Managing staff in an organisation is associated with prestige and power.  A generation or two ago, management meant being in charge; the boss; the authority.  

The paradigm today is different, with a greater emphasis on accountability of managers.  In other words, when things go wrong, managers are less able to point the finger at subordinates.   Rather, managers can expect to be questioned on why their management of the “system” has allowed a foothold for error and failure.  The concept of systems management has reduced the opportunity to apportion blame, seeking instead to identify solutions and refinements.

Interpersonal conflict is a problem for both management and employees, with potentially destructive consequences for both.  However, the accountabilities for resolving such issues are different for managers and employees.  Employees should be held accountable for individual performance and behaviour.  Managers are similarly accountable as individuals with additional accountability for ensuring a well constructed and continuously improving system.

A systems view of management is generally a constructive approach that lends itself to problem solving, especially in the context of a collaborative and high functioning team.  But has the concept of “blame” been discarded too readily?  

Let’s redefine “blame” as “apportioning accountability at the appropriate level”.  In many organisations, the concept of accountability is not applied as rigorously as it might be.

Individual Variability Within a System

An area in which this becomes obvious is interpersonal conflict.  Conflict is often put in the “too hard basket” or excused with phrases like “clash of personalities”, “different value systems” or “incompatibility”.  These excuses open the door to the collapse of a system, because they focus on individual perspectives at the expense of the organisation’s core business. 

Employees are contracted to reliably perform at standards acceptable to the organisation. Failure of employees to perform may be a reflection on the system as a whole.  However, we need to understand that, in some circumstances, employees are accountable for failure at an individual level.  Remedial and/or disciplinary interventions are required in these circumstances. 

The further removed that performance management and disciplinary delegations are from the manager, the more difficult it is to apply appropriate interventions.  Complex organisations, or those with a smaller span of control, have a tendency to limit interventions at the line management level, sometimes requiring the endorsement of the chief executive for applying sanctions.  The tendency is that the line manager has to justify their case through each layer of management, responding to an ever greater number of questions about their line management processes.  Line managers often rely on the next management level to communicate the issues in an accurate and compelling manner.  How can a manager effectively deal with recalcitrant staff under these circumstances?

Employees who are committed to undermining a manager (and they do exist, even if a “rarer breed”) understand the disempowering nature of hierarchical structures and will use this to maintain their opposition to organisational requirements, whilst protecting themselves.  To further complicate matters, many industrial jurisdictions also provide opportunities for employees to lodge grievances through bullying, harassment, discrimination or workers compensation avenues.

Let me make it clear that bullying, harassment, discrimination and mental stresses are very real risks to employees and that strategies to deal with these issues are imperative in the workplace.

However, the evidence suggests that when managers have limited capacity to apply sanctions directly, these processes (like any other) are open to abuse.

Systems management is the starting place.  When interpersonal conflict rears its ugly head, as manager ask yourself;

• Is the purpose of the team, and its connection to the organisation as a whole, clearly understood by all team members?
• Are employees clear on their individual contribution (i.e. role clarity) to the team?
• Is the team, and individuals within the team, adequately resourced and supported to undertake their responsibilities?
• Are employees given frequent and timely feedback; both affirming and corrective feedback?  Contrary to a popular perception, high performers require as much feedback as anyone.  Indeed, there is an insightful saying that “Feedback is the breakfast of champions”.  Imagine how difficult it would be for an Olympic athlete to improve if they were never given their performance times for events or their coaches never highlighted poor technique!
• Do employees have a “code of behaviour” to which they are held accountable?
• How does my behaviour as Manager reflect appropriate standards of behaviour?

A strong system will eliminate the vast majority of interpersonal problems in organisations, because the performance benchmarks and behavioural expectations are clear.  A strong system will also ensure that the consequences of not meeting expectations are well understood by employees and management.  Furthermore, a strong system will show commitment to applying consequences when expectations are not met because of individual dysfunction.

Managers - how does your system “stack up”?  How does your behaviour rate compared against a code of behaviour?  If you can respond positively, in good conscience, to both these questions and an employee continues to undermine team cohesion and productivity, you must commit to an educative or disciplinary process with the employee.

Extreme levels of conflict, particularly when you as manager are involved, will provoke extreme defences from employees.  Any given set of facts can be interpreted in vastly different ways by stakeholders, to the point where each believes the other is lying.  Sometimes, blatant lying is employed as a strategy.  Surprisingly, it is extremely difficult to prove lies, many of which incorporate a foundation of fact.

As manager, you must document issues and interactions objectively, accurately and promptly, after the event.  Do not try and interpret the behaviour and perceptions of the employee, but record what can be seen, heard and measured (including feedback from others).  Make sure that the documentation is dated, for future reference.

Every organisation has its own processes for managing underperformance or misconduct.  The documentation prepared by managers is critical to those processes working effectively and to determining the level of sanctions if and when applied.  Bear in mind the Manager’s documentation may be used in industrial courts or commissions.  This is why objectivity and accuracy are paramount.

In Conclusion

Interpersonal conflict is your problem!  But handled well you will meet your accountability requirements and ensure the continued effectiveness of the team contribution to the organisation’s business.  Be brave!  Be fair!