Week two in Management Skills for Leaders continues as we
look at conflict resolution.
This is a very important topic since managers are faced with
differing levels of conflict on a recurring basis. The ability to handle issue
while they are small is a career/team/lifesaving skill that is a management
requirement. There will be plenty of full-blown forest fires to deal with in
your career as a manager. Being able to handle small fires, thereby not
allowing them to become forest fires, is a skill to practice and get proficient
at doing. The bad news is that no two fires will look the same.
I have a team of over 30 very confident, very capable, very
smart people. Some have been executives at major airlines. Some have been
senior managers at major airlines. All have, and continue to hold, positions of
high responsibility. The personalities all lean “Type-A”. Whetten and Cameron (2011) p. 140
As such, I have utilized what I would call a “Three Musketeers”
Dumas (1844)
approach to how I handle the group. I talk at length with the group about having
a “one for all, and all for one” mentality.
A vast majority has bought in to that ideal and they really enjoy the camaraderie.
There are a few that struggle being part of a team and not a group leader. That
is where a recent conflict occurred.
Approximately three years ago, I had asked eight of my
pilots to act as a council looking at the way our group provided instruction to
customers. The practice is common and is utilized to maintain a “standard” or
common way of teaching. They are known as the “standards group” (SG) and are
structured to be overseen by one of my two assistant managers.
About twelve months ago, I asked a group of six pilots,
reporting up to my other assistant manager to create a training plan to ensure
our pilots teaching skills were maintained at a high level. This group’s work
would be complimentary to the standards group. The new group was called the “training
group” (TG). To ensure commonality, two members of the standards group were
invited to join the training group.
Yesterday, the training group presented me with a project
they had been working on to codify lesson plans to increase and standardize a
class for improving the way our instructors deliver training to our customers.
I can report that it was an outstanding job and the product looks excellent. We
will be implementing the class within the next 60 days.
The rub came from some members of the SG that felt “left out”
of the project.
To begin the conflict resolution, I employed the techniques
set forth in our textbook. Whetten and Cameron (2011) I initially played the
role of responder but ended up as mediator, as the issue was focused near me,
but not on me.
I established a climate for joint problem solving by
providing the representative who brought the conflict forward the chance to
state their issue and listening intently. I asked probing questions when I
needed clarification.
I signaled my willingness to make changes by being open to
the presenter’s ideas and agreeing that there was a definite opportunity for
conflict and that it needed to be addressed. I asked for solutions, and was presented
with the answer that the SG felt “lied to” and was mad.
Further inquiry and discussion iterated the fact that some
standards team members had participated in the project, and therefore there was
oversight from the other team. The feeling of being deceived stemmed from the perception
that the TG had “promised” to let the SG make comments on the project as it
developed. Whether a member of the TG actually agreed to this, I could not
confirm. However, that was the perception.
I stepped into the mediator role to look for a solution. I
had already acknowledged that a problem existed and I maintained my neutrality.
I stated that the overarching goal needed to be the understanding and
resolution of the issue so as to further the continued success of our
organization.
The answer to why the feelings were hurt finally came to the
surface: someone felt intentionally left out. The solution became apparent to
me. I acknowledged the opportunity to feel left out had occurred. I apologized
or that. I talked with the initiator about the personalities of the people
involved and how they could be better managed. I got the initiator to
acknowledge that the end result, the project, was a very good product that
would benefit all of us.
As an after action report, my take-aways are:
In the future, I will set better expectations and
communicate “rules of engagement” for project teams and all members of my team.
I must be mindful of the perception of being isolated or
removed from a team. Neuroscience tells us the feeling of being left out of a
group is one of the most powerful in the human psyche.
Communicate, communicate, communicate.
I have discussed these findings with one of my assistant
managers and will do so with the other this week.
Wrapping this up, I wish I could say this was a “one-off” or
something rare at an organization. It is not. As a manager, we are faced with
issues like this all the time. Arm yourself with tools to face the situations
and look at each one as an opportunity to help your people, your company, and
yourself.
Dumas, A. (1844). The Three Musketeers R. L. John P. Roberts III, Scott David Gray,
Sue Asscher, Anita Martin, David Muller and David Widger (Ed.) Retrieved from https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1257/1257-h/1257-h.htm
Whetten,
D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (2011). Developing
Management Skills (E. Svendsen Ed. 8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
No comments:
Post a Comment