resolving_issues_with_your_boss

03/09/2025:

Resolving Issues with Your Boss (Part 13B):

Superordinate Goals Senarios

Summary of Part 13A

Part 13A was the first two-part exploration of superordinate goals, a conflict resolution strategy defined by the APA as goals requiring intergroup cooperation. Social psychologist Muzafer Sherif developed the strategy from his experiments on intergroup relations during the 1940s and 1950s. These studies include the well-known 1954 Robbers Cave experiment. Despite acknowledged ethical and methodological criticisms of the Robbers Cave study, the article emphasizes the potential value of superordinate goals across diverse contexts, from international business relations, by establishing a shared objective that overrides individual or group differences. This approach offers a way of identifying and initiating collaborative behavior based on limited mutual goal attainment.

Superordinate Goals: A Parallax View

We have already discussed how Muzafer Sherif conceived of superordinate goals as a conflict resolution technique. However, the psychological processes that drive such goals can be observed in everyday life. We need not construct grandiose experiments to see these goals in action.

When people go into business together, a shared vision unites them. When a community drops everything to search for a lost child or fills sandbags during a flood, a common goal drives their cooperation. All of humanity’s team sports are based upon a shared common goal. Superordinate goals are not just tools for resolving disputes—they are fundamental to our social fabric, reflecting the best of human collaboration and purpose.

Sherif’s work, notably the Robbers Cave experiment, demonstrated that superordinate goals help reduce intergroup tensions by fostering cooperation toward a shared objective. In his research, these goals were introduced after conflict had already emerged, providing valuable insights into how they can be used to resolve existing tensions. However, while Sherif's research focused on resolving conflict, superordinate goals can also strengthen bonds proactively, before tensions arise.

A Pre-emptive Approach

Sherif’s research primarily focused on the reactive application of superordinate goals—using them after conflict has emerged. However, the principle suggests that these goals can also be used proactively to prevent conflict before it arises. For example, in business partnerships, team-building exercises, and community initiatives, shared goals foster collaboration and reduce the likelihood of conflict.

Implementing a preemptive superordinate goal strategy involves fostering a sense of shared purpose and interdependence before conflicts arise. This process begins well before an understanding of commonly shared needs and goals. It begins with identification of areas of agreement, an understanding of the reasons behind any areas of disagreement, and the underlying assumptions upon which they rest. A lighter, less formal approach, is valuable in this initial stage, and is characterized by open, conversational dialogue. The goal is to create a safe space where individuals feel comfortable expressing their perspectives and concerns without the pressure of formal meetings. To do so is premature and could possibly be interpreted as being prying and intrusive.

Gathering information for the affinization process is a formal procedure in the workplace, typically involving individual meetings, detailed meeting notes, and validation from participants to ensure the accuracy of the recorded issues. It is funded by the employer and is a transparent process. However, it is not suited to the more subtle, informal approach required when proactively pursuing superordinate goals. Instead, informal problem-solving and brainstorming sessions are more appropriate. The key concept, here, is informal.

As discussed in the previous section on boundary crossing, role appropriateness in the workplace is always a key consideration. Individuals—especially those with authority—are protective of their turf and prerogatives. Any action that seems like an official inquiry, without prior authorization from higher-ups, is likely to be perceived as intrusive. Probing using normal affiliative methods at this point will be counterproductive. A supervisor, or someone in authority, will likely inquire why someone is talking instead of working.

Under these conditions, gathering information for any preemptive conflict-resolution efforts becomes time-consuming. If you care about your role and responsibilities, it starts with meeting, communicating, and exchanging ideas with colleagues. To avoid the appearance of crossing boundaries uninvited, ask for advice.

There are distinct advantages to collecting what is essentially operational information in this manner. Assuming you refrain from interrupting someone who is deeply engaged in a task, most people are flattered when asked for advice. More importantly, asking for advice in the workplace is non-threatening because it’s framed as a question, and the query, while ostensibly about you, is actually about them.

For example, instead of asking, “What do you think about the left-handed widget process we’re required to follow?”—which might invite criticism or resistance—a more effective way to understand their opinion would be: “I'm having trouble with the left-handed widget process. I’m struggling to understand the steps. Would you mind going over it with me?”

An informal, anonymous poll or small-group discussion can be an excellent way to identify shared needs and common themes. Capturing input anonymously reduces pressure and manipulation, encouraging more open participation. Contemporaneous notes immediately after these discussions ensures information is recorded while still fresh.

During these discussions, validating challenges, needs, and aspirations—without attributing comments to individuals—further strengthens the process of identifying common ground. Once these themes are identified, the next step is to present them formally, perhaps through a memorandum or presentation. This structured approach provides a foundation for collaborative problem-solving, leading to shared goals that resonate with all parties.

With these shared themes established, Superordinate Goals can be discussed more formally to align interests and facilitate resolution. When applying Superordinate Goals reactively without a third-party facilitator, follow the same steps as outlined in the Controlled Communication discussion. The insights from that process serve as the foundation for selecting and negotiating Superordinate Goals.

Since issues have already been prioritized, selecting goal candidates should be straightforward. Applying SMART criteria—ensuring goals are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time-bound—helps refine the selection. For further details, see selected peer-reviewed articles in the Reference section, as well as numerous online resources that explain the process in greater depth.

Pre-emptive Superordinate Goal Scenarios

Scenario 1: A large technology company is experiencing a prolonged labor dispute with its employees. The primary issues are (1) a push by management to reduce remote work opportunities, citing productivity concerns, and (2) pay differentials between employees who work onsite and those working remotely.

Employer-Initiated Approach:

Leadership initiates informal round-robin discussions with employee representatives, focusing on listening and understanding concerns about remote work and pay. They aim to identify shared priorities and potential superordinate goals like "enhancing employee well-being and productivity." These goals are then refined collaboratively with employees. Joint working groups are formed to address specific issues, guided by the agreed-upon superordinate goal, fostering collaboration and de-escalating conflict.

Employee-Initiated Approach:

Employees organize their own round-robin discussions to identify shared concerns and aspirations beyond immediate issues. They focus on broader goals like "building a thriving and innovative workplace." They then approach management, proposing collaborative problem-solving. Middle management facilitates round-robin discussions with both employees and senior management, framing the conversation around the shared superordinate goal, shifting from adversarial bargaining to collaborative problem-solving.

Scenario 2: Supervisor and Employee Work Quality Issue

Employer-Initiated Approach:

The supervisor initiates a one-on-one meeting, framing it around the shared superordinate goal of "achieving high-quality project outcomes." They use a round-robin approach within the meeting, exploring the employee's concerns about fast-paced demands and collaboratively brainstorming solutions. The focus remains on the shared goal of quality, fostering a constructive dialogue and a mutually agreeable action plan.

Employee-Initiated Approach:

The employee proactively schedules a meeting with their supervisor, focusing on the shared superordinate goal of "delivering excellent results on time." They explain how fast-paced demands impact their work quality and propose potential solutions. Using a round-robin approach within the meeting, they emphasize collaboration and shared responsibility for achieving the superordinate goal.

Conclusion

Superordinate goals are a valuable tool in both conflict resolution and proactive collaboration. While Muzafer Sherif ’s work primarily highlights their reactive use in resolving conflicts, the broader principle suggests that superordinate goals can strengthen cooperation and prevent conflict by fostering shared purpose and interdependence. Whether through informal discussions, anonymous feedback, or the application of SMART goals, organizations can create a culture of collaboration that minimizes future tensions and maximizes collective success.

By emphasizing active listening and validating participants, organizations can identify and develop shared goals that unite everyone around a common purpose, building stronger, more resilient teams.

* Note: A pdf copy of this article can be found at:

https://www.mcl-associates.com/downloads/resolving_issues_with_your_boss_part13B.pdf

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.

Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (2017). Contextual Design: Design for Life (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann.

Boll, D. T., Rubin, G. D., Heye, T., & Pierce, L. J. (2017). Affinity Chart Analysis: A Method for Structured Collection and Analysis of Radiologists' Observations. American Journal of Roentgenology, 208(2), W60–W67.

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.

Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2006). New directions in goal setting and task performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 260–264.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task performance. American Psychologist, 57(9), 702–717.

Tullis, T., & Wood, L. (2004). How to Organize Usability Data: Affinity Diagrams and the KJ Method. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 48(5), 799–803.

Voltage Control. (2024). The impact of effective facilitation on team performance, innovation, and organizational success. Voltage Control. Retrieved from https://voltagecontrol.com/articles/the-impact-of-effective-facilitation-on-team-performance-innovation-and-organizational-success/

While listening to an audiobook on the Medici by Paul Strathern, I was presented with a historical citation that I knew to be incredibly inaccurate. In a chapter entitled, "Godfathers of the Scientific Renaissance". discussing the apocryphal tale of Galileo's experiment conducted from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the author cites Neil Armstrong in the Apollo 11 flight to the Moon with its memorable modern recreation, using a hammer and a feather.

Attributing this famous experiment to Armstrong on Apollo 11 is incorrect. It occurred on August 2, 1971, at the end of the last EVA of Apollo 15, presented by Astronaut Dave Scott. To press the point further, Scott used a feather from a very specific species: a falcon's feather. This small piece of trivia is memorable since Scott accompanied by crew member Al Worden arrived on the Lunar surface using the Lunar Module christened, "Falcon".

In an instant, the author's faux pas – for me -- undercut the book's entire validity. In an instant, it soured my listening enjoyment.

Mr. Strathern is approximately a decade my senior. As a well-published writer and historian, it is presumed that he subscribes to the professional standards of careful research and accuracy. Given this well-documented piece of historical modern trivia, I cannot fathom how he got it so wrong. Moreover, I cannot figure out how such an egregious error managed to go unscathed through what I assumed was a standard professional proofreading and editing process.

If the author and the publisher’s many editorial staff had got this single incontrovertible event from recent history wrong, what other counterfactual information did the book contain?

What is interesting to me, is my own reaction or -- judging from this narrative – some might say, my over-reaction to a fairly common occurrence. Why was I so angry? Why could I not just shake it off with a philosophical, ironic shake of the head?

And that is the point: accidental misinformation, spin and out-and-out propaganda -- and the never-ending stream of lies, damned lies, and unconfirmed statistics whose actual methodology is either shrouded or not even attempted -- are our daily fare. At some point, it is just too much to suffer in silence.

I have had enough of it.

God knows I do not claim to be a paragon of virtue. I told lies as a child, to gloss over personal embarrassments, though I quickly learned that I am not particularly good at deception. I do not like it when others try to deceive me. I take personal and professional pride in being honest about myself and my actions.

Do I make mistakes and misjudgments personally and professionally? Of course, I do. We all do. Have I done things for which I am ashamed? Absolutely. Where I have made missteps in my life, I have taken responsibility for my actions, and have apologized for my actions, or tried to explain them if I have the opportunity to do so.

For all of these thoughtless self-centered acts, I can only move forward. There is nothing I can do about now except to try to do grow and be a better human being in all aspects of my life. That's all any of us can do. I try to treat others as I wish to be treated: with honesty and openness about my personal and private needs, and when I am able to accommodate the wants and needs of those who have entered the orbit of my life.

We all have a point of view. Given the realities of human psychology and peer pressures to conform, it is not surprising that I or anyone else would surrender something heartfelt without some sort of struggle. However, we have a responsibility to others -- and to ourselves -- to not fabricate a narrative designed to misinform, or manipulate others.

Lying is a crime of greed, only occasionally punished when uncovered in a court of law
I am sick to death with liars, “alternative facts” in all their varied plumages and their all too convenient camouflage of excuses and rationales. While I am nowhere close to removing this class of humans from impacting my life, I think it is well past the time to start speaking out loud about our out-of-control culture of pathological untruthfulness openly.

Lying about things that matter -- in all its many forms, both overt and covert -- is unacceptable. When does lying matter? When you are choosing to put your self-interest above someone else’s through deceit.

Some might call me a "sucker" or "hopelessly naive". I believe that I am neither. Our species - as with all living things -- is caught in a cycle of both competition and cooperation
We both compete and cooperate to survive.

There is a sardonic observation, “It’s all about mind over matter. If I no longer mind, it no longer matters”. This precisely captures the issue that we all must face: the people who disdainfully lie to us – and there are many – no longer mind. We – the collective society of humanity no longer matter, if for them we ever did.

We are long past the time when we all must demand a new birth of social norms. We all have the responsibility to maintain them and enforce them in our own day-to-day lives. Without maintaining the basic social norms of honesty and treating others as you wish to be treated in return, how can any form of human trust take place?