Thursday, February 7, 2019

Organizational Dysfunction and the Dynamics of Conflict


Anyone who has been in a group, social or work related, knows that conflict in one form or another is likely to occur. Conflict in either setting can often be attributed to situations that are zero-summed. If I have things my way you cannot have them your way and vice-versa. If I believe in a certain goal and the relevant set of roles, processes, and values and you believe in a different goal and supporting factors then we have a win/lose scenario to work through.  This is a structural conflict and it happens all the time in an organizational setting when courses of action are mutually exclusive.

Non-structural conflict is less about differences that arise from opposing agendas or interests and more about differences related to personal qualities that may be harder to quantify. Person “x” rubs person “y” the wrong way. Person “y” responds in kind which convinces person “x” his initial feelings were justified. We may not know what the real issue is, but every interaction is used to confirm the narrative the two opponents have about each other. These narratives might involve two people, or they may be between two or more groups. Emotions escalate when assumptions or opinions related to the narrative are confused for facts and are used by the “we” to label the “they.”
In this type of “we – they” conflict, the effect is more visible than the cause. This makes it hard to resolve. Both sides tend to cite a personality conflict or believe they are working with a difficult person or toxic boss. And while we don’t discount this polarity out of hand there may be another explanation. What is showing up as “the problem” may actually be a symptom. The cause could be any number of factors that are tucked away in the past. A past that is long forgotten or denied but still energetically alive and present in the system.

Organizations are groups of people and like any group they possess a collective awareness that affects and is affected by the members. A significant event or dysfunction in the life of the organization that has never been fully resolved or put to rest will continue to be energetically present even after those who participated in the event have retired or left. If you have visited a battlefield, many years after the fighting occurred, you may have noticed the intensity of feeling that still lingers in the area. The impressions of pain, fear and anger or shame felt by thousands of people or even a few dozen can be deep and long lasting. 

These feelings are the feelings of the victim. Anyone (which is just about everyone) who has some predisposition for those feelings can have them activated by a traumatized environment. The collective trauma or dysfunction may be years in the past but a part of it can continue to resonate within each person’s own individual or family system. When potent feelings are activated the mind looks for a cause. Someone has to be the persecutor who poses a threat or a disappointment. Justified or not, that someone is unconsciously nominated for that role. Often, it is the immediate authority figure. In a charged environment it is easy to trigger the projective tendencies of the mind and then seek to enroll others in that projection. 

In systemic organizational development every part of the system should be respected and heard. As facilitators we give space for difficult, even painful symptoms to be expressed. And, beyond the “we versus they” polarity we look for the underlying yet hidden cause that may be affecting the present. In one organization a mid-level leader was puzzled by the perennial disconnection between management and staff. While he did everything, he could think of to empower staff and support senior leadership there was a general sense of malaise and disillusionment in the organization that refused to be dispelled.
                                                                                                      
Typically, staff disparaged leadership and felt misused by their perceived lack of vision and drive. Leadership kept looking for ways to relate to staff and foster a one-team ethos but felt rebuffed despite their good-faith efforts. The question was asked if there was some event that overwhelmed the ability of those present to cope? The organization was many years older than the longest tenured member and no event in the last twenty some years could be recalled. 

Systemically mapping the dynamics of the organization revealed a bond between staff and some unknown factor that embodied vulnerability. Staff felt protective towards this factor as if it was an abandoned child. While the leadership had access to the authority and collective purpose needed to lead for some unknown reason it neglected to draw upon those critical factors. It did want to relate to staff but more as a partner than a supervisor.

Staff impatiently demanded that leadership lead. Leadership, unable to foster a collaborative relationship with staff seemed demoralized and withdrawn. The general message taken from the exercise was the reminder that some clichés still apply; leadership is not a popularity contest. There are times and situations that call for directive leadership. Staff may not like the directives or the leaders who issue them. Push back of some form is often unavoidable. Ironically, in trying to mitigate this pushback the leadership’s lack of resolve and firmness added to the sense of discontent that seemed to grip staff. 

The missing factor in this system was the sense of safety that comes when leadership is trusted to fully embrace its role. Power that is abdicated by a parent, especially when the child is testing the limits, does not foster togetherness in the family system. The same phenomena are true in the organizational system. Delegating decision making authority before someone is ready to take on that authority or allowing a lack of clarity about who makes what decision can foster a sense of abandonment and vulnerability and the resentment of being set up to fail. 

It’s possible the organizational dysfunction the middle level manger noticed was a recapitulation of a common family dysfunction.  While we might not find a specific traumatic event to cite as the underlying cause a long history of leadership abdication would also have a detrimental effect. History becomes culture and culture as we know consumes good intentions for lunch. The way towards a healthy workplace culture clearly starts with the leadership team. An in-depth intervention would identify and transform the internal blocks to exercising leadership, including limiting attitudes and beliefs. The team’s capacity to lead could be developed not only by learning new skills, but also by systemically strengthening the resilience and confidence that capable leaders embody. 





No comments:

Post a Comment