|
| Conflict Management in the Design Office | | Date Created: Feb 01, 1983, 12:59 PM |
© 1983 Gregory Daigle
Originally appearing in Innovation (Journal of the IDSA), p.14 Vol.2, No.3
Our Fictional Scenario -
Despite the bad weather, the design coordination meeting to discuss new product appearance guidelines moved smoothly through the morning. The corporate design manager was pleased with the participants' enthusiasm, but he proceeded carefully knowing that the final recommendations could draw a volatile response from the staff if they didn't balance everyone's viewpoint. The main threat lay probably in the staff's fear of losing control over the product, the manager thought to himself. His attention was brought abruptly back to the conference table by a vociferous exchange between Smith from San Diego and Jones from the corporate office in Cleveland.
Smith was criticizing Jones' approach to radiused edges. Jones countered by citing Smith's approach to the 4300 series, which had disappointed the corporate office and had required a hasty reworking by a summer intern. "You know very well that the 4300 was a rush job all the way," Smith defended himself. "It's not a valid example of what I'm trying to do with our design approach. I never had the chance to give it my personal attention, and it needed that." Smith added that Jones was intentionally trying to prevent any change in the company's design approach, automatically rejecting any change for fear that it would threaten his position in the company.
"Just because I think a slipshod redesign jeopardizes the product line, you think I'm out to save my own butt", Jones replied. A mocking on his face, he leans forward, "Frankly, Smith, I think your design ideas will cost us market share. They don't convey the image we've spent years nurturing. You're advocating change for the sake of change to glorify yourself, to become the Big Name Designer on the cover of Business Week. But it's the company that will suffer."
Smith flushed at the accusation. "I'm not calling for something radical and rushed to market, but your idea of a design cycle is ten years! We'll lose market share if we don't innovate NOW! "
The manager watching this feels he's losing control of the meeting. A destructive conflict is clearly escalating, but he can't find the real issue at the root of the conflict. Is it strictly personal? How does the topic of the meeting - the design guidelines - play into this? They've already agreed to establish new guidelines, that can't be the source of the conflict ... or is it?
The Hidden Agenda of Conflict in Design Offices
In our scenario the thermometer of destructive conflict is rising higher not because of the design guidelines, which represent the "formal agenda", but because of the subjective issues. The subjective issues are vehicles for intense feelings about design integrity and personal worth. This is the "hidden agenda". The problem facing the manager is how to cope with the personal conflict yet not derail the meeting's purpose. Problems like these are relevant to all managers, but particularly so in large corporations where coordination of design efforts on a large scale may increase the potential for conflict.
The conflicts a design manager confronts often derive from the nature of the work setting and the personality of designers. One work-setting source of conflict is the nonalignment of goals within an organization. For example, conflict will probably arise when two or more departments with mutually exclusive goals are required to work together or are made interdependent. Other primary sources of conflict include the dissonance between job goals and an employee's personal goals, or, misinformation arising from incomplete or unclear communication.
Administrative theory developed in the 1930s held that all conflict is destructive and its avoidance desirable. Thus conflict was best tabled indefinitely until another method presented itself. This school of thought was displaced slowly in later decades as organizational behavioralists were brought into corporate positions. They explained to managers that conflict was a positive force, although one that should be placated rather than managed. "Smoothing" and "compromise" are two techniques advocated by organizational behavioralists to minimize the differences between employees while emphasizing common ground. If maintaining the relationship is more important than clarifying the conflict, these devices work reasonably well.
Conflict as Interaction
More recently, interactionist approaches have surfaced, replacing the behavioralist approach. This approach recognizes conflict as natural and encourages the positive effects. Interactionists maintain that the design manager must take an active role in seeking to manage conflict. In fact, some leadership theories suggest that a manager's primarily contribution to the organization is by positively managing friction.
Thus the first requirement for a manager is to develop an enlightened attitude recognizing conflict's positive nature prior to its appearance. It can and usually does facilitate job effectiveness. If effectiveness is lost, it is not lost through the conflict itself, but in the time and energy people waste trying to avoid or eliminate the conflict. A design manager's role should encourage personnel to see conflict as natural and desired as part of the design process. The manager's role has evolved from conflict abatement to encouraging conflict. Conflict becomes a natural element of decision making.
The rationale for this interactionist approach is that when conflict is seen as a natural occurrence it can be encouraged and directed positively. Conflict can be used to open the way for diverse ideas that help prevent group dogmatism and expand awareness of the problem. The energy level of ideas generated in conflict is higher than for other interactions, and the alternatives generated are more diverse. Properly encouraged, conflict will not disrupt or fragment a group. It will bind the members to a mutually accepted goal where disagreements center upon issues, not personalities.
In the best of all possible worlds staff would openly work with conflict and use it as a tool to clarify areas of dispute. But such levels of trust and cooperation are only attainable in the most open and forthcoming environments. Only rarely do businesses approach such levels of openness. So the remainder of this article will focus upon the next best alternative ... managing continued conflict.
Strategies for Managing Continuous Conflict
You can manage conflict two ways: by "problem-solving" or by "forcing". Problem-solving strategies use elements of collaboration and joint resolution to find a mutually acceptable solution. Forcing entails authoritarian decision making, often resulting in a win/lose gap between the parties. The availability of resources and the manager's preference usually dictate the method used.
In the problem-solving approach, emotions, opinions and information are shared to provide the basis of immediate resolution as well as provide a foundation for approaching future conflicts. It requires the fulfillment of three criteria if it is to product satisfying results.
1) All parties must be aware that there is either a potential for conflict or an actual conflict.
2) Power inequalities must be set aside to make all parties peers while the resolution is developed.
3) An atmosphere of cooperative consensus building and recognized mutualities, including mutual goals and reciprocal trust must exist.
Conflict management through problem-solving is best if collaborative, open and equitable. Information and opinions are shared in order for participants to work toward a mutually determined goal. They do so while giving respect for each individual's point of view. Moreover, to achieve a good solution through problem-solving the parties should identify potential conflict areas as early as possible. Such anticipation will reduce the risk of destructive interaction at a later date. Collaboration also requires that the interaction seem fair to all parties. Each member must understand the other's point of view before solutions can be formulated. This minimized win/lose perceptions and makes the final decision more acceptable.
Conflict management through forcing is the other strategy option. It is probably used more often than the problem-solving option because it is more convenient and timely to implement ... at least initially. With forcing, decisions are handed down from the top rather than resolved from the bottom up. Thus it is more common in companies with vertical structures. Vertical organizations have a strict hierarchy with clearly demarcated layers of authority. They promotes resolution of a superior/subordinate conflict by authoritarian means, often on a win/lose basis. Forcing conflict resolution can also occur in less hierarchial matrix-ordered organizations. In such cases forcing is more likely to be utilized when only one solution to a conflict is possible. This may be due to either company policies made immutable by regulatory mandates, or if the organization is particularly slow to change its corporate goals.
Let's apply forcing strategy to our scenario. Smith's innovative style will probably run afoul of the firm's current design approach represented by Jones from the corporate office. There is little room for mutual understanding since Jones sees his role as defender of the status quo. Unless the collective organization is willing to enter into the conflict resolution process, the result will probably be decided through forcing. If Smith remains adamant then the design manager's solution may have to include Smith's transfer or termination. Only if the manager embraces accommodating divergent points of view can the resolution move into problem-solving.
Of the two approaches, problem-solving is closest to the process of design. In design there is an emphasis on collaboration. Problem-solving is therefore a more familiar technique given the similarity between it and the basic design process. But implementing problem-solving is not without difficulties. The inherently competitive nature of designers to implement their "vision" is a contributing factor. Competition functions primarily to establish self-identity, internal standards, individual creativity and autonomy - all qualities possessed by designers. Designers tend to do their best work when operating fluidly between collaboration and personal vision. Collaboration builds mutual relationships and trust - necessary elements in a project team working toward a common goal. Personal vision builds self-esteem and personal advocacy - necessary for innovation in the marketplace. Unbridled competition between designers values personal vision over collabortion, detracting from team cohesiveness. Such autonomy must be kept in check when it threatens team goals.
CIrcumstances will dictate whether problem-solving or forcing is the most appropriate approach. Both can be dysfunctional and each has its own unique advantages. Regardless of the approach chosen, the manager should stay with their chosen approach and avoid mixing the two during the design process. Switching between forcing conflict resolution and problem-solving conflict resolution sends confusing and often contradictory messages.
Intervening In Conflict
Managing conflict on an ongoing basis requires that conflict remain topical, business-related and verbal. When conflict is too emotional, founded in personality differences or not verbalized, its destructive potential rises, often very rapidly. It may then be necessary for the manager to aggressively intervene.
If the conflict is explosive and the designers involved are subordinates, the manager should set up a meeting where their attendance is required. If the conflict is between designers and non-designers, consultation with the non-designers' manager is required. If the conflict is more subdued and occurs within an interdepartmental cross-disciplinary project team, then the manager can either alter the meeting's agenda to confront the conflict or schedule ancillary meetings to address the conflict. Indefinitely postponing resolution is not an option.
Regularly scheduled project review sessions also provide a forum for intervention. If the manager initiates intervention then he or she must ensure that all parties attending accept that such a departure from their schedule will benefit both themselves and the organization. Moreover, each designer involved must be genuinely engaged in finding a solution. Tardiness or inattentiveness at a meeting about the conflict may indicate an attempt to avoid the conflict confrontation.
Intervention should have purposeful change as its goal, executed so as to minimally disrupt the project timeframe. Contingency plans can be identified in case road blocks occur during the intervention. Intervention must given a priority at least as high as the project. Scheduling intervention must be flexible to change as circumstances dictate. Prejudgment of the situation should be avoided. Finding the nature of the conflict, be it personal, organizational or based in miscommunications, is a key determinant in approaching the intervention.
Defining and Defusing the Conflict Issues
One of the first tasks in any conflict intervention is to let those involved know that you perceive that a conflict exists. Assuming you are right and they acknowledge it, the conflict needs to be defined in neutral terms and then parsed into manageable discussion points. In fact, defining the conflict may help to defuse it. If defining the areas of conflict is too difficult, first define the areas of agreement. Often designers in conflict will be surprised at how much they agree upon. If the nature of the conflict isn't first identified, clarified by conflicting parties, and parsed into salient issues, then the emotional intensity of the conflict can escalate.
A manager must intervene against any exchange of minor threats by participants, whether implied or stated. Threats as often as not end up in a vicious circle, with each party engaging and re-engaging the other. The manager can break the cycle by suggesting neutral language or reframing the discussion, such as suggesting a compromise proposal. If the designers insist on continuing the cycle of threats, they should be held accountable for any actions they initiate.
If one designer makes an offering of peace and the other fails or refused to acknowledge it, the manager should intervene. Ensure that the gesture is not ignored. Peace offerings are concessions made to reduce hostilities and initiate a climate for trust. Once concessions are made, rephrase them as commitments specific to dates, times and actions. Concessions may come in the form of an offer to supply equipment or personnel to help out in a pinch, or an offer to cease a specific activity. Offers are excellent tools for breaking deadlocks and initiating movement.
The Smith/Jones Conflict Analyzed
What of the conflict depicted in the Smith/Jones scenario? The manager's intervention should actually have started before the meeting since some strong feeling were easily predicted considering the topic's wide-ranging impact. Scheduling frequent breaks and a flexible seating arrangement would have been a good start.
Smith's criticism of Jones' aesthetic choices indicated a conflict, but not necessarily a destructive one. It was at this point that the design manager should have asked for clarification on the nature of the criticism and whether it reflected a viewpoint accepted by all at the table. If not, personal antagonisms may have been involved. If still unclear, the manager should have asked specifically how Jones' reference to the 4300 series applied to the meeting's agenda. A simple clarification would reassure Smith that it was business-related instead of a personal attack. Because the manager took no action whatsoever, the scenario ended with both designers attacking personal motives and the conflict had become the shouting, insulting, red-faced imbroglio we all seek to defuse.
In conclusion, conflict management is a proactive rather than a reactive skill. It anticipates the emergence of conflict from a variety of sources and is facilitated by intimate knowledge of individuals. The delicate balance between a designer's personal standards and the design standards held by a corporation are dynamic and occasionally get out of balance. The role of the design manager to maintain the balance by confronting and managing conflict is perhaps their most important role.
Bibliography
Foundation for Research on Human Behavior, Conflict Management in Organizations, edited by Elise Boulding. Ann Arbor: Braun & Brumfield, Inc., 1965.
Likert, Rensis and LIkert, Jane G., New Ways of Managing Conflict. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1976.
Pareek, Udai, "Developing Collaboration In Organizations", 1981 Annual Handbook for Group Facilitators. LaJolla, CA: University Associates, 1981, pp. 165-181.
Phillips, Eleanor and Cheston, Ric. "Conflict Resolution: What Works?" California Management Review, 1979 Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.76-83.
Sheane, Derek, "When and How to Intervene in Conflict", Personnel Management. Nov. 1979, pp.32-36.
Swingle, Paul, ed., The Structure of Conflict. New York: Academic Press, 1970.
Varney, Glenn, "Strategies for Designing an Intervention", 1978 Annual Handbook for Group Facilitators. LaJolla, CA: University Associates, 1978, pp.133-137. |
|
