As we have noted, conflict causes great stress for many managers, whether it is resolved through domination or compromise. But the great early 20th century management thinker Mary Parker Follett argued that there is a vastly superior way to treat the issue.
It is the process of integration, wherein a way is found for each side’s ambitions to be realized without the cost of suppressing or restricting those of any other side. This is a creative process that calls for finding new ways to view the conflict, what it is, who the real parties are, what their interrelationships are, and the nature of their collaborative interactions. Follett gave two examples of this which I will relate, here.
The first is a personal dispute she had while reading in a small room in a library. Another person in the room wanted to open the window, and Follett wanted it to remain shut. They resolved the issue by opening a window in an adjacent room, which was not being used.
Rather than simply arguing over the disagreement as it had initially presented itself to them – whether or not to open the window in their room – they discussed the nature of the dispute and the reasons underlying their positions. They learned that Follett did not want the windy weather outside to disturb her, and the other party felt that the room was stuffy.
Next, they considered the possibilities for satisfying both sides without domination or compromise. They looked beyond their immediate environment where the dispute was playing out, and discovered that the adjoining room was empty, and that its window could be opened, satisfying both of them without disturbing anyone else.
Follett also realized that, as generally preferable as integration may be over the other options, it may not always be viable. For example, if there had been no adjoining room, or if it had been occupied by people who wanted the window to remain shut, Follett and her disputant would have been left with no recourse but to find some awkward compromise, or for one to simply yield to the other. Nevertheless, in this case, the two sides succeeded in resolving the conflict creatively by finding a solution that was optimal for both of them. Let’s look at another example.
The classic case of the use of integration to resolve organizational conflict is Follett’s story of a dairymen’s cooperative league’s dispute about how to organize the unloading of carts at a creamery platform. The platform was located on a slope, and was approached by carts from both the uphill and downhill directions. Both the up-hillers and the down-hillers thought that they should have priority, and that the other side should pull over and wait.
The disputants continued to contest the issue within the framework in which it had presented itself to them. Unable to resolve it, they brought in a mediator, who immediately saw that the platform could be repositioned so that each disputing side had uninhibited and simultaneous access to each physical side of the platform. Upon this being pointed out, both parties recognized it as the perfect solution and happily agreed.
We might also be able to see in this example the potential for another difficulty that Follett recognized is often an obstacle to the application of integration. It is an interesting one, of particular interest to us here on these pages. We will discuss it next – see you then!
—
This post is a part of a series. You can learn about and link to the other articles here: Conflict
—
Today’s tips: Speaking of domination, please see this article by John Leo about intellectual indoctrination on campus (and also for clues as to why it ultimately fails).
And if you’re looking for views to integrate, you’ll want to view this article from the NYT about problems and solutions seeking each other out.
—
If you have enjoyed this post, please do join us by using the subscription links just below or at the top right of this page. And thanks – we look forward to your being aboard!
—
Technorati Tags: conflict, manager, domination, compromise, management, integration, ambition, Follett, mediator, John Leo, indoctrination, NYT, Mary Parker Follett
Sphere: Related Content
6 Comments
I like the examples here of conflict leading to good resolutions. So many organizations avoid conflict they never see the areas that having some conflict would lead to improvements with. It is instead ignored and no progress is made.
Great series!
I always feel I’m missing something when I see a discussion about managing conflict. In all of the time I’ve been consulting to the workplace, only a tiny handful of times has the nature of the conflict been such that it could truly be seen as a contest between two valid, but differing, viewpoints – resolved by analyzing the problem, then coming up with a creative, win-win solution.
Mostly what I see is hominid conflict masquerading as a polite disagreement over substance. In Mary Parker Follett’s example what’s so striking is the emotional maturity of both parties from the outset. When two people who are both mature have a disagreement, most often, one defers to the other. That gesture is then appreciated, and often leads to an unmediated discussion about a mutually satisfactory solution. It’s true that, occasionally, disagreements between people can persist, remain civilized throughout, and be turned into learning moments. I wish it happened more often.
Since actual physical conflict is (almost) verboten in the workplace, and certainly grist for possible sanctions, most conflict is subtle and not-so-subtle verbal and psychological warfare, and sometimes the parties acknowledge that it’s happening, and just as often they don’t.
The willingness of managers to go toward conflict, and then appreciate, validate, reward, and insist on mature behavior is a key test of a manager’s mettle, especially if one of the immature people is a big producer.
Workplaces are min-cultures that are essentially healthy – or not.
Hi Mike,
I agree – it seems so counter-intuitive to regard conflict as something potentially to be welcomed for the benefits it promises to unveil. As a result, many of us miss out on advantages struggling to find the traction to surface in our organizations.
Thanks for your visit – and your kind words!
Hello Shaun,
Your identification of the explosively sensitive nature of the actual dynamics of conflict in actual organizations, together with your association of those dynamics and organizations with culture is, in my view, right on the money.
Managing conflict, as many other of the dynamics of organizations, is not a discrete package of techniques that you can apply when the issue comes up. Either the culture of the organization facilitates this (or that) approach to conflict, or not. It is straight to the culture that we must go, and it is that which managers must venture to manage.
You note that, “occasionally, disagreements between people can persist, remain civilized throughout, and be turned into learning moments.” Perhaps such events are an opening for alert managers to begin this process. There are many other such possibilities.
The key, though, is to approach this topic from the context of the culture of the outfit – the way its members perceive each others’ intentions, and interact and work together. If the culture doesn’t support such approaches, it will inevitably undermine them.
Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment, revealing such considered experience. I hope we hear more from you on this topic.
It’s interesting that in both of the Follett illustrations, the conflict is in part defined by either – or scenario’s. I don’t know what the percentage is, but I imagine that a significant percentage of conflict could be defined simply by bi-modal thinking, e.g. if you can’t think of more than two options you have a high likelihood of stressful conflict.
From a leadership standpoint, and particularly from moving an organization to higher levels of performance, I think conflict and the dominance vs compromise scenario’s both suggest a loss scenario. Conflict resolution when you have to move forward yields a unique inflection on the topic. I think conflict resolution for leadership often involves breaking the paradigm when opposites present. Which partly ties to the Managing Leadership’s reference to the personal meanings attached to the user’s options. Essentially conflict is often described as “resistance” in this environment. I write about managing resistance, see if you agree at http://www.managepro.com/blog/index.php/category/leadership
Hello Rodney,
Thank you for your visit, and for raising this important point. When conflict appears, it almost always presents as a zero-sum situation. Each participant’s position and self-esteem can become essentially immediately and virtually intextricably bound up in this view, and it can be difficult to even entertain the possibility that we can find another, more mutually agreeable, way to resolve it.
Thank you as well for your effective suggestion of viewing this problem as one of resistance. I hope visitors will follow the link you provided to your excellent articles on the subject.
Thanks again for stopping by and participating in this discussion!
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] we saw yesterday, the great early 20th century management thinker Mary Parker Follett was a pioneer in the [...]
Post a Comment