fine as long as the testing process is exactly like the one the manager demonstrated. However, when the manager goes to a two-day conference and the production process changes, the testing procedure soon presents challenges that go beyond the new employee’s inchoate level of skill. When the manager returns to find many batches incorrectly rejected, the new employee gets—worst case—chewed out for making so many mistakes. “I thought you knew how to do this.” “I wasn’t sure about how to do the procedure with the new chemical.” “You should have looked it up.” “Where?” “In the manual. What’s the matter with you?” “What manual?”
Planting Emotional Seeds
And so it goes. Now, the new employee goes home with a notch or two less enthusiasm for the job. “My boss should have told me.” The manager thinks she will have to keep a close watch on the new employee because, well, he has slipped up. Both sides have the seeds planted for a blame-filled future. Add a few more incidents where the new employee doesn’t perform and blames the manager, and the manager becomes frustrated with the once-engaged employee, and you have a perfect storm of interpersonal conflict. No longer eager, the hurt employee could—depending on that person—snipe behind the manager’s back, look for excuses, cut corners. You know what happens next. The animosity grows and pretty soon people really are starting to hurt each other. All of this unfolding because the boss didn’t tell the new person where the manual was!
Performance System Failure
What fails when performance doesn’t meet expectations is the performance system that surrounds the employee. Blame that for not working, not the people. The good news is that the performance system can be fixed, sometimes very easily, without much cost or effort.
I always start the fixing phase by getting the antagonists in the same room. The ground rules are that we are looking for what has failed, and our premise is that it isn’t the people. Then, I ask them to name the kinds of processes that link them together, and I list these on a flip chart. In the case of the home office-field situation, there was a sales process, a reporting process, and some information exchange processes. We start with a single process and go through it step by step. What happens first, then what, what do you do next. At each step along the way, I probe to see what might have failed. It is usually one of the following:
- The tools (forms, systems, manuals) are not working effectively, are out of date or unavailable/inaccessible.
· People aren’t sure of the process—it hasn’t been mutually defined. Or, the process leaves out important steps. People are working with an inadequate procedure.
· There is a skill deficiency—a person hasn’t been taught properly or isn’t current. They haven’t been trained or educated to proficiency in the skill. Or, they haven’t done the skill in a long time.
· The resources in the environment are insufficient—unrealistic time or budget, inadequate facilities, poor lighting, uncomfortable and insensitive human factors (no privacy, ambiance)
· There are often no consequences for near-miss, off-standard performance. People learn to perform to a sub-standard, rather than the high standard required. The person doesn’t receive clear feedback that would improve, correct and raise performance. People aren’t involved in discussions about how to achieve higher results.
· Expectations for performance—standards and quality—have not been communicated to the performer by anyone, particularly the manager, and they don’t get regular feedback on their performance—corrective as well as rewards. The performer doesn’t know what good looks like.
A flaw in any one of these components of the performance system can cause both the outcomes and the work process to fail. In my experience, the sources of problems that come up most frequently as the cause of interpersonal conflicts are—way down at the root cause level--inadequately defined processes and poor tools provided.
Blame Poor Process and Tools
This becomes crystal clear when you ask both parties involved in a conflict if they are getting what they need to do their work at each step in the process. For example, one party is not getting information they need because the form being used by the other person providing the information asks for too much data, most of which isn’t available in a timely manner. So, the person filling out the form waits until the information is complete, then sends the form. The person who needs the information is angry because it is late, blaming the provider.
If instead of this reaction, both parties could take an objective look at what is happening, they would see the problem was the work form. The answer is simple: re-design the form, make it two-parts with urgent information coming first and the late-breaking information second. When the source of the conflict becomes apparent, and both parties are involved in fixing it, the conflict is over.
What can you take away from this short discourse on interpersonal conflict?
· Conflict between people is very often rooted in a flawed performance system which links their work together.
· Blame is a sure sign the system is broken. Usually, most of the time, people aren’t the cause. However, it seems to be human nature to blame people first. Beware.
· Blame escalates into performance problems of all kinds. The result is disgruntled workers and, eventually, customer-service issues. Interpersonal conflict may go well beyond the initial cause and lead to person to person enmity. Objectively finding the true root cause may be difficult if it’s gone that far.
· The solutions to interpersonal conflict come through the process of closely reviewing procedures. Can each party articulate what has to be done? Does the process make sense? Do they have the tools and skills to do it well? Do they know what is expected? Does sub-performance pass as adequate?
Bottom line: It is a leader’s job to know this. People who work together to resolve their issues with each other in this way wind up changing their perceptions of and attitudes about each other.
