Unfortunately, the range of human interactions can't be easily reduced to a simple equation on a management scale. This makes predicating the psychological interaction between brothers quarreling about the direction of their company or trying to second guess the founder of company who refuses to acknowledge the strengths and skills of his or her children, extremely difficult.
But what can you, as an owner, a manager, or family member do to resolve conflicts when they are about human feelings rather than specific business issues? As a participant in this type of conflict, what would you expect to accomplish and how would you manage such a conflict from a leadership position?
In most of these conflicts, the primary response of the participants is to fall back on personal behavior that has been conditioned by habits.
When they attempt to resolve the conflict, they are trapped by their own habitual behavior and thought patterns, causing the process of conflict resolution to stall and or fail. Failure often means that either someone must leave the company, or the company itself must be sold.
Why can't people resolve differences when it would be in their best interests to do so? Why can't family members deal with their family feelings outside of the business. When those conflicts are brought into the business, the entire business is at risk, creating a situation that can seriously impact on the employees, as well as, all of the family members.
Usually, the participants are not aware that they are acting in a stereotypical manner, that is - they are responding in the same way they've always responded to similar situations. Each party in the conflict will complain that the situation is hopeless because the others involved are acting in an arbitrary and unreasonable way. In addition, each feels as if they are the only participant in the conflict who sees the situation clearly. They also believe that if their partner was reasonable, everyone could arrive at an amicable solution. The problem is, everyone believes it's their adversary who's being unreasonable and preventing resolution. Their adversary of course, would argue the exact opposite. When this happens, a mediator or consultant is thwarted, and the resolution process will be defeated.
The reason why this situation seems to occur endlessly was actually discovered by Dr. Freud many years ago. He simply called his discovery the concept of resistance. The real insight here, is that we all resist change, cling to behavior we're most comfortable with, and become frightened when faced with the unknown.
In order to solve the problems of conflict and difference that occur in our business and personal lives, we often need to confront the unknown and explore new patterns of thought and behavior. For most however, it's always easier to stay with "tried and true" than to venture into the unknown.
The situation that results after a conflict has been resolved is also unknown. For example, when one partner steps aside, the remaining partner must now face all of the issues, personal and business, while having to assume sole responsibility for success or failure. At that point, the person left in charge is forced to venture into unknown areas without relying on the excuse that an obstinate partner was at fault when things went wrong.
The dilemma is: Would it be better to continue an conflict, or to break out into the unchartered waters of leadership and responsibility? And so it goes...
No comments:
Post a Comment