CASE EXAMPLE
Even though these three briefly listed ideas and suggestions have been around for a long time, and even though there is further literature about the nature of and how to deal with intergroup conflict (see, for example, Beckhard [1969]; Blake, Shepard, and Mouton [1964]; and Walton [1969]), using these ideas and techniques appears to be limited, a rare occurrence even in the face of considerable need.
Blake, Shepard, and Mouton’s coverage of a headquarters—field conflict was quite comprehensive and took six days for reasonable resolution. Perhaps the length of time, energy required, and strong emotions that are likely to arise cause reluctance.On the hunch that perhaps a lack of knowledge and experience with specific steps and procedures for conducting an intergroup intervention in an organization of less than six days can in part account for a lack of use of these kinds of interventions, the case to follow will be described in detail.
Although one example, this case is highly representative of other instances that I have personally employed as a consultant in similar situations—such groups as:
• Production and maintenance engineers from a company in the metals industry
• Medical technicians and physicians in a medical school-university hospital complex
• Division and corporate purchasing professionals in a large automobile manufacturing company
• Most recently, a corporate and field conflict in a hi-tech company
These examples have ranged from one half day to two full days. The example to be described now in some detail was with manufacturing and engineering managers in an electrical products division of a large corporation. The intervention was off-site for two days.
Prior to the Meeting
It is useful to conduct some diagnostic work before the meeting. More specifically, the reasons in this case were not only to determine the need for such an intervention, but also (a) to give the consultant a “feel” for the situation and (b) to determine the clients’ motivation for and commitment to a problemsolving meeting.
If one finds low motivation and commitment, my suggestion is to consider strongly calling the meeting off or simply not hold it if one had not been presumed. Frequently managers assume that the purpose of a meeting such as this one, or a team building session for example, is for training and education. The consultant is going to “lay something on us.” What must be made clear is that the objective of the meeting is to identify and work on real, nagging, and, up to this point, unsolvable problems. Problem-solving work is difficult and tedious. The client must understand that the meeting is for work. Consultants make mistakes at this beginning point by allowing the client to place them in a teacher or trainer role and not in a role of facilitator and catalyst. The consultant must emphasize that he or she cannot identify the issues and problems much less solve them. The client must do this work, not the consultant. If the consultant determines that the objective for the meeting is not understood, then work must be done to make it clear with an alternative being one of not holding the meeting, at least not the kind of meeting described in this case.After determining that the diagnosis warrants an intergroup intervention, a general meeting of all concerned (the persons who will attend and do the work and those in the organizational hierarchy who are responsible for this client group), should be held on site prior to leaving for the meeting. This meeting should be called and conducted by the person (or persons) in the organizational hierarchy who is a common superior to the two groups. In the case example I am using, it was the division manager to whom the heads of manufacturing and engineering reported. The purposes of the manager’s calling this meeting are (a) “officially” to sanction the meeting; (b) for the boss (here, the division manager) to present any mandates (what he hopes will be accomplished); and
(c) to explain the “boundaries” or authority of the meeting.
In other words, with this latter objective, the manager needs to say what decisions can be made, what actions can be taken, and what is “out of bounds.” As the consultant, I follow the manager by then explaining, from my perspective, the purpose of the meeting and what the design will be. With respect to the purpose, I explain that we will not attempt to change anyone’s personality or character structure but that our objectives are to discover what the actual problems are in the interface between the two groups and to plan action steps for correcting these problems. Incidentally, in my experience with this intervention, most people have not had training in group dynamics nor have they participated previously in any kind of team-building process. I do not believe that either is a prerequisite for this intergroup design to work effectively. These prior experiences would undoubtedly help but with the kind of structure used for this two-day meeting neither is a necessity.The Off-Site Meeting
Although this meeting could be held on location, the advantages of going offsite are well-known. Away from distractions, conditions are such that most energy can be directed toward the problem at hand and during breaks, meals, and social time, the people usually remain together and continue working in some different ways than the work done during the “formal” sessions. These informal talks often facilitate the overall problem-solving process.
Phase 1—Image Exchange (Two Hours). I like to begin a meeting of this kind with a brief description of other sessions I have conducted with other organizations. These examples (a) provide the client group with an overview of what they can expect and, therefore, reduce some of the ambiguity and anxiety, and (b) show that the consultant has done something like this before, again giving them some means of reducing counterproductive anxiety so that energy can be focused on the interface problems and not on the consultant and his or her design.
After my opening statement, usually no longer than fifteen minutes, I divide the total group into their natural groupings. In this case there were six men in each group, Engineering and Manufacturing. Each of the two groups work separately for an hour and produce three lists:
1. How do we see ourselves? (It is frequently useful to include also a listing of how the group sees its responsibilities.)
2. How do we see the other group?
3. How do we think they see us? (In other words, each group is trying to predict the other group’s second list.)
Their lists can be sentences, phrases, or one-word adjectives. Table 34.1 shows a sampling of what these two groups, Engineering and Manufacturing, produced. The rationale for conducting an image exchange is as follows:
The meeting begins on a note of personal involvement and discovery and not that of wrestling with the problems at the outset.
Sharing perceptions usually takes care of some problems at the beginning. For example, the Engineering group believed that Manufacturing saw them as intruding on their (Manufacturer’s) functions. (See Table 34.1, list 3, item f.) The Manufacturing group didn’t see them that way at all. This “perceived problem” was eliminated immediately.
The exchange helps to sharpen what the real issues in the interface are. I like to conduct the exchange of perceptions in the following order:
First, Engineering (arbitrarily selected or they volunteer to go first) presents their List 1. (How do we see ourselves?)
Second, Manufacturing presents their List 2. (How do we see them?)
Third, Engineering presents their List 3. (How do we think they see us?)
Fourth, Manufacturing presents their List 1.
Fifth, Engineering presents their List 2.
Sixth, Manufacturing presents their List 3.
The reason for this order is that it (a) maximizes exchange; one groups presents followed by the other, and (b) provides for quick feedback; for example, Engineering reports on how they see themselves and this is followed with how they are seen.
Engineering could present their Lists 1 and 3, followed by Manufacturing’s presentation of the List 2, and so forth for the remaining three steps in the procedure.During the period of presentations, about an hour, the ground rule is that questions of clarification only can be discussed. This is not the time to debate differences or to take issue. The purpose of this phase is to present the data and to seek understanding.
Phase 2—Problem Identification (Three Hours). This phase has four steps. Step one is to begin the task of identifying the problems that exist with the interface. To facilitate this step, I arrange for all six of the image exchange lists to be hung on the wall1 so that the individuals can use the data for helping them to formulate their thoughts. This initial problem formulation is done by each person independently. About thirty minutes is required for this individual work. The rationale for this individual work at the outset of Phase 2 is to (a) legitimize and sanction independent thought and (b) maximize conditions for comprehensive coverage
Table 34.1 Sampling of Image Exchange Lists Between the Engineering Department and the Manufacturing Group Within a Division.
List 1. How Do We See Ourselves?
| Engineering | Manufacturing |
| a) Stabilizing influence in the division | a) Competent |
| b) Flexible but uncompromising | b) Inexperienced |
| c) Cooperative | c) Error-prone |
| d) Competent but fallible | d) Not cohesive |
| e) Strategy formulators | e) Creative |
| f) Creative | f) Hardworking |
| g) Sensitive to criticism | |
| h) Second-class citizens | |
| List 2. How Do We See Them? | |
| Engineering (describing Manufacturing) | Manufacturing (describing Engineering) |
| a) Unstable organization | a) Error prone |
| b) Individually competent but | b) Competent technically |
| not as a group | c) Unaware of manufacturing problems |
| c) History-oriented rather than | d) Do not have a sense of urgency |
| forecast-oriented | e) More responsive to marketing |
| d) Unwilling to accept responsibility | than to us |
| (they “call engineering”) | f) Unified as a group and consistent |
| e) Unwilling to compensate for | |
| others' errors | |
| f) Not creative | |
| g) Conscientious and industrious | |
| List 3. How Do We Think They See Us? | |
| Engineering | Manufacturing |
| a) Poor knowledge of their function | a) Constantly changing |
| b) Engineers live in an ivory tower | b) Error-prone |
| c) Know technical end but not tuned | c) Not quality-conscious |
| to manufacturing's needs | d) Reactors rather than planners |
| d) Error-prone | e) Crisis prone |
| e) Don't feel pressure of end dates | f) Unwilling or unable to follow |
| for product shipments | drawings |
| f) Intrude on other functions | g) Inflexible |
| g) Overly restrictive requirements | |
| and tolerances |
Source: W. W. Burke (1975), Managing Conflict between Groups. In J. D. Adams (ed.) New Technologies in Organization Development 2 (pp. 255-268) La Jolla, Calif.: University Associates.
of problems. Since group work predominates in this type of design, some individuals may be inhibited in a group and the opportunity for independent work may be the primary mode for their contribution.
The second step is for the two groups to meet again separately and consolidate their individual work into a group list. By consolidation I do not mean to imply that the final group list will necessarily be shorter than the total for the individuals’ list. It may be that little overlap occurs although this is rare. It may also be that as a result of the group discussion other problems not previously thought of during the individual work become identified, a result that is common among groups that work effectively.
Step three consists of each group’s presenting its problem list to the other. The purpose of this step is for each group to understand what the other group’s perception is of the problems and what emphases each places on which issues. Again, only questions of clarification can be raised; debate is yet to come. In fact, I explain at the beginning of Phase 2 that a ground rule will be that we refrain from discussing any solutions to problems until we, as thoroughly as possible, identify and clarify what the problems are. The Engineering Department had a list of sixteen problems and issues and, coincidentally, Manufacturing had sixteen as well.
The fourth step is one of consolidating the two lists. At this point, I ask each group to select two of their members to meet together for the purpose of consolidating the two lists. I ask each of the two groups to select two of their members for this task because (a) I obviously cannot do the job as effectively as they since I’m not as familiar with the issues; (b) both groups’ perceptions should influence the final problem list if accuracy of problem identification is to be achieved (people act according to their perceptions of issues not according to the reality of the issues); and (c) neither group holds a high degree of trust for the other at this point, and equal representation, as well as choice in selecting who will perform the work, contributes to an abatement of suspicion.
These four individuals (here, two from Engineering and two from Manufacturing) take the two lists (thirty-two statements in all), eliminate overlaps, and restate the problems in as clear a way as possible. This temporary group works in public view while the others either observe or take a break. The consolidating work, depending on the total list of statements, of course, takes about thirty minutes. In the case example, the final list contained twenty items. (See Table 34.2 for a sampling of some of these items.)
Phase 3—Organizing for Problem Solving (Thirty Minutes). There are two steps in this third phase. First, each person selects from the total list of problems (twenty in all) the ones he sees as the most important. In the case example, I told them to select the top six. I chose the number six based on how I wanted to organize the remainder of the session. I suggest that they select these top problems according to one or both of the following criteria: (a) those
Table 34.2 Sampling of Consolidated Problem List from the Engineering and Manufacturing Intergroup Problem-Solving Session.
• Engineering does not feel responsible for understanding and using procedures; a lack of concern for details.
• Organizational inconsistencies—Engineering is highly vertical and Manufacturing horizontal.
• Lack of participation by the Manufacturing group at Engineering level on long-range planning
• Both units tend to be overly bureaucratic and inflexible; not responsive to one another's requests.
• Drawings and “specs” full of errors.
• Instability of Mfg. organization; lack of depth and lack of experience.
• Frequent product and process changes; lack of advance communication on changes.
• Lack of mutual confidence.
• Engineering does not understand Mfg.'s problems with the union.
Source: W. W. Burke (1975), Managing Conflict between Groups. In J. D. Adams (ed.) New Technologies in Organization Development 2 (pp. 255-268) La Jolla, Calif.: University Associates.
that affect you the most and/or (b) those that you believe need the most immediate attention. After each person makes his selection, I ask him to rank these top problems from most important to least. These rankings from everyone are tallied and the top group of problems (again the number was six in the case example) is selected as a function of the sum of the tallies of the rankings and, of course, the group’s judgment.
The second step in this brief phase is for each person to make a first and second choice of the problem he would like to work on. Following these choices as much as possible, problem-solving groups are formed with half of each problem-solving group’s members being from one of the organizational groups and half from the other. In the case of the Engineering and Manufacturing example of twelve persons, three “cross” groups were formed of four members, two from Engineering and two from Manufacturing. The rationale for this way of organizing is the same as the reasons I outlined for step four of Phase 2. Different perceptions influence the “shape” of the problems and both perceptions must contribute to the solving of the problems. Otherwise, the problems will remain, and no commitment to action steps on both parties’ part will have been achieved. Moreover the degree of misunderstanding and suspicion is reduced when the two groups have a chance to interact with one another toward a superordinate goal (Sherif, 1958).
Phase 4—Problem Solving (Four Hours). This phase is begun with a brief lecture on steps in problem solving. The lecture includes an explanation of Force Field Analysis and how to use it in problem solving. I prefer to build the problem-solving steps around the Force Field Analysis because the technique is (a) easy to understand and use, (b) instrumental in establishing specific objectives for change, and (c) based on Lewin’s theory of change. The following seven steps are similar to others in use by applied behavioral scientists. Briefly, the steps are:
1. Identify the problem.
2. Prepare documentation—illustrations and examples of the problem.
3. Analyze the causes and establish the objective for change: the Force Field Analysis.
4. Select the appropriate restraining force(s) to reduce. This step is based on the Force Field Analysis conducted in the previous step. Selecting restraining forces for reduction is, of course, based on Lewin’s principle of change; that is, reduction of restraining forces, as opposed to increasing driving forces, develops less tension in the system and therefore, less resistance to change.
5. Brainstorm ideas for reducing the restraining force(s).
6. Test brainstorming list for feasibility and make selections.
7. Plan action steps.
Phase 5—Problem-Solving Presentation (Three Hours). After completing the seven steps of problem solving for one of the problems selected, each group prepares a presentation of its work for the other groups. After each group’s presentation, the other groups critiques the presenting group’s work with feedback and suggestions. The rationale for this phase is to (a) use each group as a resource to all others; (b) practice what they will probably need to do when they return to their job (often presentations need to be made back “at the shop” to peers, subordinates or to superiors); and (c) enhance motivation (shared ownership) since each group is presenting to its peers. If time permits, each group can take a second problem, usually their second choice, from the original list of most important problems and begin the problem solving process (Phase 4) again.
As a conclusion to the meeting, I make a brief statement. It is usually something like, “Often when groups complete a meeting such as this, they take the attitude of ‘we’ve done our work; now we’ll go back to the shop to wait and see.’” If your attitude is similar to this, then you’ll wait for and see nothing. Action must be taken by you if any change in the organization is to occur.”
This statement is followed by a brief questionnaire of four items:
1. What are the advantages of following the kind of format (or design) we used during these two days?
2. The disadvantages?
3. To what extent do you believe anything will be different as a result of these two days? The question is answered via a seven-point scale ranging from one, “no difference,” to seven, “to a great extent.”
4. What is your degree of optimism/pessimism about the “state” of your organization at this time? This question is also answered on a seven-point scale ranging from one, “high pessimism” to seven, “high optimism.”
The reason for asking the first two questions is to give me some feedback about the adequacy and relevance of the design. The purpose of asking the remaining two questions is quite another matter. I believe it is important to determine at this point in the meeting the “feeling state” of the client. People behave according to what they think and feel. If, for example, individuals believe that what they have done will amount to naught (a feeling of pessimism), then the problem-solving process will have been nothing more than an exercise. When I discover that pessimism is relatively high I then probe to try to discover why and if we can do anything about it.
For purposes of this chapter typical responses to the first two questions are the more relevant.
Some quotes for question 1 have been:
“Breaks down some barriers, may reveal feelings not previously known or understood.”
“Working on real problems gives sense of purpose.”
“Gets things going; gives you an idea of path to follow.”
“Sets up actions and responsibilities for actions.”
“It had the advantage of saving time and preventing disorganized discussion.”
“Bringing things out in the open.”
“Allows criticism without taking it personally.”
“Helped to get problems down to ‘bite size.'”
“Helped to formulate most troublesome problems.”
“Gave me more insight into other groups.”
“Opens the door to honest communication with each other.”
“Reduces tension between the groups.”
Some quotes for question 2 have been:
“The structure may keep some of the real issues hidden.”
“Image exchange may have been unnecessary for groups who know each other as well as we already do.”
“Aspects of total problem involving other management levels and other functions can’t be covered adequately.”
“Restricted some significant division problems from being presented.” “Some issues when discovered in the middle of the session may not be covered fully enough because backtracking is difficult.”
“Could cause hurt feelings, widen gulfs.”
“Can think of no disadvantages.”
Naturally, groups’ responses to questions 3 and 4 vary according to organization. Generally, people believe (but not strongly) that there will be a difference, the average is usually around five on the seven-point scale. Responses to the fourth question vary even more than those to the third. This fourth question taps individual differences with respect to feelings more than the other questions.
To close the meeting, I report back to the groups their answers to the four questions and we discuss the implications. The primary purpose of this final process, as stated earlier, is to face the reality of people’s feelings and that, in the final analysis, the extent to which action will actually be taken rests largely on individual emotion and motivation.
Follow-Up
Follow-up to an intervention such as this one may take a variety of forms. A must for the consultant, especially the internal practitioner, is to consult in whatever way appropriate with the problem-solving groups formed during the off-site meeting. For example, in the case reported, a “progress report” meeting of the entire off-site group was planned for one day six weeks later. I met with the group to help design and facilitate the meeting for this day. I recommended that I return for this meeting to help with the design but also to ensure that the meeting would indeed be held.
Another follow-up activity to an intergroup intervention is to plan yet another intervention. As the experienced consultant knows, an intervention sets in motion new and different organizational dynamics that call for further diagnosis and possible intervention as a consequence. With respect to the case example described in this paper, two additional interventions were planned. One was a team-building event for the head of Manufacturing and his staff, and another was an additional intergroup problem-solving session for the next lower levels of management in Engineering and Manufacturing.
Summary
So that the reader will not be lost in the details, I shall summarize this intervention for managing intergroup conflict by providing an outline of what I have described.
Prior to the meeting: General meeting of both groups with the relevant per- son(s) in the organizational hierarchy to establish objectives, boundaries of authority, and so on.
Phase 1—Image exchange: The two groups share their perceptions of themselves and one another according to three questions. (1) How do we see ourselves and our organizational responsibilities? (2) How do we see the other group? (3) How do we think they see us?
Phase 2—Problem identification: State the problems individually, consolidate individual work in the organizational grouping, groups present their list to one another, and these two problem lists are consolidated into one working list.
Phase 3—Organizing for problem solving: Individuals rank order the problem list from most important problem to least, then make a first and second choice as to the problem they want to tackle. Finally, “cross-function” problem-solving groups are formed.
Phase 4—Problem solving: Each problem-solving group presents its work in terms of the content for each of the steps and their action plans.
Finally, it is important to obtain some assessment as to what the group thought about the meeting and their feelings about the future.