Conflict Management
A reality check:
At the outset I would like to make it clear that I’m no expert on managing conflicts. I have had my share of conflicts and it hasn’t always been that I have come out a winner, a loser or somewhere between the former two. So in effect I’m just giving the hypothetical third party arbitrator’s view on the below case and how he would have dealt with it.
A hypothetical case in point:
Two colleagues at an office wrangle over an issue. The colleagues in question are the team lead and his team member. Let us call these guys, respectively, TL and TM.
The issue is whether certain software codes are required to be changed because of a request from the onsite team. While the TM meant the correct code to be changed he was less than clear in his email when saying so, the TL on the other pointed out this lapse as though this is what the TM does all the time. And this led to a slew of emails exchanged between the two which become harsher by the minute.
Moreover, the TM has always had a feeling that the TL believes himself to be infallible while being curt through his actions and thus disrespectful to him all the while expecting TMs to respect him. The TL on the other hand has always felt that the TM hasn’t respected his authority enough and has questioned him unnecessarily. The TL has his share of insecurities playing hard rugby inside his head all the while being in denial of this just to cover up and therefore moves on with the assumption that nothing is wrong and no one is seeing. The TM, like his TL, had his own insecurities brought out by his ambivalence about his future goals and prospects. The intermingling of these insecurities is the recipe, but not quite the absolute recipe, for the clash that took place two weeks ago though the seeds where sown long before the d-day of clash.
The two parties approached the arbitrator separately and apprised him of the clash while describing their respective side of the story.
Arbitrator’s hypothetical prognosis & diagnosis (with added theoretical facts/assumptions):
I (arbitrator) being the third party and so neutral decided to call in a common meeting to ascertain facts and fix the reason and probably find an amicable end to the conflict. During the meeting I came out with two questions to be answered by the warring parties.
1. Was it the confusion over the immediate task that led to the clash? So does that mean the conflict is a recent development?
2. Was it a clash between personalities/styles, which given the difference of opinion on the immediate task at hand, snow-balled into something much more substantial and debilitating for the team as a cohesive unit? So does that mean the conflict has dragged along for a longer time?
The clash involved email exchanges that became harsher with every exchange over a mere 10 minute period while both the parties sat just 5-10 feet from each other. A pebble of confusion rolled down a precipice into a round boulder of immense size, crushing all the elements of professional decency and credibility of both the parties involved. The emails mostly included accusations and counter accusations which pointed each others failings with regard to a trivial issue that could have been resolved over a single phone call. The phone call might have as well been replaced or complimented by a one on one meeting.
A phone call could have been made by either of the parties when the task based confusion erupted, but wasn’t made because of the mistrust that had enveloped their relationship. And the fact that the two had not spoken to each other over the months indicated that both the parties knew of the impending clash in one way or the other and this inevitability of the future resulted in they taking hard stances just to prove their point when the opportunity arose.
The TM had no hesitation in saying that the above two questions were in fact related and should be seen in union. The TM believed that it was indeed the personality/style factor that brought out the initial phase of conflict, a good couple of months back. The second phase, according to him, involved the confusion over the immediate task and the final phase was the transforming of the task based confusion back into the personality/style clash.
On the other hand, the TL was of the opinion that there was no personality/style clash in the first place. He said that he did not realize that there indeed was a conflict raging between him and his TM over the past couple of months. All he was bothered with was the harsh and thus disrespectful language used by the TM in the emails and that was his whole raison d’etre to come to the meeting.
Therefore, the two parties had a difference of opinion on what led to this final clash and what should be looked at as the correct prognosis and hence the ensuing diagnosis. Was it the email chain per se or was it the mistrust that had been seething under the carpet for over two months? And even when the email per se was treated as the sole cause, the parties couldn’t or wouldn’t agree on the point where the exchanges turned anything but task based disagreement, which is highly acceptable in a professional atmosphere.
Arbitrator’s hypothetical treatment:
I see this issue can be resolved in multiple ways and the best way forward depends on whether the warring parties want to reconcile and get on with life. In fact the TM has said that he wants to do so and wants things be as they were 2 months ago when the two parties had an almost ideal professional relationship. The TL, however, does not see where he has gone wrong and keeps harping on the email per se without realizing that he may have sent the wrong message to the TM through his recalcitrant attitude.
However, being the third party, I would not like to take partisan stance in favor of either of the two simply because both the parties are equally important for the smooth functioning of the team and hence for the delivery of quality deliverables to the client. Both in fact have strong points which I will consider more important than their few and far between weaknesses.
So here are the options:
• Status quo: Let things be as it is and let the two warring factions continue fighting their flimsy battles. A plausible option where the friction boils down to such high levels at which one of the two gives in. However possible, this isn’t a good option.
• Move one: Move one of the two to another team and hence be a traditional 20th century arbitrator. An implausible solution because of current reality of no new vacancies in other teams and hence ruled out.
• Change the status quo: The two parties reconcile and get on with the work with a new arrangement which respects each party’s sensibilities and opinions. An Ideal and a workable solution.
A reality check:
At the outset I would like to make it clear that I’m no expert on managing conflicts. I have had my share of conflicts and it hasn’t always been that I have come out a winner, a loser or somewhere between the former two. So in effect I’m just giving the hypothetical third party arbitrator’s view on the below case and how he would have dealt with it.
A hypothetical case in point:
Two colleagues at an office wrangle over an issue. The colleagues in question are the team lead and his team member. Let us call these guys, respectively, TL and TM.
The issue is whether certain software codes are required to be changed because of a request from the onsite team. While the TM meant the correct code to be changed he was less than clear in his email when saying so, the TL on the other pointed out this lapse as though this is what the TM does all the time. And this led to a slew of emails exchanged between the two which become harsher by the minute.
Moreover, the TM has always had a feeling that the TL believes himself to be infallible while being curt through his actions and thus disrespectful to him all the while expecting TMs to respect him. The TL on the other hand has always felt that the TM hasn’t respected his authority enough and has questioned him unnecessarily. The TL has his share of insecurities playing hard rugby inside his head all the while being in denial of this just to cover up and therefore moves on with the assumption that nothing is wrong and no one is seeing. The TM, like his TL, had his own insecurities brought out by his ambivalence about his future goals and prospects. The intermingling of these insecurities is the recipe, but not quite the absolute recipe, for the clash that took place two weeks ago though the seeds where sown long before the d-day of clash.
The two parties approached the arbitrator separately and apprised him of the clash while describing their respective side of the story.
Arbitrator’s hypothetical prognosis & diagnosis (with added theoretical facts/assumptions):
I (arbitrator) being the third party and so neutral decided to call in a common meeting to ascertain facts and fix the reason and probably find an amicable end to the conflict. During the meeting I came out with two questions to be answered by the warring parties.
1. Was it the confusion over the immediate task that led to the clash? So does that mean the conflict is a recent development?
2. Was it a clash between personalities/styles, which given the difference of opinion on the immediate task at hand, snow-balled into something much more substantial and debilitating for the team as a cohesive unit? So does that mean the conflict has dragged along for a longer time?
The clash involved email exchanges that became harsher with every exchange over a mere 10 minute period while both the parties sat just 5-10 feet from each other. A pebble of confusion rolled down a precipice into a round boulder of immense size, crushing all the elements of professional decency and credibility of both the parties involved. The emails mostly included accusations and counter accusations which pointed each others failings with regard to a trivial issue that could have been resolved over a single phone call. The phone call might have as well been replaced or complimented by a one on one meeting.
A phone call could have been made by either of the parties when the task based confusion erupted, but wasn’t made because of the mistrust that had enveloped their relationship. And the fact that the two had not spoken to each other over the months indicated that both the parties knew of the impending clash in one way or the other and this inevitability of the future resulted in they taking hard stances just to prove their point when the opportunity arose.
The TM had no hesitation in saying that the above two questions were in fact related and should be seen in union. The TM believed that it was indeed the personality/style factor that brought out the initial phase of conflict, a good couple of months back. The second phase, according to him, involved the confusion over the immediate task and the final phase was the transforming of the task based confusion back into the personality/style clash.
On the other hand, the TL was of the opinion that there was no personality/style clash in the first place. He said that he did not realize that there indeed was a conflict raging between him and his TM over the past couple of months. All he was bothered with was the harsh and thus disrespectful language used by the TM in the emails and that was his whole raison d’etre to come to the meeting.
Therefore, the two parties had a difference of opinion on what led to this final clash and what should be looked at as the correct prognosis and hence the ensuing diagnosis. Was it the email chain per se or was it the mistrust that had been seething under the carpet for over two months? And even when the email per se was treated as the sole cause, the parties couldn’t or wouldn’t agree on the point where the exchanges turned anything but task based disagreement, which is highly acceptable in a professional atmosphere.
Arbitrator’s hypothetical treatment:
I see this issue can be resolved in multiple ways and the best way forward depends on whether the warring parties want to reconcile and get on with life. In fact the TM has said that he wants to do so and wants things be as they were 2 months ago when the two parties had an almost ideal professional relationship. The TL, however, does not see where he has gone wrong and keeps harping on the email per se without realizing that he may have sent the wrong message to the TM through his recalcitrant attitude.
However, being the third party, I would not like to take partisan stance in favor of either of the two simply because both the parties are equally important for the smooth functioning of the team and hence for the delivery of quality deliverables to the client. Both in fact have strong points which I will consider more important than their few and far between weaknesses.
So here are the options:
• Status quo: Let things be as it is and let the two warring factions continue fighting their flimsy battles. A plausible option where the friction boils down to such high levels at which one of the two gives in. However possible, this isn’t a good option.
• Move one: Move one of the two to another team and hence be a traditional 20th century arbitrator. An implausible solution because of current reality of no new vacancies in other teams and hence ruled out.
• Change the status quo: The two parties reconcile and get on with the work with a new arrangement which respects each party’s sensibilities and opinions. An Ideal and a workable solution.
posted by Akhilesh @ 9:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home