Approaches that do NOT work
Typical Responses to Addressing Intergroup Conflict that are, in fact, Ineffective
“If the solution was as simple as bringing everyone into a room with a facilitator “to look at the issues” or “to talk things through” this kind of problem wouldn’t exist. Such well-intentioned but ultimately misguided efforts to resolve established intergroup dysfunction often only serve to compound the problem or to drive the real issue further underground.
“Organisations and organizational leaders choose a variety of methods to deal with inter-group disagreement and conflict.
- Some try to ignore the issues, hoping that time will help ease tensions.
- Others encourage a compromise approach and ask each side to give in on some points to get what they want on other issues.
- Still others adopt a hands-off approach, insisting that team members “sort it out among themselves”
- Or they look to someone “higher in the chain” to dictate a solution.
These techniques do not produce lasting solutions. At best, things may become a little better for a while but the toxic effects of lack of trust or low respect remain to subtly or overtly undermine the next initiative or major engagement. The result of all this is even higher cost, more lost time, mounting frustration and a growing image of an organization that is incompetent or that is suffering from either poor leadership, a poor culture, or both.”
Call us now for your FREE Consultation by clicking the button below.
How Our Approach is Different
Five factors distinguish our approach to
- Unit of Change: Our approach to addressing intergroup disagreement and conflict at work is built on the premise that Change is brought about via the team, or the group, rather than by the individual.
Membership of a group or team influences individual attitudes and behaviours in significant ways; if a group member acts in disregard to what other members accept as appropriate or sound, such changes will be resisted. This is why it’s essential that all members change together. This is made possible in our approach because the criteria of group composition that determine who should take part ensure that attendees include persons who have
– knowledge of the history of the relationship;
– understanding of its present adverse effects;
– and the authority to authorise and implement agreed-upon solutions.
In this way, norms that govern interaction between the groups and that are contained within the sub-cultures, traditions, precedents and past practices of contending groups are subject to change, because those whose behaviour they influence are present. The unit of change is not one member or the members of one group in isolation from the other, but the membership of all groups concerned.
Predictable pitfalls associated with other approaches are thereby avoided.
- Ideal-Actual Comparison: Our approach enables group members from every group to work with the possible rather than limit efforts to working solely on current issues and challenges. Comparison of the ideal with what is actual aids in identifying specific and concrete actions required to improve relationships and solve real problems.
- Workshop Manager Role: Our approach provides an easily understandable framework that enables group members clarify issues and identify optimal possibilities for solving them. Since the workshop managers’ role is limited to aiding participants to operate within that framework, one hundred percent of the responsibility for success in using the framework is retained by group members themselves. This sense of control over the outcome increases the commitment of participants to initiate the process and thereafter to make it successful.
- Direct Resolution of Disagreements: Disagreements are surfaced during the workshop process and the framework provides a structure for solving them. By using the workshop framework and process to aid group members to deal directly with one another in a problem-solving manner, groups are far less dependent on an “expert” for masterminding the process.
- Follow-on Support and Accountability: An important outcome of the workshop is the “Road Map for Change” established by each group. This is the list of behavioural and operational commitments and specific actions with dates, names, check-points etc., developed and approved by all groups as being required to bring about optimal intergroup relationships and productivity. Our experience over decades shows that external, follow-on support and accountability ensure optimal return on the overall effort; the workshop process therefore specifies a number of ‘Accountability Sessions’ where progress against commitments is critiqued and reported. Typically, a further set of new commitments designed to accelerate achievement and momentum may be established as part of these sessions.
