Conflict often arises because silos exist within the organization and there are issues that have to be decided at the borders. But rather than sending in a raiding party or throwing a grenade over the wall, it’s much better to consider multilateral or bilateral treaties about “how we can work collaboratively.”

It’s surprisingly important not to assume that the person on the other side of the disagreement is like you or operates the way you do. Recognizing that the other people in the situation are different creates room for you to try to understand what they’re really like and what they really want instead of thinking that something is wrong because they’re not reacting exactly the way you are.

On the other hand, it’s equally important to recognize that the other person isn’t trying to harm you — they just want something you might not understand yet, and they want it in a way that might be uncomfortable for you — and you have the opportunity to try and figure it out.

Conflict styles are often shaped by the way someone’s parents handled disagreements or how their siblings fought, or by the norms of the managers at their first job or the techniques they learned at a seminar. Some people fold their tents immediately when challenged and clam up as if they never actually had a view of their own. Others argue and rebut and come back again as if they care more about winning than whatever the point actually is. For them, giving in would mean giving up on themselves.

Identifying Conflict Styles

A great deal of conflict is a form of overreaction or acting out in response to actual or anticipated events. People who don’t feel good have trouble behaving as if they do; oppositional and confrontational behaviors can be triggered by their feelings of insecurity or jealousy or by their concerns about being unsupported, overlooked, or unappreciated.

Passive-aggressive people often pretend that they agree by giving verbal assent or nodding even though the rest of their gestures, side conversations, and subsequent negative stance show that they never really agreed. They may attempt to intimidate people who hold an opposing position by applying personal pressure outside the parameters of the meeting or group discussion.

When you notice that someone’s reaction is excessive, you can try probing a bit: “Quincy, you sounded quite upset during our discussion about the new email campaign. Was there something bad going on that I didn’t notice? Was there a significant problem that I overlooked? I’m concerned that you were so distressed when nothing struck me as being too terrible. Please fill me in.”

Anxious people may micromanage everything that falls within their purview as a way of reasserting their authority, snipe at project details, turn their noses up at lofty goals, or shift from criticizing the project itself to the people associated with it, picking on small imperfections and behaving in ways that range from ever-so-slightly, to overtly, disrespectful.

Folks who are anxious or afraid that new conditions or the current course will cause their failure or disruption sometimes channel those fears and anxieties into anger. Anger is often perceived as a stronger emotion. It’s focused and assertive and provides protective cover for fear and anxiety, which can be perceived as weakness.

What’s the Purpose of the Conflict?

To begin working toward a resolution to the conflict, observe the roles that people are playing:

• Are they sharing opinions that are variations on a theme, or are they taking incompatible positions that require real reconciliation?
• Are they articulating diverging positions specifically because they want to go on record? And if that’s the case, is it for the sake of holding the stage, to be sure the opinion is registered, or because they really want something to change?
• Are they representing a constituency?
• Do they serve the group as the devil’s advocate?
• Are they willing to take risks that other members of the group aren’t?

Whatever motivated the participants to disagree, it’s naïve to think that reconciliation and resolution will take place without overt measures or targeted effort. Next week, we’ll look at the important aspects of communication that will help move people from a combative stance to one that permits conciliation.

Onward and upward,

LK

Here’s the sorry example that was just reported to me:

A customer arrives at a service department he visits frequently to take care of some account maintenance. Before he leaves, he asks the department receptionist if she can pass along a document to another department. What’s the receptionist’s answer?

And what’s the customer supposed to say in response?

How many things are wrong with this picture? Between the de facto rudeness and receptionist’s complete lack of effort to accommodate the customer in any way at all, it’s too painful to try to parse out the potential damage of this incident.

It would have been a huge mistake with any customer. This happened to be a longstanding customer, whose past business has been quite good, and whose future business (assuming it’s not negatively affected by this incident) would, theoretically, be excellent, considering the typical lifetime value and where he is in the service lifecycle. In addition, this particular customer is part of a core group of customers who act as influencers and community-builders for the organization.

Silos are for Missiles and Animal Feed, Not Customers

The unbelievably negative impression could have been avoided very easily, even if the receptionist herself was merely a victim of “silo enforcement,” rather than a perpetrator of it. All she had to say was something like:

This is by no means an optimal solution. It would not resolve any of the organization’s internal problems or ease the difficulties of doing business with them. So why aren’t I advocating for full disruption of this organization’s “silo culture,” or arguing for a single point of resolution? Because in many organizations, if there is no way to improve incrementally, there will literally be no improvement at all.

A slightly more gracious, slightly less obtuse interaction may be the closest this organization can get — at least in the immediate future — to a more satisfactory customer experience.

And isn’t the customer entitled to that?

Onward and upward,

LK

A discerning reader posed that question after reading my last two blogs, A New Element of Management, Part I: Three Scenarios of Employee Disengagement, and Part II: The Platinum Rule. Both blogs focused on executives Silvia, Ophelia, and Felix, each of whom had a successful mode of management, but did not know how to adjust when their habitual approaches didn’t work with particular employees.

Sometimes there’s no consultant, coach, or esteemed colleague to give execs the feedback they need to help them break out of their patterns and do what actually works. So if you reported to one of these folks, how could you try to shift the balance by yourself?

Be Sure to Earn Your Boss’s Confidence

Let’s say you work for someone like Silvia, who specializes in a kind of benign neglect. You have to get her attention. Whether you need her involvement to clarify a goal, intervene in an organizational problem, or provide direction to the team, keep in mind that she already thinks she’s supporting you because she feels positively about you. She assumes that you don’t need anything else from her, so don’t try to “send her a message,” or wait for her to notice that you’re struggling. You have to be overt and concrete, and you don’t want to look weak, or like a permanently nervous ninny.

You may want to approach her on an as-needed basis or ask her for a weekly check in, as happened with the “real” Silvia; in either case, here’s one potential approach: “Sylvia, I really appreciate your confidence in me. I want to be sure I’ve earned it and not that I was just lucky!”

And after the conversation: “Thanks for your guidance; it’s really helpful.” The compliment and appreciation substantiate that the time she spent was worthwhile.

Keep in mind that she won’t be all that sympathetic if you tell her you’re not sure what to do, because she assumes you actually know. If it’s still early in the relationship, you could start with: “Silvia, do you think it would be better for me to do A, B, or C? Let me tell you what I’m thinking, and then you can tell me if you think it’s appropriate.”

Once you’ve worked with her for a while, you can shift to reporting in after the fact: “Silvia, I just chose B. Does that seem okay?” Over time, there will be fewer situations in which you continue to need her input or explanation.

Check in for Clarity

Now, if you’re on Ophelia’s team, and she’s constantly seeking your opinion along with everyone else’s, you’ve got a different problem. It’s best if you all remember that Ophelia is in her job for a reason. The leadership has put her there, so the practical thing is to prep her, help her, and support her so that she can, in fact, do the best job possible. It’s just not smart to try to take over from her.

You can help her help you though, by letting her know afterward when she wasn’t clear in a meeting, or when her point of view did not come across strongly enough: “Ophelia, I think you were trying to get us to see that thus-and-so, is that right?” Even during a meeting you can ask: “Ophelia, are you saying such-and-such?” But never say, as if you are her translator, “Ophelia is trying to say x, y, z.” (Don’t say that about anyone, by the way — it always comes across as denigrating.)

You can also clue her in to the fact that if the direction is not clear enough, other team members can get anxious or waste time in non-priority pursuits. It’s important to both morale and operating efficiency that everyone knows where Ophelia stands once the discussion is over; you could encourage her that it would be helpful if she probed for their understanding before she leaves the meeting so that she can correct any misapprehension if necessary.

Showcase the Small Stuff

Felix, the micromanager, is Silvia’s opposite. He needs to know that the work will come out perfectly, and he always sweats the details. You need to prove to him that you can function at that level of detail too, so show him how you’ve dotted every “i” and crossed every “t.” Once you’ve built an excellent track record, you can ask for more leeway. You can also give him a bit of a security blanket by setting up milestones and checkpoints: “Felix, if you’ll make it clear to us where you want to end up with the project, we’ll be come back and show you our progress at each stage.”

Help Your Manager, Help Yourself

From the employee’s point of view, the crux of each of these cases is that you can’t wait for a boss who doesn’t get you to suddenly get you — or to recognize, out of the blue, how best to work with you. You have to initiate the discussion about how you can best work with them: Tell your boss how much you care about working with, supporting, and satisfying him or her — and how you’re going to strive to do just that.

It is always management’s responsibility to provide leadership and structure and to help employees do their best. But when any of that leadership is absent, incomplete, or misdirected, employees who can see how to help their managers are also helping themselves and their organizations. Sometimes it’s by recognizing what your boss hasn’t got that you become an emergent leader yourself.

Onward and upward,

LK

Confidence Can Undermine Competence

Silvia, the optimistic vice president, had so much confidence in her subordinates that she abandoned one of them.

Remedy: Silvia took a more formal, structured approach with Elise until they both had new evidence of Elise’s competence and sense of security. Silvia invested in Elise’s development and success via a weekly phone call for a quick review of each of Elise’s areas of responsibilities. During these calls, Silvia checked for areas of concern, gave guidance on cultural norms, helped with contingency planning, and created a sense of shared decision-making.

Result: After six weeks, Elise felt more comfortable, and at the six-month point, she was stepping up more assertively and knowledgeably.

Collaboration vs. Clarity

Young, rapidly rising Ophelia worked so hard to include her staff’s input that some people thought of (and treated) her as if she were weak and ineffectual.

Remedy: Ophelia had to make clear to her team when she was collecting information from them, asking for their general recommendations, conferring with them to strengthen her plans, or actually letting them make a decision.

It wasn’t productive for Ophelia to act as if she didn’t have a plan or know an answer when she actually did. Her staff couldn’t get comfortable just because she was being nice to them and treating them as equals; they felt safer when she was explicitly open-minded and interested in their views, and also clearly definitive about the difference between her responsibilities and theirs.

Result: Ophelia developed a more authoritative presence, and her staff started contributing more substantively in meetings. Some of the quieter people even began to emerge as staff leaders.

Can Micromanagement Be Managed?

Long-tenured Felix’s experience in the trenches and his strong desire to hit departmental targets had turned him into a micromanager.

Remedy: Felix wanted to have a staff that reflected well on him, so he understood that his people had to learn to function independently, even if that meant they’d make more mistakes. He began to describe his end goals and any absolute process requirements, but held himself back from detailing every single step he himself would take. He was also candid with his staff; he told them how hard it was for him to give them more leeway, and that they would make it easier for him to resist micromanaging if they volunteered more of the details of their processes to him. He committed to correcting errors only, not things that were merely different from his preferred way.

Result: Over time, Felix cut down on the frequency of his check-in meetings as he developed confidence that his staff would come to him with questions or blow the whistle if something was truly going wrong. Individual members of his department complained less about his pickiness and started making better decisions in context.

The New Rule

Despite the real differences among these executives, here’s what worked in every case to reengage their staffs: (1) Communicating their goals with real clarity and (2) learning to provide the level of direction and support that their staffs actually needed to be comfortable and to function well – not the amount that the execs themselves would have wanted.

The receiver’s perceptions — not the giver’s intentions — create the receiver’s reality. Any management philosophy, no matter how conceptually sound, must be checked by and against the real employees and how they react to it. A deeply-held philosophy may be the guiding and driving force for an individual executive, but if it isn’t tempered by the realities of the situation, an exec’s strengths may manifest as weaknesses.

Here’s the takeaway: Sometimes the Golden Rule of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is insufficient. Sometimes you need the Platinum Rule: Do unto them according to what they need.

Onward and upward,

LK

In this post, we’ll look at some of the ways they conduct themselves with members of their staffs. See if you can spot any common elements:

Silvia: “I trust you to handle things, but I’m here whenever you need me.”

As international vice president, Silvia was only periodically physically present with her various staffs. She was extremely encouraging to Elise, a brand new director who was clearly used to a more accessible boss with a more directive style. According to Silvia, Elise was coming along wonderfully. Unfortunately, however, it didn’t feel that way to Elise, who was in a constant lather about when she should act unilaterally, when to consult with Silvia, and which problems absolutely needed to be escalated to her.

Even though Silvia’s message of total trust had worked well with other people, it backfired with Elise. That’s because Elise didn’t have enough confidence in herself to feel trustworthy yet, so when she didn’t know what to do, but knew that Silvia thought she did, she was afraid to ask for help. Not wanting to seem like a weakling or a nuisance, Elise started clamming up, and took less and less action.

Ophelia: “I can’t decide this on my own; I need your opinions.”

Ophelia is a fast-track, shooting star kind of executive, and younger than many of her subordinates. She’s also highly collaborative by nature, and wants everyone to participate and to know they count.

Ophelia was very well aware that her quick ascent had ruffled a few feathers, so she was careful not to lord it over others or make displays of her authority.

Her team meetings typically included a pep talk about what the group was going to be able to accomplish. Instead of laying out her plans, though, Ophelia usually probed for everyone’s opinion, promising them that nothing was final until they had all weighed in, and went out of her way to be accommodating to everyone’s views.

Ophelia’s inclusiveness and willingness to consult with others came across to many members of her team as weakness and indecisiveness: Sometimes she even seemed to be in the position of flip-flopping as she tried to incorporate first one person’s views and then another’s. Some members of her staff started behaving almost as if they were in charge of various meetings or initiatives, and Ophelia was just “supporting” them.

Felix: “Take care of this. Then come back, and I’ll tell you what to do next.”

Felix has an extremely strong work ethic and exacting standards, and he doesn’t believe in asking anyone else do to something he wouldn’t do himself. His staff appreciates his willingness to “get in there” with them, as well as his deep industry and operational knowledge — and the visible success of their department. But he was turning the “high potentials” off with his micromanagement. His staff wanted more latitude to figure out the timing and process of carrying out assignments themselves, and chafed at having to check back with him constantly on details.

What’s the Remedy?

Consider these three managers’ communication processes. What judgments are they making? How do they treat people? Do you see yourself in any of the situations as either the executive or the staff?

In Part II, I’ll share with you the remedy and result for each of these situations — and the simple, underlying element that ran through them all.

Onward and upward,

LK

Change tests our ideas about ourselves, others, how the world works, and what’s real or normal or fair. Most people don’t enjoy change unless they’ve specifically chosen it for themselves, and even then, the details may take effort and energy.

When change is required of you, how easily do you accommodate its disruptions? Are you able to accept what is required or new, and come out better and stronger, managing to thrive? And when you’re the one who chooses to change, are the people around you able to cope?

Taking Up the Challenges of Change

Here’s one small-scale, but meaningful example of a disruptive change: A middle school girl gets her hair cut short. The look suits her, and the adults in her life compliment her on her beauty, taste, and maturity. Her friends, however, after an initial flurry of excitement — “You look like you’re 16!” — withdraw from her. They all wear their hair shoulder-length or longer, in popular styles. They all look alike while she is clearly, proudly, different.

Or here’s an example of a change that is drastically disrupting: Several long-married couples have been in the news lately because one spouse has chosen to undergo transgender surgery, yet the couples have chosen to stay married, maintain their households, calm their relatives, and continue to raise their children together.

Most organizational change falls somewhere between merely looking different and a complete alteration of basic nature. Although individuals are literally paid (in wages) to absorb the changes that occur in their organizations, there is still great potential for upheaval. Think of your own experiences with change, and how your professional and personal life may have been thrown into turmoil by shifting work assignments, procedural details, compensation plans, bosses, and even corporate cultural norms.

The Importance of Talk and Trust

When you’re the sponsor or host of the change, how do you help other people, who may feel awkward, frightened, or unsettled, move more comfortably over to your side? Think of your role as a kind of project manager whose tasks, deliverables, responsibilities, and milestones are clear and progressive. Constant communication helps: Start by explaining what’s going on and why and how the change will take place, and continue by checking in with people to see how it’s going for them.

But what makes a real difference — as demonstrated by the couples who have managed to stay together despite seismic shifts in their marriages — is an underlying context that serves as a kind of scaffolding for the change: a commitment to shared values, a deep relationship of trust, and dedication to mutual happiness.

Doesn’t it seem worth it to try to build that kind of scaffolding into all your relationships, making them solid and strong enough to withstand the disruptions caused by life’s ordinary and extraordinary changes?

Onward and upward,

LK

Error rates are pretty worthwhile when they’re used to identify process steps that have broken down or reveal inaccurate procedures that don’t account for the way things really happen. Examining what’s gone wrong can trigger a search for better ways to do things or reopen discussions about desired outcomes so people can choose better actions, reactions, or solutions.

That’s the bright side of evaluating errors. Unfortunately, however, there’s also a dark side.

Don’t Play the Blame Game

It’s fairly common practice for a supervisor or manager to go back to reps, agents, operators, or associates who have made mistakes and tell them what they did wrong and how the job must be done. Often this talk is punitive, as if there were actually something wrong with the person and not just with the work. Only rarely does any discussion take place with the intention of finding out how and why the mistake happened or of helping employees come up with their own ways to do the job more effectively.

Why is this blaming and shaming so frequent, despite its proven ineffectiveness at solving most workplace problems?

Inaccurate work is often viewed as a ding against the supervisor, so it’s only natural that supervisors get used to feeling aggravated at the human beings who made the errors. Criticism may seem like supervisors’ best leverage, but because it’s uncomfortable to deliver the criticism, many supervisors forget to separate the workers from the work and end up resenting them as people. Some managers even go so far as to write off their error-prone workers entirely — they don’t want to deal with them anymore because it’s just too painful not to have eliminated the problem.

Manage Better by Understanding Mistakes

But blame is just a way to externalize the fear, disruption, and distress that these managers feel when something is wrong and they don’t know what to do about it.

Here’s a better approach: Instead of using the data from the quality assessment to punish and shame people, shift the emphasis to finding the underlying source of the errors. This is particularly important if numerous people make the same mistake — or if one person makes the mistake multiple times. There may be an underlying structural problem — with the method, tools, distractions of the environment, or sequence of events — rather than just the human ignorance, weakness, or inattention that we assume is the problem.

Onward and upward,

LK

Here’s an example from a manager:

For someone who is executing inaccurately, and already painfully aware that something is going wrong, is there anything at all in that intervention that could change performance in any way other than by ratcheting up the worker’s fear? And fear — although it may be accompanied by intensified focus — is more likely to create more errors or disruptions, not fewer. Not to mention its role as a relationship-killer.

Or what about this one, from a sports coach:

Who? How? When?

The kids on the team clearly did not know what “help each other” meant. The only perfectly clear message was that the coach was disappointed and dissatisfied. Some ignored him and continued to do what came naturally; others just seemed more anxious.

And how about my own silly story: As someone who applied for a driver’s license relatively late in life, it was this very brief interchange with my husband that convinced me I needed to pay a driving teacher:

These examples all demonstrate the coaches’ expectations of the trainees’ prior knowledge and mind-reading ability — but no sense of detailed situational analysis, or actual teaching.

Coaching is neither innate nor instinctive. It takes clarity of thought, careful understanding of and empathy for the learner, and practice. But a lot of people in positions of authority, whether they are conscious of trying to be instructional or not, apply pressure instead of support and create fear of failure instead of hope for success.

It’s very easy to critique, and much harder to provide an actual corrective to imperfect performance. What examples of poor coaching have you observed, or experienced or, heaven forbid, subjected others to?

Onward and upward,

LK

If you’ve been reading this blog for a while, you know that I care a lot about how it feels to work in my office. (See The Pleasures of the Office.) The collection of plants I keep there adds to my work satisfaction.

I needed some self-watering pots for African violets and located four beauties online — asymmetrical and with a green glaze that complements the color of the African violets’ leaves. The pots were on sale, so the value was very good — and I felt like a smart and accomplished shopper for finding them.

A Hole in One or More

African violet pots have an outer pot that acts as a reservoir, into which is inserted a smaller, only partially glazed pot that absorbs water slowly through its unfinished walls. When the pots arrived, I was excited to see a special feature I hadn’t noticed in the photos when I placed the order. Near the edge on the top of each outer pot is a small hole for inserting the spout of a watering can, so you can add water without having to lift out the inner pot and risk dripping and mess (as I do with another African violet pot). The clever design was an added bonus, and made me feel like an even more skillful shopper.

But the packaging — well, that made me feel downright dumb. The cardboard box the pots arrived in was sturdy and marked with the company’s name and logo. But not only were the pots swathed in multiple layers of bubble wrap, and the box filled with those dreaded Styrofoam peanuts that cling to everything and have to be taken to special locations for recycling, but there were actual sheets of Styrofoam — an old-fashioned packing material that has long been out of favor and for which many alternatives exist. It’s remarkable that a business that sells such wonderful pots could also use such ecologically unsound — and undesirable — packing material.

Thinking Very Far Inside the Box

What’s a caring customer to do? As a smart shopper, I’d like to order additional pots from this company, and not just for African violets. But patronizing a firm whose shipping practices are from the early 1980s would make me an irresponsible shopper. Do I need to do the work of trying to educate this company so I can buy more products from it?

Why would a company put its customers in this awkward position? Your company isn’t doing anything like this, is it?

Onward and upward,

LK

Put It in Neutral

I suggested to DC that it’s actually part of Negative Ned’s job to identify what isn’t working with the project logistics: In fact, she actually needs his “nose for a problem” more than ever because the project has so many additional moving parts. But he’s unhappier now and has less confidence that things will work out. That’s why his comments come out in such a negative way.

When she agreed, I upped the ante.

Applying the Positive Charge

By the end of our talk, DC expressed her willingness to try this approach, as well as to take a larger view of the situation. I’m eager to hear how things progress.

The thing that struck me the most about the situation was how deeply both DC and Ned are committed to making things work — for themselves, for each other, and for the organization. The “problem” wasn’t due to a lack of good intent or overall effort. It arose out of different perceptions of the actual conditions on the ground, and a mutual lack of empathy and real communication.

You can’t coach people into better performance if they don’t believe you’re actively trying to help them. Whether it’s kids on a soccer team, your own family members, or the highest paid executive, people may be able to comply out of fear or threat, but they won’t really change for you unless they believe you care tremendously about them.

How much do you care about what’s best for the people you’re working to change? And how well are you letting them know?

Onward and upward,

LK