Slash the Clash: Organizational Behaviour

• Conflict management must be handled well to save work teams from slipping into chaos
• An effective way to address conflicts is to identify and treat typical dysfunctions

For team leaders, supervisors and managers, the most disliked of words is ‘conflict’. And, overcoming this dislike is not an option, but a necessity. Though conflict management is considered the bane of managers, it must be handled well to save work teams from slipping into chaos. A team of experts now recommends a simpler and quicker way to address conflicts—identify and then treat the dysfunctions that ail work teams. In a bid to help managements create healthy work teams, this week’s mailer lists a few typical dysfunctions and discusses how to manage them.

Poor team work

Those in-charge of a few top performers assume automatically that they have the best team on hand. This assumption blinds them to the fact that efficient teams consist of individuals who work in collaboration. Studies show that top performers are not necessarily the best of team players, and require constant and close direction on how to align their accomplishments with that of their teams. Top performers are also more likely to create conflict-like situations. Therefore, letting go of one’s guard when top performers are more in number in a team is not a good idea. In fact, one must be more cautious.

Combat-ready

Willingness to seek and implement feedback should be encouraged amongst team members. But not all employees accept negative feedback, however constructive it may be, so easily. The most common tendency is to retaliate. Managers should let their wards know that unwillingness to accept feedback will be construed as unwillingness to improve. Although a part of most appraisals is assessing how much an employee followed the feedback given to him, they must also include marking how an employee received negative feedback. Employees who are non-defensive about what was said should be given brownie points.

When words and meanings differ

Employees who have the habit of saying, “But that was not what I meant when I said…”, will have to be weaned off it. Ambiguity and non-transparency in communication can lead to trouble if left unchecked. Managers should single out such employees and have them state their intentions in clear and explicit terms. When checked a couple of times, an employee will become mindful of what he says.

Poor commitment

Dissent is both necessary and healthy to team functioning. Dissent is also important to ensure that decisions taken are unbiased and holistic. But dissent after a decision has been taken and is being implemented hampers team functioning and becomes more than an obstacle. Team decisions are seldom unanimous, but those who are against a particular decision should be made to understand that they cannot continue their disagreement once a decision has been taken. They must exhibit the same kind of commitment to implementing it as those who were for it at the decision-making stage.

Chaotically yours

As one expert rightly says, “Pot stirring is a violation of principles and a threat to productivity.” Some employees have an inherent affiliation with chaos and rebellion. They enjoy championing inconsequential causes, cribbing over insignificant things and raking up sensitive issues. There actions must be nipped in the bud. An effective way to do so is making employees aware of the consequences of indulging in such conduct. Quoting examples of what happened to those who instigated trouble is an indirect way of cautioning employees to steer clear of improper conduct.

The ‘not me’ syndrome

No one likes to be blamed, but when things end up in a mess, those who are responsible for the tasks will have to share the burden of the mess. Here too, the typical tendency is to play the blame game and deflect responsibility. Managers should let employees know that transferring blame is the same as transferring responsibility. Equally important is to make them understand that once an employee takes on a responsibility, he alone is answerable for the outcome, either good or bad.

The ‘I was not told’ syndrome

Information flows within teams should be transparent, democratic and free. Ensuring such flows is the management’s responsibility, but holding managers responsible for every bit of internal communication like emails and memos is unfair. Employees should be held responsible for staying ‘in the loop’. Reading emails, newsletters and memos regularly should be a part of employee responsibilities, while making them available to all is the task of a manager. Ignorance of internal communication is not an excuse for not performing a duty!

It can grow big!

Perceptions and tolerance levels differ. This is why one can never guess issues that can flare up into full-fledged conflicts. Therefore, managers should treat no issue as too small. Addressing differences however petty and getting employees to reconcile immediately should be right on top of a manager’s agenda.

Heading successful teams is what all managers aspire to do. But a more reasonable goal is to head functional teams, where individuals tolerate each other, are watchful of their conduct and comply with group norms and decisions. Such functional teams are a possibility only when what is dysfunctional in them is identified and eliminated.

Reference:
The ManageMentor