Creating a better culture - investing in ways of dealing with friction and conflict that align with our preferred values and business goals.

(This is the second of two articles dealing with conflict from an organisational perspective)

Culture comprises the norms of behaviour, the way things are done, the underlying beliefs, the shared values and conventions that enable the organisation to function as a cohesive unit and enable a sense of belonging.  People usually learn the culture of the organisation through imitating its dominant behaviour and practices.    People who have been part of a particular culture for a long may be quite unaware of the conventions, norms of behaviour and their underlying values and beliefs.  These are taken for granted - that is just how it is, that is how things work.  Many such people may find it difficult to conceive that things could be done differently or better.  Others - especially those who stand to gain most from the status quo may not want to change how things are done.

In the previous issue I made the case that the cultural norms, values and beliefs that underpin the way friction and conflict is dealt with in many organisations do not serve them well and need to be changed.  I suggested that the way organisations deal with conflict reflects its values and beliefs.  I recommended that organisations put their money where their values are - and invest in those processes and procedures which add most to the organisational goals and what they see as important.  In doing so, organisations will need to review their values and beliefs and practices and establish and consolidate new cultural norms and behaviours in dealing with friction and conflict that accord with these espoused values and beliefs.

Some key cultural tendencies, values and beliefs in need of review.

There is a cultural tendency in most organisations to delegate the resolution of conflict upwards and a failure to distribute power downwards. In families, children tend to run to their parents to resolve squabbles. Similarly in organisations we delegate upward, we look toward higher authority to sort out conflict rather than being able to have an open dialogue about it. Of course, many people in positional power like it this way because of the status and privilege they enjoy and so are reluctant to change it. However, it promotes dependency, undermines responsibility and creates too much work for the manager.  It also makes it difficult to discuss the power imbalances that underlie conflict and the lack of fairness, injustice or inequality which trigger it. Power differentials and the way power is used thus become more of a generative factor in creating conflict than an aid to resolution.

Sustainable outcomes from conflict require that power and how it is used is transparently addressed.   This usually requires that power imbalances or their impact be ameliorated, that power is put in service of all rather than the few, and that power is distributed more broadly in the organisation and used to aid resolution rather than to dominate opponents. The capability to have productive dialogue about different kinds of power, its distribution and use does not exist in most of our organisations.  It is incumbent on those who hold and use positional power to become more aware of their impact and to provide leadership in creating more empowering alternatives. 

Modern management theory suggests that it is best for decisions to be made/ conflict resolved at the level at which the challenge occurs.  Managers' fear of letting go of control, especially when there is insufficient evidence that others will take up responsibility in a timely or appropriate fashion, needs to be overcome if this kind of dialogue is to take place and the culture shift.  But having open dialogue about power issues and taking responsibility is challenging. It requires emotional competence that varies greatly among managers, and a willingness to let go of control, which raises the risk that staff may not, at least initially, be as responsible or accountable as they might desire.

What kind of organisations do we want to live and work in?

The way we deal with conflict reflects the culture and values of our organisations.  Mostly the way conflict is dealt with reflects the hierarchical and autocratic nature of traditional organisations rather than modern values of empowerment. Flatter, less hierarchical organisations simply do not have enough managers to sort out the problems and resolve the conflicts. New ways that do not require authoritative intervention and enforcement are needed if productivity is to be maintained or increased. Legal and quasi-legal methods use up too much precious management time, are extremely costly financially and in terms of human suffering, and impact relationships and productivity adversely.

The ways of dealing with conflict that the organisation supports sends out strong if not always explicit messages about what is valued, who is more valued, whether diversity and alternate viewpoints are valued or discouraged, whether difference, friction and contention is really valued or seen as dysfunctional. If the way we deal with conflict is just a form of social control demanding compliance or for self-protection then we are sending out the wrong messages as organisations.  Implicit messages embedded in culture often undermine explicit aspirations.  The way we deal with friction and conflict must be seen as more than a method of organisational control.  It can be a way for the organisation to become more self-aware and to learn, a source of creativity, regeneration and renewal and a way of respecting and harnessing diversity - a method of organisational growth and development.

This view of friction and conflict requires new ways of dealing with it that values difference, empowerment and responsibility at all levels in the organisation, emphasises non-adversarial and inquiry approaches that are mutually beneficial over those that are more about self protection, winning or imposing control over others.

Investing in support for collaborative and non-adversarial approaches

Organisations need to reconsider what kinds of support they invest in, or offer to people who find themselves in conflict in the workplace, when and how it is delivered and what are the implicit value messages given by how the organisation supports the handling of friction and conflict.  The matrix below highlights some of methods that may be used to deal with conflict in organisations. 

Currently organisations tend to invest most in the formal adversarial end of the matrix.  While this protects against claims of non-compliance with employment law it also discourages many people from using these formal procedures.  More importantly, reliance on them delays early recognition of friction and conflict and obscures the need for and the value of intervention at earlier stages in the evolution of friction and conflict.  Early intervention requires greater investment in formal and informal non-adversarial approaches, e.g. awareness raising, capability building, learning and dialogue.

Experience suggests that informal and non-adversarial approaches to dealing with conflict yield better and more sustainable solutions and improve relationships. Organisations must recognise the value of dealing with friction and conflict earlier and in a non-adversarial fashion and invest in it rather than wait until it has reach crisis proportions before it will commit time and money at this end of the matrix.

Collaborative and non-adversarial methods clearly demand higher levels of awareness, responsibility, interpersonal skill and emotional competence at management but also among staff more generally.  Currently there is too much reliance on and expectation of the expert 'quick-fix' to sort out the crisis.  It will take some time and investment to support the building of individual and team capability to deal with conflict in more constructive ways but the rewards for the organisation will extend far beyond control and self-protection. 

Such enhanced ability to deal with friction and conflict will make the distribution of power together with aligned action less challenging and release the energy tied up in trying to control processes and people.  Research shows us that people perform better when they are given more control over the work they do and how it is done.  Equally conflict is best dealt with by the people involved and at the level it is experienced.  However, people will often abdicate responsibility for conflict and delegate its resolution upwards when being controlled. Distributed power and enhanced staff capability to deal with conflict in an informal and non-adversarial manner will free up the considerable (up to 42%) management time and energy tied up in dealing with it.

It is essential to emphasise the importance of developing emotional competence without which it is not possible for parties to a conflict to generate constructive and sustainable outcomes. Many in organisations including those in senior management, do not understand or accept this and will need convincing.  Initially this may seem like it is just an educational challenge but it is much more.  Self-limiting and dysfunctional norms of how emotions are to be handled are endemic in most organisations and need to be surfaced and re-evaluated and often replaced by other beliefs and practices.  Let us not underestimate how challenging a task this may be but the benefits go far beyond dealing with conflict.

What is clearly being suggested here is a shift in culture that will deliver, not just better ways of dealing with friction and conflict, but also more productive ways of working together.  Those who sign off on the shift and sanction the investment will need to be shown how this can happen.  One organisation that I work with has taken up the challenge of shaping the culture and beginning to change the stories of how friction and conflict will be dealt with in the future across the organisation.  Part of this work entails all those who provide support for dealing with conflict in the organisation generating principles and values that will guide practice at all levels.   This combined with investment in provision of different kinds of support at different stages of the evolution of friction and conflict, building capability and shaping the culture of the organisation can turn wasted energy into learning and productivity.