by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Aug 11, 2014 | Brazen Leader, Organizational Effectiveness, Uncategorized
Conflict is a natural occurrence. In fact, it’s frequently a really good thing, allowing organizational success by way of diverse thinking. My favorite phrase: When reasonably intelligent, well-intentioned people disagree, the organization is better served.
And I believe that. Of course, I could write a treatise on the reasonably intelligent and well-intentioned qualifiers, but that’s for a different posting…
Instead, I’m just going to provide some tips and tidbits for combatting unhealthy conflict. Not to silent healthy conflict, mind you; I’m referring to the other kind. The simple, three-step model for conflict resolution has always been:
- Get all the facts on the table,
- Understand the others’ positions, and
- Find a win-win solution.
Now, I don’t know about you, but that last step seemed to take a quantum leap of faith after the first two. Here are some specifics that may help to bring that leap of faith back to something closer to a normal acceptance of logic…
- Listen. No, not that kind of listening… really listen. Listen to understand, not refute. Listen to find common ground, not to validate your position. Listen, hard.
- Don’t interrupt. Your parents told you that–you should have listened to them (see guidance above). Keep your blankety-blank trap shut and let someone talk. You can’t listen if you don’t, and the very act of obvious respect may act as a conflict-resolving catalyst. Stranger things have happened. And while we’re discussing interruptions… opening your mouth, shaking your head, and otherwise demonstrating your desire to speak are all interruptions, even if no noise comes out of your pie hole. Don’t do it.
- Use “I” messages. Yes, we learned that ridiculously basic, 3-part feedback technique in Communications 101 (did you take notes?). They are as useful and viable as ever, and even more so when resolving conflict.
- “When you…”
- “I feel…”
- “Because…”
Remember, our goal is to resolve conflict–really change
behavior–not to simply
win.
- Ask. If you really want to know “what it will take” for someone to get over a conflict situation, it may be as simple as simply asking. Give it a shot.
Conflict may be necessary for successful organizations, but unhealthy conflict is never part of that need. As leaders, we must identify it, address it, deal with it.
But that’s just me…
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jun 10, 2014 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Kevin Berchelmann, Organizational Effectiveness
I recently read a blog posting from someone holding themselves out as a “contrarian” HR professional (consultant, of course).
Now, I consider myself something of a contrarian myself, as many have used words like that (and sometimes even MORE colorful) to describe my rants, thinkings, and positions on various issues, and I’m OK with that.
This particular blog entry, however, brought a couple of things to light… (more…)
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | May 28, 2014 | Brazen Leader, Human Resources, Kevin Berchelmann, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Organizational Effectiveness
Monster.com, the veritable cash-producing employment machine, is laying off about 15% of its workforce. Big deal, eh??
Actually, I believe there’s a teaching moment here…
That monster is laying off, in itself is little news; the part that drives me nuts:
1. Q2 sales increased 25%, almost $60M,
2. Share price is up almost 2%, and
3. Earnings are down almost 28%, caused by a 34% increase in operating costs, driven almost entirely by legal fees associated with their options-backdating investigation.
In this age of Talent Management, these layoffs will be borne almost entirely by human resources & finance staff cuts — seems “centralization” of sorts now makes more sense.
The restructuring should save $150M, less $70M in associated costs, and another $80M they’ll use for additional product upgrades and advertising. In other words, first-year wash.
Creating intentional redundancy (decentralized support staff), then changing course on that (centralized), seems no different to me than poor decision-making in any other event; they merely needed a market-palatable basis for the decision to reduce staff.
Have you ever seen a company, on the eve of layoffs, say, “This reduction will hurt bad in many ways, and make it more difficult for us to accomplish our mission…?” Only with those near-death (then who really cares anyway?)
Short-term vs. long-term focus is obviously difficult. Senior leaders could have some relief from investors if they would merely personally commit to longer-term results. Most can’t (or won’t) do that, principally due to their lack of confidence in talent. A vicious circle, of course…
Too often, we view staffing “planning” as asking managers how many people they’ll need — effectively abrogating our responsibility for effective workforce management to an unskilled manager who believes — rightfully so, for his/her world — that vacancies should be filled, and more hands make for lighter work.
And though we (self included) popularly use words like talent management and such, much of this issue is best handled through good ol’ staffing plans. The issue we have, I think, is becoming an uber-leader and activist for these plans.
For instance, a position left unfilled for 3+ months, with no subsequent business limitations, is a position that should go unfilled/canceled, or at the minimum, intensely scrutinized.
Further, I believe companies like monster — who announces these layoffs about once every other year — are hiding behind them as a subterfuge for inadequate ongoing performance management. In other words, every couple of years, they whack the deadwood that should have been managed earlier. This is far too common…
We all do that to some degree; think of the times we’ve participated in a layoff. Being the intelligent, non-union creatures we are, we use “performance” as the litmus for who stays/who goes. Remember how easy it is/was to select some — if not all — of those being laid off under that criteria. Sure, some are difficult; but many are simple to ascertain, since they’ve been under-performing unscathed for a period of time before.
That’s “our bad.”
If we manage more, we layoff less.
by Triangle Performance Staff | May 5, 2013 | Kevin Berchelmann, Organizational Effectiveness
Communication can be difficult to define. What does it mean? Is it a simple communication flow between two people? Is it a conversation involving more than two people? Regardless, I don’t see communications as a separate, distinct effort, but something that’s imbedded in each of the other leadership competencies. Effective communication is still one of the easiest ways to increase success in the organization, and something we should focus on intently.
Keep it Simple
A formal communications plan is probably unnecessary. But I do think a solid communications effort is critical for maintaining important relationships. Sometimes it can be as simple as sitting down with someone and saying “I’m not sure I’m communicating with you effectively. What’s the best way? Can we exchange e-mail every now and then or talk face to face?” The point is, communications doesn’t have to be formalized or structured, if there’s a problem, simply address it. (more…)
by Triangle Performance Staff | Apr 2, 2013 | Kevin Berchelmann, Organizational Effectiveness
So you’ve made some pretty significant gains, but you still can’t reach that next level. Stop your whining. It’s not rocket science. The good news is, you’re not alone. It’s just an inability to communicate sincerely – giving and receiving feedback – not earth shattering stuff here, but critical for your success as a leader nonetheless. (more…)
by Triangle Performance Staff | Jan 30, 2013 | Kevin Berchelmann, Organizational Effectiveness
In today’s business climate, where rapid change, technological breakthroughs and improvements define the quest for high performance, are middle-managers making a comeback—having a renaissance of sorts? The short answer is “yes.” The longer response includes some discussion around our success (if any) in eliminating their utility in the first place.
(more…)
