Online Business Training - Conflict Resolution and Problem Solving

[aticus]

Hi folks. This is another in the line of (Free) Online Business Training Modules I'm running for PEx.

If anyone has any questions regarding resolving conflices (at work, at home, anywhere for that matter...) and/or how to solve difficult problems, please just post them here and I'll try to answer as soon as I can. :)

Merry Christmas!

[CaRaMBa]

Yihaaaaaaa several questions. I'll just type what comes to mind - ang dami eh. Actually, these were my questions when I was still with this 'regional' internet company - regional meaning it has offices in 2 countries in the same region.

What should you do if you have an officemate who is totally useless - does not do his/her job well or if ever he/she does something, you feel the quality is questionable? I really think it's the job of his/her superior to find out what's really going on - if he/she doesn't then that says a lot about that officer. However, I feel I'm being cheated because we had the same salary, and her input is, I feel, less than 50% of mine. What should be done in this case?

More questions next time... :)

[aticus]

This is a very good question, one that almost always crops up in large organizations.

I'll have to beg off answering right now, coz I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I promise a significant answer in a little while, perhaps this evening. :)

[aticus]

Ok, I'm back... :)

This question of CaRaMBa is a very sensitive one. Any sort of labor relations problem isn't trivial, since what may be done may affect the job circumstances of one, or more, people. People could get fired, so I take these things very seriously.

*** IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER ***

Before I give any advice, I would like to say that no one should take it without first assessing each situation INDIVIDUALLY AND INDEPENDENTLY. If you're really experiencing problems, you should consult a trained negotiator and/or labor relations expert and carefully explain the specific circumstances behind the problem. I will not be held responsible for people acting on this advice without consulting with trained people first about their special circumstances. If you want this to be truly relevant, contact me personally and I'll help you out. Otherwise this is just for general discussion purposes.

*** END OF DISCLAIMER ***

Ok, here goes... :)

When dealing with difficult co-workers, I would counsel the following rules:

1) Do not go to your superiors unless as a last resort. One thing employers hate is unrest among employees. The problem is unless it's a case of sexual harassment or something similar, many employers will consider employee-employee relations issues about workload to be a problem that employees deal with. If you make a lot of noise, you sometimes run the risk of looking like the CAUSE of the trouble, not someone looking for a solution, especially if the resulting work product seems fine.

2) Try to engage in a dialogue with your co-worker. Try to get to know him/her better, to understand their specific circumstances. This is important for two reasons:

a) Sometimes workers are victims of "cycles" in their work productivity. A mother having to deal with three kids who just contracted chicken pox, for example, would probably experience a drop-off in production, may be tired during work hours, may often be distracted (or on the phone, calling home), and otherwise wouldn't seem to be a model employee. But once the sicknesses are over, you may find a marked increase in productivity. It would be a shame to judge a fellow worker on his/her low productivity days. Try to see them over a longer period of time to gauge their true worth to the company.

b) Other workers may not APPEAR to be working as hard for the very reason that they just aren't close to you and may appear aloof and/or uncaring about a project, when in reality they work just as hard. Many type A achievers, for instance, think nothing of putting in overtime work, and some are even more productive late at night, when other workers aren't around to see them. It may also be due to a difference in "style" of work. Some people don't feel busy unless they're slaving away on their workdesk. Others are more productive while sitting outside, contemplating problems, still others are more productive working in groups, while others are better at fulfilling individual tasks.

3) Try to assess your co-worker's work not on YOUR standards but on your superior's standards. You may just be judging him/her based on your own, individual opinion, irrespective of your employer's own standards and/or needs. Just because a co-worker doesn't fulfill your (possibly higher) standards, it doesn't necessarily make him/her a useless employee. On the contrary, some employers even prefer employees who don't take too much initiative, and perform the work EXACTLY as directed. One of the reasons many IT people, for instance, can't stand formal 8 to 5 jobs is because they feel "constrained" by stuffy company policies. It doesn't mean they're unproductive, or incapable of good work. It just means they don't like the KIND of work that is done at that company. They might be critical of the overall production of fellow workers at a bank (ex. tellers), but that doesn't mean that the bank would agree with them. In cases like that, using an employee's standards should give way to using the company's standards.

That said, however, if you REALLY feel like you want to take things up with your superior, I would counsel the following steps:

1) Make sure you write down everything you've done for the project/projects. Specify the company objectives, your specific tasks, and how you've fulfilled/exceeded each one. This is important. Also keep as many official documents as possible (ex. company memos, supervisor directives, statements of objectives, etc., as well as all possible letters of commendation, etc.)

2) Try to determine what each person in the team working on the project was supposed to have done. Again, try to get as many documents showing this as you possibly can.

3) Request a meeting with your supervisor to "debrief" him regarding the project and to discuss "personal" issues of importance to you. (This should ensure that you talk to him/her in private. Insist on this. You shouldn't have to be forced to bring this out in the open right away.)

4) Ask your supervisor for his/her specific feedback regarding the project. Where he/she felt your team did well. Where he/she felt your team needed better quality in your work.

5) Offer all your documented evidence to show that you fulfilled (I would suggest you exceed) your responsibilities. You have to establish from the beginning that you were a valuable member of the team who contributed your share of the work, to avoid being accused of being defensive.

6) Then ask your supervisor for an idea of what he/she DOESN'T want in an employee working on the project. If he/she asks why, explain that you have some issues with some co-worker, but don't want to say anything until you're fully aware of what the supervisor considers inferior work, to avoid premature accusations. If you find no further basis for a complaint, THANK YOUR SUPERVISOR AND WALK AWAY. Don't be afraid to stand down, especially if you feel you don't have a case. Don't let personal dislike affect your ability to assess the worth of a fellow worker. (ex. if you're a stickler for time, yet your supervisor allows "flexi-time," don't bother complaining about employees coming late. you won't get anywhere, and will only look bad.)

7) Once your supervisor has finished enumerating the traits, and you can prove your co-worker has at least one or more of them, then, and only then, should you mention that you feel one of your co-workers may be having "personal" problems fulfilling his/her responsibilities. It is VITALLY IMPORTANT that the tone you have is one of concern FOR THE EMPLOYEE AND THE COMPANY, not a bitter co-worker who is pointing fingers at anyone. You have to protect yourself too, and any untoward accusation is serious business. You could be sued.

8)Once you're convinced that there is a case, MAKE SURE YOU PROVE IT. The worst thing that could happen is you accuse a co-worker and can't prove it. Don't make the mistake of leaving things at "his/her word against mine," especially since you can never be sure how your other co-workers will respond to an inquiry. Filipinos, especially, are very reluctant to say negative things about others in a public inquiry. It may happen that if you have no clear (I would suggest documented) proof, you'll find yourself being the ONLY ONE complaining. You'll end up looking like the thorn among the roses. Proceed with caution.

9) Be prepared to prove to your supervisor that you made EVERY EFFORT to contact your co-worker, and to explain your issues and try to reach a healthy compromise. If you look like you didn't even make an effort, your supervisor will ask you to see if you can "work it out" amongst yourselves. Few supervisors like to meddle when it can be settled internally. Show proof, if need be. (ex. e-mails asking for more help, memos to your co-worker explaining what he/she has yet to fulfill, and pleading with him/her to fulfill the duties and/or responsibilities)

Remember, this thing is important. Before potentially causing another co-worker's censure and/or termination, be sure you know exactly what happened, what his/her personal circumstances were, and are able to prove that that co-worker wilfully and/or negligently ignored or failed to fulfill essential tasks for the company. Otherwise, I say don't bother. Just amass a good "record" of your performance in each project so you can prove to your superiors later on that you, at least, are most worthy of promotion among your peers.

Who knows? Maybe someday YOU could be the boss. :)

[CaRaMBa]

Just want to let you know how difficult that person was.

1) I didn't go to our superiors. Foreigners eh. I didn't know how they would react, it could have been bad for me.

2) I tried. There was a problem with another co-worker, and I got in 'trouble' for it so I confronted her. I talked to her well. And what did I get? LIES. :)

a) We were 'close' 'cause she would share a lot of things with me (stories, etc) and it seemed that everything was ok.

b) I was sure she wasn't productive. I sat beside her and she would study Macromedia the WHOLE DAY! It wasn't part of her job at all.

3) True, but it's frustrating that the superiors don't care at all. Just because they have money they can afford to hire a useless employee? I just found it unfair 'cause we had the same salary but I was being productive. (My direct superior had stuff for me to do.)

Anyway...

Thanks for this! Again, this is worth printing. :D

[aticus]

You're welcome.

As for the "foreign boss" syndrome, let me just say that my experience with many such people is they don't want to get involved in employee spats.

First, there's the culture barrier. A number of foreigners don't understand why Filipinos seem to complain so much. There seems to be a lack of professionalism in many companies, too much gossip, and too little productivity, so these bosses tend to get irritated when approached about other employees. You have to understand, in the US, and other countries, employees often settle their differences among themselves. There is less hesitance to confront fellow workers. In fact, quite a number of them will tell you, quite frankly, that you're loafing if you're really loafing. (Just watch Survivor. They are BRUTALLY FRANK about each other's faults, and don't hesitate to tell each other directly.) Filipinos just don't want to do that. They prefer going quietly to a superior, and having the superior handle it. Remember those times in school when students would report noisy students to the teacher? Something like that...

Secondly, foreigners are especially sensitive to labor issues. In the US, for instance, unfair allegations against laborers, and their corresponding lawsuits, have cost employers millions of dollars each year. They don't want to get involved for fear that it would lead to either a case being filed, or workers doing things like striking.

In any case, if you really want to get their attention, then you MUST have corroborating evidence, especially in written form. Otherwise you might as well be baying at the moon.

[lupuS]

This phrase, popular in diplomatic circles, is often used in communiques when negotiating parties fail to arrive at a settlement.

I wonder if "agree to disagree" situations are ever sustainable in business settings, when, very often, conflict requires that decisions be made one way or the other. What are your thoughts on this?

[aticus]

Honestly? I feel that when people say we "agree to disagree" they are saying that there is no ground for compromise and/or agreement. While I'm not necessarily a big fan of compromise (sometimes it's good, sometimes it's not so good...), I'm an even lesser fan of unresolved differences. In relationships, maybe it may work (big MAYBE), but in business, you're right, you need resolution to move forward.

Business people prize STABILITY more than anything, and stability is often achieved by one dominant viewpoint, or one direction/philosophy the business can follow. Believe it or not, business can even thrive in areas where a great deal of corruption exists, as long as the political/economic/social situation is stable. Indonesia is a case in point. While Suharto was solidly in power, it was considered one of the most corrupt countries in the world, yet it constantly enjoyed growth of up to 10% each year. Why? Because businesses knew exactly what their business costs would be. They just tacked on a percentage to afford corruption, and priced their products accordingly. In some cases they just put one of Suharto's kids on the board of directors and gave him/her shares of stock. The company was then assured of lucrative government contracts and unimpeded business throughout its existence. There was no room for disagreement. It was either Suharto's way or prison. THAT's stability.

The reason that our situation is so different, is while we aren't as corrupt as Suharto's Indonesia (though some individuals are surely trying to make up the gap...), we are so unstable politically that businesses just don't know what to expect. We have no leadership. No one is sure who will be in power next year. No one knows whose economic philosophy will be followed. Heck, no one even knows who to pay off anymore. I mean, why give millions if you're not sure the crook you're giving them to will remain in power and help you out? Too many cooks spoil the broth, as they say, and as we're not sure of any single, dominant fiscal policy for next year, many foreign businesses are staying out of our economy. Too little resolution, not enough leadership, no single person in charge. In other words, the buck doesn't stop anywhere. THAT's instability.

So while I believe that, as a last resort, "agreeing to disagree" could at least salvage SOME level of peace, it doesn't ensure any stability and/or resolution. Much like the Philippine political situation, agreeing to disagree doesn't resolve the issue of which direction the businesses should follow, which policies they should observe and/or what environment they can all count on. We could all "agree to disagree" on the issue of whether Erap is guilty or not, but unless we businesses do something about it (re: remove him from office) our country's economy is heading nowhere. In many cases, especially in ones like these, it is supremely necessary to resolve things. We may agree to disagree on Erap's guilt, but any sane business person must accept that his continued presence in office is detrimental to business.

Why don't you give me sample situations and we could analyze them further, lupuS?

[zimdude]

I have been thinking about this lately, and I revisited some old psychology stuff... about conflicts being caused by fear of pain... and do we resolve it through pleasure?

For example, irrational behavior due to fear of shame, fear of losing one's job and hurting the family... and pleasure from income which can be used to please one's self and loved ones... things like that.

[aticus]

Originally posted by zimdude
I have been thinking about this lately, and I revisited some old psychology stuff... about conflicts being caused by fear of pain... and do we resolve it through pleasure?

For example, irrational behavior due to fear of shame, fear of losing one's job and hurting the family... and pleasure from income which can be used to please one's self and loved ones... things like that.

Good points, my friend. Though I might add that many conflicts also arise from a lack of pleasure itself. :) That's why many people seek to find additional or alternative "pleasures" to feel like they're resolving it. This is one reason for many extra-marital affairs. Some spouses look to others to "replace" the pleasure that has disappeared from their relationships, without sometimes looking at the root causes of its absence. Some husbands, for instance, might become serial adulterers, thinking that they need the joy of sex, without realizing that, oftentimes, a loss of physical attraction for their spouses has nothing to do with sex, and could be all about issues like a lack of trust, their own feelings of insecurity, or unresolved arguments that have festered and produced long-term hurt.

But you're definitely also right. Quite a number of people do irrational things just to avoid the chance they'll get embarassed or hurt. Some children, for instance, who have been used to high grades all their lives, experience extreme distress when they receive their first "D" in their report card. I know of people who have actually committed suicide just to avoid the "shame" of telling their parents they failed a course, or won't graduate, or something similar.

In cases such as these, laughter is often a great saving grace. :) If you can get a person thinking of suicide to truly laugh, at anything, then you will have achieved a huge first step to getting them to see life is worth it after all. I suppose this is the "pleasure" that zim is talking about.

But pleasure for pleasure's sake, or to resolve a conflict, very often does not work, or is fleeting at best. The key to resolving conflict is to resolve the source of the conflict. If you fought with your parents because they always seek to control your life, them sending you to Disneyland isn't going to resolve this conflict. Perhaps you won't think about the conflict while travelling through Space Mountain (you won't be able to... it's too fast and too thrilling... :) ), but once back home, and faced with the reality of it again, the conflict will come back time and again. If you truly want resolution, you must face the difficult task of confronting whatever it is, or whomever it is, that is causing the conflict.

In the example above of the person contemplating suicide, the answer then isn't to send him/her to a comedy festival, but to address their deep-seated feelings of unworth and insecurity at their low grades. If you can truly get them to raise their level of self-esteem, and to accept that there are greater things ahead, then many people's lives will be saved.

:D

P.S.- Thanks for reviving the thread! I'd forgotten all about it...