ManagerZine Archive Favorite
4. Blame The Person: Roots Of Interpersonal Conflict
The 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 fluff 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] wasn’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.
Eventually, I got a chance to have a heart to heart talk with Marion. 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.
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 intention 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 subordinate 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?”
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 will 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!
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:
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.
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?
Bottom line: It is a manager’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.
© 2006 Singularity Group
4. Blame The Person: Roots Of Interpersonal Conflict
The 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 fluff 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] wasn’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.
Eventually, I got a chance to have a heart to heart talk with Marion. 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.
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 intention 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 subordinate 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?”
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 will 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!
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.
- 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 is.
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.
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, 99% 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 manager’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.
© 2006 Singularity Group
 |
 |
 |
 |
Visit Singularitygroup.com
Click Board! Improvement Headquarters The Kaizen Institute can teach you how to make your company more customer focused and efficient. http://www.kaizen-institut e.com/ Get Back On Your Bike Here is an online bike coach that will help you become a Lance of your making. Cycling is nature's way of keeping us young, fit and pollution free. Just Do It. http://www.onlinebikecoa ch.com/ |
| Singularity Group Helping organizations implement change since 1983 For more information: www.singularitygroup.com |
Well-Spoken
"Uncertainty will
always be part of the
taking charge
process."
Harold Geneen
"Adapt or perish, now
as ever, is nature's
inexorable imperative."
H.G. Wells
"Uncertainty will
always be part of the
taking charge
process."
Harold Geneen
"Adapt or perish, now
as ever, is nature's
inexorable imperative."
H.G. Wells