INTERPERSONAL

The interpersonal level/interface can be defined in terms of a relationship between two people, for example, boss-subordinate or leader-follower, and rela­tionships among a number of individuals—how three, four, five, six and more people relate with one another.

At this level in the organization it is important first to distinguish between real and phony conflict. Jerry Harvey has called this distinction to our attention with a theory that he has referred to as “The Abilene Paradox” named after an ill-fated family trip to Abilene, Texas when all four members of the family agreed to go on the trip yet individually none of them really wanted to go. In other words, each family member colluded with a process that he or she felt was actually stupid to do simply “to keep peace in the family,” even though after the trip they got into a big argument. Harvey (1974) calls this collusive behavior a crisis—a seri­ous lack of managing agreement. He further contends that dealing with under­lying agreement is an important problem in organizations. He goes on to state that:

There are two kinds of conflict, real and phony:

a. Real conflict involves real, substantive differences. (“The research project is technologically feasible.”

“Not according to my reading of the data.”)

b. Phony conflict consists of the hostile, negative blaming behavior that occurs when agreement is mismanaged. (“I told you the project wouldn’t work. Look at the mess you’ve got us in.”

“Don’t blame me. It would have worked if you had done your job.”)

Thus conflict is a symptom—not a generic process—which is frequently used as a defense against taking existential risks. Being a symptom, conflict is frequently symptomatic of mismanaged agreement! (Harvey, 1977, pp.

Having established that the conflict is real let us now explain the nature of conflict at the interpersonal level, first addressing the boss-subordinate or leader-follower relationship and then peer to peer.

Boss-Subordinate and Leader-Follower

Ask employees these days if they are experiencing stress on the job and most are likely to reply with a resounding “Yes!” Ask a second question about what causes this stress at work and, again, most are likely to respond “My boss!” Citing a study by Hogan, Raskin, and Fazzini (1990) the authors of an article four years later in the American Psychologist (Hogan, Curphy, and Hogan, 1994) noted that organizational climate studies from the mid-1950s to the mid- 1990s routinely show that 60 percent to 75 percent of the employees in any organization—no matter when or where the survey was completed and no mat­ter what occupational group was involved—report that the worst or most stressful aspect of their job is their immediate supervisor. Good leaders may put pressure on their people, but abusive and incompetent management create billions of dollars of lost productivity each year (p. 494). Without question con­flict abounds at this level in work organizations. What are some remedies? Here are some possibilities:

• Provide “managing people” training for supervisors and managers.

• Reexamine criteria for selecting individuals for supervisory, manager­ial, and especially leadership positions. Too often the basis for selecting people for these positions is primarily technical ability—a good engineer is likely to be a good supervisor; a good classroom teacher is likely to be a good school principal; a good salesperson is likely to be a good sales manager. There is no evidence to support any of these statements. While job knowledge is important for credibility as a manager or leader, more important are such qualities as conceptual ability, emotional intelligence, which includes self-awareness, and a controlled desire to make a difference, i.e., not for personal reasons such as self aggrandizement, but for reasons that are associated with organizational goals.

• Establish or definitely maintain a process of job rotation particularly for management positions. This practice can help people in management to learn and develop and can help employees to believe that they are not going to be stuck with a bad boss forever.

• Incorporate a regular process of multirater feedback for people in man­agement. Systematic feedback over time about one’s management and leadership practices when coupled with coaching can improve perfor­mance, see, for example, Luthans and Peterson (2003), Seifert, Yukl, and McDonald (2003), and Smither, and others (2003).

These actions can help and so can other remedies not listed, such as quick removal of people in management who are clearly incompetent especially in terms of managing and relating with others. The point is that this kind of con­flict between bosses and subordinates, leaders and followers should not be allowed to continue. There are remedies.

Peer-to-Peer

Conflict between and among peers in work organizations usually takes the form of competition—competing for scarce resources, competing for attention and recognition from a common boss (assuming the person is not abrasive and arro­gant), and competing for the “best” way to accomplish a task. Additional con­flict at the peer level certainly occurs but not as obviously as the previous examples convey. This latter form is in the arena of organizational politics such as currying favor from some influential person in the organization to obtain what one may want, forming an informal coalition to “defeat” some intended action, or spreading negative opinions about someone to lessen his or her influ­ence and status. Paying attention to organizational politics can also be seen as positive—making certain that many if not all stakeholders and constituents are informed, asked for their opinions and advice, and otherwise included before some decision is made or action taken.

Antidotes to peer conflict include the kind of action just stated regarding involving and “networking” with stakeholders and constituents.

Finally, for this interpersonal level it is important to bear in mind that fun­damental individual differences based on personality, not just ethnic differ­ences, cross-cultural differences, or overlapping roles and responsibilities contribute to conflict. One interesting example is Jung’s distinction between sensing and intuitive types. People with a strong preference for sensing in how they take in information want facts, specific, concrete information and rely on what they see, hear, smell, i.e., what they “sense” to then make up their mind and perhaps make a decision. Intuitive types prefer ideas, images, patterns and rely on their hunches (intuition) to make up their mind and then perhaps make a decision. It has been said that these two different types rep­resent the greatest communication problem between two people known irre­spective of where they were born, grew up, or educated. Tolerating this kind of basic, human difference between us can go a long way toward resolving interpersonal conflict.

Intergroup

In this volume an entire chapter by Ronald S.

The fundamental paradox of organization design and structure is that work needs to be divided among people and groups (work units), yet at the same time, the work must be coordinated and integrated for ultimate organization effectiveness. As tasks are differentiated work units form, and these groups develop and become committed to their own norms and goals. Over time this commitment to “our” goals and “our” way of doing things strengthens. Thus, silos become the dominant characteristic of organizational structure, and coor­dinating, integrating activities and entities become comparatively less impor­tant. Organization effectiveness suffers since resolution of inevitable differences between groups has to occur at the very top of the hierarchy or pyramid. Con­flict rising to the top take time and then may be resolved in temporary ways if resolved at all. As Schein (1980) put it:

The overall problem, then, is how to establish collaborative intergroup rela­tions in those situations where task interdependence or the need for unity makes collaboration a necessary prerequisite for organizational effectiveness (p. 172). (Emphasis in the original.) Schein (1980) goes on to list some of the conse­quences of intergroup conflict/competition with the thought in mind that these consequences reduce overall organizational effectiveness.

What occurs within the competing groups:

• Each group “closes ranks” and becomes more closely knit and loyal to one another as members.

• Group climate becomes more task focused and less informal and casual.

• Group leadership becomes more authoritarian and less participative.

• Group structure, for example, member roles and responsibilities, becomes more formal and tight.

• More loyalty on the part of members to the group is demanded so that a solid front can be maintained.

What happens between the conflicting groups:

• The other group is seen as the enemy.

• Distortion of perceptions increase, for example, we are strong, they are weak.

• Hostility between the groups increases.

• Members tend to “hear” only those things that support their group’s position.