Jill heard a knock at the door. "Come in," she called. It was Troy, and he looked upset. If he felt like he looked, this would be his second "upset" visit in two days. Jill blanked her screen, turned to face Troy, motioned to the chair in front of her desk and said, "Please."
Troy sat. "I'm done," he said. "I'm here to let you know that I've requested reassignment."
Jill had been optimistic at first — Metronome was her team's second project together and Daffodil had been very successful. Well, almost. With hindsight, Jill could see that Rachel and Troy had had some bumps over Daffodil. Now Metronome was becoming a disaster.
Jill had tried everything. She'd worked with Rachel alone, and with Rachel and each of the three others who'd had difficulty with her. Finally she had referred the whole mess up to HR. Nothing worked. Jill wanted to keep Rachel, because she understood the driver software, but not if it meant losing everyone else.
Ironically, Jill's solutions would all lead to the same outcome, because Rachel isn't the problem. For reasons unknown to Jill, transferring Rachel to another team would only create an unfilled conflict role that someone else would then fill. Here's why.
Early in Daffodil, Troy and Jim had been "at war." Jill had separated them by assigning Troy some work that Rachel wanted, but had never asked for, and assigning Rachel some work she hated, but had never objected to. Since Jill stuck with those assignments for Metronome, Rachel had been fuming privately for months. Now she was always irritable, regularly lashing out.
Rachel had placated — she hadn't expressed her discomfort to Jill. Troy and Jim had coped by blaming each other, and Jill had found a super-reasonable "peace" rather than working through everyone's issues, which continued to simmer. Rachel became the focus of the conflict, though she actually contributed only a small piece.
The focus of conflict
is often a role —
it can be filled
by anyoneRachel became the identified patient — the one who exhibited symptoms of pain that was caused by imbalance in the overall system. The team saw the problem as belonging to Rachel, even though four people played roles in creating and maintaining the problem.
Most group interpersonal conflict follows similar patterns. People who seem to be central — especially the identified patient — might only be peripheral to the conflict. People who seem to be peripheral or even helpful can actually be responsible, in part, for igniting and maintaining the conflict.
Eventually, it all came apart for Jill's team. Rachel was reassigned, at great cost to her, to the team, and to Metronome. Jim and Troy were again working more closely together, and resumed their war. Jill was back to Square One — but now Metronome was late.
If you're inside the system, you probably can't tell what's really happening. Seeking outside assistance — from someone with a detached perspective, and the right skills — is your best hope. And the earlier you do it, the easier it will be. Top Next Issue
Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenVsrHSmiLkvCGgJTJner@ChacwutvpXSMRtkAleCzoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Conflict Management:
- Practice Positive Politics
- Politics is a dirty word at work, as elsewhere. We think of it as purely destructive, often distorting
decisions and leading the organization in wrong directions. And sometimes, it does. Politics can be
constructive, though, and you can help to make it so.
- Social Safety Margins
- As our personal workloads increase, we endure more stress and more time pressure. Inevitably, we have
less time for the social niceties that protect us from accidentally hurting each other's feelings. When
are we most at risk of incidental harm, and what can we do about it?
- Tangled Thread Troubles
- Even when we use a facilitator to manage a discussion, managing a queue for contributors can sometimes
lead to problems. Here's a little catalog of those difficulties.
- Impasses in Group Decision-Making: III
- In group decision-making, impasses can develop. Some are related to the substance of the issue at hand.
With some effort, we can usually resolve substantive impasses. But treating nonsubstantive impasses
in the same way doesn't work. Here's why.
- Grace Under Fire: II
- When we debate at work, things sometimes turn unpleasant. Out of control, one party might maneuver the
other into losing control. If we have better tools for recognizing these tactics, we're better able
to maintain self-control. Here's Part II of such a toolkit.
See also Conflict Management for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming October 17: Overt Belligerence in Meetings
- Some meetings lose their way in vain attempts to mollify a belligerent participant who simply will not be mollified. Here's one scenario that fits this pattern. Available here and by RSS on October 17.
- And on October 24: Conversation Irritants: I
- Conversations at work can be frustrating even when everyone tries to be polite, clear, and unambiguous. But some people actually try to be nasty, unclear, and ambiguous. Here's Part I of a small collection of their techniques. Available here and by RSS on October 24.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenHLptGrSphbOgIWETner@ChaccWSuqZXhgHosNvJwoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
- Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.
- Your stuff is brilliant! Thank you!
- You and Scott Adams both secretly work here, right?
- I really enjoy my weekly newsletters. I appreciate the quick read.
- A sort of Dr. Phil for Management!
- …extremely accurate, inspiring and applicable to day-to-day … invaluable.