 |
Communication and Conflict in the Workplace
These will be discussed as examples, together with alternatives, based on the Principles of Effective Communication and the Underlying Philosophies of Mediation that inform effective conflict resolution. In my view, all of the Principles of Effective Communication and Underlying Philosophies of Mediation have an application in the workplace and so I will consider a selection of these to illustrate this. First of all let's consider the type of relationships that might exist within a workplace. Adult-Adult relationship
An Adult-Adult relationship will be one where all employees are considered and expected to be capable of finding ways of resolving their difficult situations, whether they be conflicts with another employee, or even creative or technical problems to resolve within the organisation. They have ownership of their own situation which includes the responsibilities they accepted in taking on their post. This does not mean that employees remain in isolation in dealing with difficult situations as the roles of other employees will also involve input into some situations via their own job descriptions, but in an adult-adult environment, each employee takes on and is expected to take on that which they are clearly responsible for.
For example, a manager may give less or different work to an employee who is considered less able to fulfill a duty within their job description leaving more work, or more demanding work to others in the section or department etc. In such a situation, instead of dealing with the employee directly to support them in becoming more effective in their role, they are volunteering others to take on more work, not acting impartially towards them, rescuing the employee who is deemed to be less capable, disempowering the employee by denying them the opportunity to learn and develop. There are various other Principles of Effective Communication and Underlying Philosophies of Mediation not being practiced in such a workplace situation but basically the conflict is being avoided and suppressed and not resolved. There will inevitably, therefore, be consequences to address that will become the Manager's responsibility, meaning that the workplace conflict has escalated to involve others rather than remain with the individual who has been rescued:
Common consequences are speculations for the reasons for this:
This is likely to lead to a decrease in staff morale and motivation and hence productivity.
No blame environment Another common approach which influences the effectiveness and productivity of a workplace is the tendency towards or away from a No-blame environment with regard to difficulties that arise in the day to day operation of an organisation. The consequences of a blame environment are often to be seen when there is an ethos of 'covering your back', 'not taking risks', 'keeping your cards close to your chest', secret meetings between people, both formally and informally etc. This also tends to manifest in a lack of creativity and willingness to change within the organisation or at least within the department or section in which the blame environment is practiced. Creativity inherently requires mistakes and so an environment in which they are condemned is vulnerable to stagnation and rigidity. If it's not ok to make mistakes in the workplace then it will not be as creative as it could be. In a blame environment, the employee who didn't send the email or who didn't send the right information or who went to the wrong venue to meet the customer and lost the contract etc. is condemned and possibly sacked or demoted or at least considered 'less able' than others. (And obviously various, often derogatory, labels are ascribed to the employee by others as a result)
Hence the initial, ineffective response of challenging the person and not the behaviour is also responded to ineffectively. Enormous amounts of time and resources are used in defending against the blame, not to mention the additional stress and impact on morale and motivation. The no-blame approach allows an open investigation into and discussion of the reasons why the problem occurred so that systems or policies can be put in place to reduce the likelihood of it occurring again in the future. This has benefits for all involved - it promotes the creative co-operation of employees to improve their effectiveness and the organisation's effectiveness. They are able to take more ownership of the environment they create and are empowered to do so. There is an increase in motivation and morale and as a result, workplace productivity is likely to increase.
In the no-blame approach, conflict is seen as an opportunity for learning, connection and insight.
In many senses this and the rest of the Principles of Effective Communication and Underlying Philosophies of Mediation promote what is often described as a Learning Organisation as discussed by many writers, but in particular Peter M.Senge who wrote The Fifth Discipline
One of the Disciplines that promotes a Learning Organisation is Personal Mastery, about which he says: Personal mastery goes beyond competence and skills, though it is grounded in competence and skills. It goes beyond spiritual unfolding or opening, although it requires spiritual growth. It means approaching one's life as a creative work, living life from a creative as opposed to reactive view point. The purpose of this website is to support visitors in achieving such an aim. The Principles and Philosophies described support the creation (of a choice) of more effective responses to communication and the resolution of conflict, rather than reactions (no choice). It provides a basis, or benchmark, for reviewing present practices in these areas and thus an opportunity to learn new ways of responding where needed. But a further aspect of Senge's quote that I very much support is the idea that it is Personal mastery and it is about our choice to own our responses and create new ones in response to difficulties. It is about recognising our ability to respond, and thus our capacity to take responsibility for those responses.
However,it should also be noted that sometimes, even within a no-blame environment, an individual may protest that a mistake or mismanagement of a situation was 'beyond my control' when in fact it may have been due to the individual's ineffective time management or some other simple oversight. I make this point to emphasise that it is still our individual responsibility to adopt a no-blame approach both in how we respond to others' mistakes and how we respond to our own. The no-blame approach requires that we acknowledge our own part in a mistake, and thus take ownership of the situation and accept responsibility. If we adopt a blame approach towards ourselves we are likely to go into denial rather than be open about reviewing the things we could have done differently. There can be a clear hypocrisy in an organisation which claims to adopt a no-blame approach but it is not seen to be practiced by staff at all levels of the organisation. It seems fitting that we cannot 'blame' our managers for not adopting a no-blame approach, nor can we 'blame' our employees for not adopting it even if we try to introduce it. It then leaves it down to us to genuinely walk the talk, and focus on ensuring we practice it ourselves - if we mean what we say. Once again - effective conflict resolution is about self-awareness and not techniques for controlling or changing others.
Even in the workplace.
Return from Communication and Conflict in the Workplace to C&C in different areas of our lives...
|
.
