resolving_issues_with_your_boss

11/24/2024:

Resolving Issues with Your Boss (Part 1):

Realistic and unrealistic Conflict

Introduction
Discussions on leadership have identified six management styles. Examining each provides valuable insights into how managers approach leadership and decision-making. These six styles are as follows: autocratic, democratic, transactional, laissez-faire, transformational, and bureaucratic.

Each style has strengths and weaknesses. None is effective in all situations. Effective managers tend to adapt their style to fit the needs of their team and the task at hand. However, this focus on hierarchical relationships alone is flawed. It fails to consider the equally important issue of bottom-up relationships in a hierarchy.

This multipart series looks at bottom-up relationships and how individuals, armed only with the responsibilities of their subordinate roles and personal influence, can successfully resolve issues with their boss-hopefully, avoiding the unnecessary escalation of unresolved issues that inevitably come under the umbrella of Human Resources and Lawyers.

Part 1 specifically introduces the concepts of realist and unrealistic conflict.

Some Up-Front Caveats

The strategies presented are not a “magic bullet.” Analyzing conflicts and resolving them is complex and often stressful work. It requires tactical interpersonal skills, strategic thinking, a genuine interest in identifying underlying issues, “concrete demonstrations of trustworthiness,” and-above all-sufficient time to do all of these things.

Concrete demonstrations of trustworthiness are observable and verifiable actions that signal reliability, transparency, accountability, and integrity. They communicate a willingness to cooperate toward producing a Win-Win (Fischer & Ury, 1981) outcome, thereby reducing any tensions that may exist.

These same actions can be used to deceive. Someone focused on a Zero-Sum Game (Luban, 1985) outcome might use these behaviors to buy time and gain an absolute advantage at the other person’s expense. Strategies explicitly designed to counter Zero-Sum tactics exist. Subsequent sections covering dispute-resolution strategies for each of the six management styles will explore these more fully. The point here is that individuals with a well-established reputation for breaking their word should be carefully considered. Choosing a less perilous and ultimately less costly outcome might make considerable sense.

For example, in the United States, unless specific contracts or legal protections are in place, the employer or the employee can terminate the employment relationship at any time, for any lawful reason, and without prior notice. Employment is considered to be "at-will." In contrast, other countries offer greater job security, with termination protections, notice requirements, and severance pay.

This raises another critical point about dispute resolution: risks must be weighed against likely benefits, and the effort's goals must be realistic. Regardless of location, a subordinate's goals for resolving workplace conflicts should be grounded in reality. If a parting of ways is imminent, the chances of fully repairing the working relationship are slim. However, resolving the timing and circumstances of the separation may be achievable.

Bottom-Up Influence

Everyone has a boss of some kind-even bosses. I broadly define the word “boss” as someone who tells me what to do with the implicit expectation that they have the authority to do so and that I will obey. The question of ethics aside, this obedience is grounded in what is known as 'obedience to presumed authority' (Milgram, 1963)."

We all interact with multiple bosses daily, hourly, or even minute-by-minute. Even self-employed people have customers and distributors who act as their bosses. CEOs of large corporations and multinational companies hold significant power and influence, earning exponentially more than the average annually. However, they also have their bosses to whom they must answer.

Few individuals are actually a law unto themselves, and to their consternation and amazement, they often discover that power is fleeting, never permanent, and always at risk (Sartre, 1966).

It is essential to recognize that in the workplace, the relationship between managers and subordinates is just another top-down relationship to which we are all subject. However, it is also essential to recognize that this interaction is not just one-way. It is a two-way street, and subordinates are critical in shaping workplace dynamics.
It is not unusual for subordinates to have strong opinions about how things are run on the job and how it directly impacts them. Unless specifically warned against it, they will not hesitate to voice their point of view to their managers, whether solicited or not.

Given these circumstances and others, what strategies and techniques can individuals employ to influence others, especially their boss, when an issue or conflict requires attention?

I use the word “influence” in a specific context.

As it is used today, “people skills” closely align with Dale Carnegie’s (1981) emphasis on empathy, active listening, and building rapport by genuinely showing interest in others' thoughts and feelings. These principles form the foundation of practical people skills. Carnegie's focus on treating others with respect, offering sincere praise, and creating a positive, supportive environment are all behaviors central to what is now considered to be interpersonal effectiveness.

The modern definition of people skills also includes elements that go well beyond Carnegie's focus, such as the ability to recognize and manage one's own emotions and understand the feelings of others (i.e., emotional intelligence). Negotiation skills and the ability to adapt to diverse settings are also viewed as essential. While Carnegie's principles mainly focus on building rapport and fostering goodwill through personal charm, praise, and tact, modern interpersonal skills entail more intricate social dynamics.

The issue with these approaches is that they are primarily presented and discussed as conflict resolution strategies. With the exception of negotiation- which is a strategy- the other interpersonal skills are tactics, tension-reduction tactics. For instance, relying solely on sincere praise does not achieve any long-term goals in the same way that negotiation does. This distinction will be further elaborated on within the framework of the six management styles, which will explore these concepts in greater detail.

Realistic and Unrealistic Conflict

A critical concept from conflict theory is the distinction between “realistic” and “unrealistic” conflict. Understanding the difference between the two is crucial to analyzing conflict and determining the best dispute resolution strategies.

In conflict theory, realistic conflict refers to disputes grounded in tangible issues, such as limited resources or differing goals. It can lead to functional behavior, fostering problem-solving, clarity, and growth.

In contrast, unrealistic conflict arises from irrational or unattainable expectations, often escalating tensions and creating dysfunctional behavior.

This type of conflict typically involves rigid positions, emotional reactions, or misunderstandings, making resolution difficult and hindering progress. Recognizing the distinction between these two types of conflict is crucial for understanding how disputes can contribute to positive outcomes or disrupt relationships and productivity.

Upon consideration, even a partial list of possible workplace friction points is staggering. Some common examples include personal likes and dislikes and reactions to what might seem like minor issues. There are also accusations of inappropriate behavior and jealousy over recognition.

Conflicts can arise from assumptions about others' intentions or from unrealistic or unreasonable expectations for goals. Employees may cling to past matters or claim an unequal workload distribution. Differences in work styles and misunderstandings in communication can also lead to tension.

Role ambiguity, disagreements over resource allocation, and workload imbalances are frequent sources of conflict. Cultural differences and disagreements about feedback further contribute to workplace challenges. Issues like inflexibility versus an inability to adapt, disputes over the accuracy of facts, lack of support, and workflow bottlenecks can also create considerable friction.

Additionally, realistic conflict is often exacerbated by unrealistic demands of redress as a condition for resolving the dispute. Without circumstances and context, it is impossible to judge whether any of them could be realistic or unrealistic with any degree of certainty.

Conclusion

Understanding leadership styles and the dynamics of bottom-up influence in provides invaluable insight into improving workplace relationships. Effective managers recognize the importance of adapting their leadership style to fit the needs of their team and the specific context, but successful conflict resolution also relies on the ability of subordinates to navigate and influence upward, resolving issues without unnecessary escalation. Recognizing the balance between hierarchical relationships and the importance of interpersonal influence at all levels is essential in fostering healthy, productive work environments.

One key to resolving workplace conflicts lies in distinguishing between realistic and unrealistic conflict. By understanding these distinctions and employing effective people skills, coupled with dispute resolution strategies, individuals can address workplace issues more effectively.

Resolving conflicts requires careful consideration of risks, realistic goals, and a willingness to navigate power dynamics while ensuring that both sides can achieve a mutually beneficial resolution.

* Note: A pdf copy of this article can be found at:
https://www.mcl-associates.com/downloads/resolving_issues_with_your_boss_part1.pdf

References

Carnegie, D. (1981). How to win friends and influence people (Rev. ed.). Pocket Books.

Fischer, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Jalan, A. (JAN 2022). 6 Types of Management Styles: Which Is the Best for You? Retrieved from MakeUseOf: https://www.makeuseof.com/types-of-management-styles/

Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) and the cultivation of mindfulness in everyday life. In Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2), 145-163.

Luban, D. (1985). Bargaining and Compromise: Recent Work on Negotiation and Informal Justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 14(4), 397-416. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265340

Baer, R. A. (2003). Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: A conceptual and empirical review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2), 125-143.

Milgram, S. (1963). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper Colophon Books.

Sartre, J.-P. (1963). The words (B. Frechtman, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books.

Zeidan, F., Johnson, S. K., Diamond, B. J., & David, Z. (2010). Mindfulness meditation improves cognition: Evidence of brief mental training. Consciousness and cognition, 19(2), 597-605.

© Mark Lefcowitz 2001 - 2024
All Rights Reserved

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?