While waiting on a long program to run,
Robert wrote:
> I'm doing...what I am looking at is teaching people how to
> communicate using language (which I call cooperative language) which
> is more likely to encourage dialogue, even whent here is
> disagreement.
That sounds both interesting and useful!
> The problem is not so much disagreement, but the way it is handled,
> both vebally, behaviourally and culturally in the organization...and
I once read a sidebar to an article that related some ideas on a 'conflict
culture' by a German Jesuit priest. I found it interesting that a priest
(and his co-consultant) were encouraging conflict!
Teamwork: what does it mean?
Michael Loehner's 5 building blocks of a conflict culture:
Talk instead of writing
People become fearful in crisis times, and they don't lose
that fear through written instructions, but rather through
conversation and a feeling of safety.
Take values seriously
It is a manager's responsibility to know what they're
talking about. A manager should be able to convince an
employee of the plausibility and applicability of the
values of the organization. If you can't give a reasonable
definition of "customer oriented", you can't make it part
of the culture.
Treat people as complete
If an employee's personal interests, fears, and passions
are only treated as inconveniences and the employee is only
valued for what he possesses, it often comes out in
communication that is limited to appeals and information.
Many conflicts arise, because people can't take this
compartmentalization.
Accept the fact that people have enemies
The idea that the company is a large family stems from the
time of the founding of an organization. As the teamwork
notion becomes the culture, harmony becomes the guiding
principle. People are encouraged to "like" people who
truly aren't very likable (at least to them). This builds
a potential for conflict; if this conflict is suppressed,
creativity suffers.
Divert aggression
If a manager "unloads" emotionally on the employees, that
is inappropriate. The anger at a person can be diverted to
aggression against weaknesses in arguments. Competence in
dealing objectively and in the rules of logic are a
prerequisite. Groups, in which this competence exists and
is used, are aggressive and creative *without* belittling
people.
Summarized from "manager magazin", 3/1994, pp. 218-222. Michael Loehner,
a consultant from Zurich, and Rupert Lay, a Jesuit priest, consult
together regarding organizational philosophies.
-----
The key to me was to acknowledge that conflict exists and then begin to
think about what to do about it in light of the organization's and the
people's needs and goals.
> my work is aimed at trying to prevent UNNECESSARY, unproductive
> conflict which occurs as a result of the style of the interactions
> and the use of language.
Put a slight bit differently, it sounds like some of Argyris' ideas:
A New Interpretation of Some Classic Values
HONESTY
The old way A new way
----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Tell others no lies or tell others Create conditions that make it more
all you think and feel. likely that one can reveal to
others (and hear from others)
without distorting what would
otherwise be subject to distortion.
INTEGRITY
The old way A new way
----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Stick to your principles, values, Advocate your principles, values,
and beliefs. and beliefs in a way that invites
inquiry into them and encourages
others to do the same.
...from "Strategy, Change and Defensive Routines" by Chris Argyris, Pitman
Publishing Inc., 1985, pp. 262-263.
-----
He has other points on those pages, but these two seemed most applicable.
> I've identified a number of ways of communicating that are inimitable
> to dialogue (still working on it), and ways of communicating that are
> the opposite.
That would be interesting to hear.
> Beyond that is the catch, though of having to make a decision which
> is a separate issue. Imagine if you will Ben and a person who
> disagrees with his approach sitting in the HR corporate office and
> their boss expects them to make a recommendation about the use of
> ranking systems. We then have to look at conflict resolution
> strategies which are well documented in the literature.
I think Doc suggested that we need to focus on the substantive rather than
the dramatic (I think he used better words). I've been in organizations
where people behaved as if it were a matter of honor to defend their
beliefs, even when it didn't really matter. They would tend to stall out
on getting things done, 'cause they'd get hung up on 'recreational
arguments' that didn't seem so recreational.
I've also been (and am) in organizations that behaved very differently.
For example, you and I might disagree on a point. If the subject under
consideration were _your_ pet project and I didn't think you were making a
fatal mistake (in W.L. Gore & Associates' terms, if I didn't think you
were drilling below the waterline), then I'd probably support what you
were doing. We might learn something from what you were trying; your
passion for the idea on your issue might help it work, even if I couldn't
make it work myself; and my willingness to support your ideas in your area
would probably be repaid by your future willingness to support my ideas on
some pet project of mine, again only if I weren't boring below the
waterline.
To re-emphasize, this is not advocating letting someone harm the
organization; it's merely acknowledging that different people, with
different ideas, might be right. If I didn't know the idea to be deadly,
it's probably a good idea to see how it pans out.
How would this apply to the ranking/evaluation issue? We're just trying
to learn about it, not run a company and set up a ranking (or no-ranking)
process, so it may not really apply to the group. If we were a company
and I believed 'A' (let 'A' be either evaluation is good or bad --- your
choice) but you wanted to practice 'not A' in your department, I might
listen to your arguments carefully to discern if you had sufficient
safeguards in place to protect the organization. If you did, and if you
wanted to try an experiment that I couldn't say was boring below the
waterline, I'd likely support your idea and look to learn from your
experience. (Often learning from someone _else's_ experience is cheaper
than learning from one's own! :)
Regards,
Bill
--
Bill Harris Hewlett-Packard Co.
R&D Engineering Processes Lake Stevens Division
domain: billh@lsid.hp.com M/S 330
phone: (425) 335-2200 8600 Soper Hill Road
fax: (425) 335-2828 Everett, WA 98205-1298
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com>
Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>