resolving_issues_with_your_boss

02/09/2025:

Resolving Issues with Your Boss (Part 11B):

Phased Intercession Scenarios

Summary of Part 11A

Part 11A provided an overview of the Phased Intercession strategy, its origins, and its past applications in international affairs, domestic conflicts, and business disputes. Originally conceived for resolving large-group and international conflicts, the strategy emphasizes assessment, planning, and incremental intervention, with an ability to adapt to changing dynamics.

A variety of international , domestic and business dispute examples were briefly cited and discussed

The impertinent Question and Inaccurate Assumptions

In his 1973 book The Ascent of Man, English mathematician Jacob Bronowski asserted that asking an impertinent question is the essence of science. This approach also underpins dispute resolution and tension reduction. The impertinent question here is: "Why are we limited to using this strategy only for groups?" Why is a third-party facilitator always required?

All groups are made up of individuals, each of whom must adhere to certain customs, mores, folkways, and taboos to remain part of the group. Regardless of the group's dynamics, the individuals within it are driven by unconscious processes, emotional responses, and defense mechanisms, shaping their goals, needs, and behavior.

There are several common misconceptions about the nature of hierarchies, which social scientists have extensively studied and addressed.

A common assumption is that formal authority always translates into actual influence. However, research shows that individuals without formal authority can still exert significant influence, often due to expertise or other factors. Participatory decision-making has also been shown to lead to better outcomes than purely top-down approaches.

There is a common belief that those in higher positions are inherently more competent. However, promotions are often based on factors other than merit. Power can also be derived from sources other than coercion, such as respect and expertise

It is often assumed that hierarchical groups avoid conflict. However, research suggests that well-managed conflict can lead to positive outcomes, and influence within hierarchies can flow in multiple directions—not just from leaders to followers.

The "romance of leadership" bias assumes that leaders are primarily motivated by the welfare of the group. However, research indicates that leaders may act out of self-interest or be influenced by various external factors.

As we will discuss throughout these articles, disputing parties always have the strategic ability to de-escalate conflicts without resorting to subservience. Even when a third party is unavailable, impractical, or inadvisable, we still have the power to take action on our own behalf to achieve an outcome that is ultimately better than doing nothing.

Having briefly presented the Phased Intercession steps, we will examine two common workplace scenarios and consider how the strategy might be used effectively by either party in a workplace dispute. Each example assumes the availability of specific detailed data, though any or all of it may not yet be collated or analyzed by either party.

Workplace Example 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 Strategy:

The employer could start by acknowledging employees' concerns about remote work and pay disparities, aiming to provide transparency regarding the reasons behind reducing remote work opportunities, which are based on productivity concerns. Management would then communicate their rationale and invite employee feedback, ensuring that employees have the opportunity to voice their concerns.

Management might then offer potential solutions, such as a hybrid work model or flexible remote work options, while also considering a review of pay scales to address the inequities between onsite and remote workers. After implementing these changes, management would likely survey employees to gather feedback on the change's impact, demonstrating a commitment to continuous improvement. If necessary, management could remain open to making further modifications based on ongoing feedback, ensuring employees feel that management continues to take their concerns seriously.

Employee-Initiated Strategy:

The employees would begin by gathering data on the impact of reduced remote work and pay differentials, framing their concerns around how these changes affect productivity and morale.

They might then request a meeting with management to present their findings. Assuming management is open to discussing this issue, the employees would present their data for management review and feedback. Management would likely counter with their data supporting their current policy. After clarifying management's position and identifying areas of agreement, the employees might suggest running a pilot program to test the effectiveness of these changes, which would allow management to evaluate the impact on both productivity and employee satisfaction. Employees stay engaged with management throughout the process, providing feedback on the outcomes and suggesting further adjustments if needed, fostering a collaborative approach to finding solutions.

Scenario 2: A supervisor is having an issue with an employee's quality of work, and the employee cites fast-paced demands as a barrier to meeting quality standards.

Supervisor-Initiated Strategy:

The supervisor meets with the employee to express concerns about the quality of their work and to understand the employee’s perspective on why quality is slipping. The employee may request specific instances of unacceptable work quality from the supervisor. The employee might express their ongoing concern, demonstrating that the number of emails requiring analysis and prompt response has been a significant problem. The employee might then produce their contemporaneous records showing an email count supporting their claim and perhaps demonstrating that they have expressed this concern in writing for some time. The employee might add that they are eager to find a way to resolve this problem.

The supervisor uses this conversation to understand the issue's root cause and assess whether adjustments need to be made. Based on the employee’s feedback, the supervisor works with the employee to get some temporary peer support or perhaps to clarify expectations, offering more realistic timelines or adjusting goals to better align with the job demands. Additionally, the supervisor may provide extra support in the form of training or mentoring. Following this, the supervisor sets up regular check-ins to track the employee’s progress, ensuring improvements and offering constructive feedback along the way. After a set period, the supervisor and employee have another discussion to assess whether the changes have led to a sustainable improvement in work quality.

Employee-Initiated Strategy:

The employee would take the initiative by requesting a meeting with the supervisor to openly discuss the challenges they are facing due to the fast-paced demands of the job. The employee would produce email data demonstrating that the number of emails requiring analysis and prompt response has been a significant problem. The employee explains how this affects their ability to meet quality standards. Using their contemporaneous notes, they could provide specific examples of where the increased email flow has compromised quality. The employee might suggest ways to correct the current quality problem.

The supervisor listens and collaborates with the employee to brainstorm potential solutions, such as reprioritizing tasks, extending deadlines, or offering additional resources. The employee proactively suggests strategies to improve quality, such as breaking tasks down into smaller steps or improving communication around expectations. The two agree on a follow-up plan with regular check-ins to monitor progress and make adjustments if necessary. The employee remains open to feedback and continues to provide updates on their progress, ensuring that they stay on track with improving the quality of their work.

Conclusion

Using Phased Intervention in this situation allows for gradual adjustments that address both work quality and the employee's workload concerns. The employee is supported in improving quality through manageable steps, with the necessary resources and time to meet standards. This approach ensures that improvements are sustainable, realistic, and grounded in continuous feedback and evaluation.

Either party can initiate the strategy.

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

https://www.mcl-associates.com/downloads/resolving_issues_with_your_boss_part11B.pdf

References

Brett, J. M., & Lempereur, A. (2007). Negotiation and conflict management: Theories and practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 73(3), 305-321

Bronowski, J. (1973). The ascent of man. Little, Brown.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Gelfand, M. J. (2008). The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations. Psychology Press.

Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). Penguin Books.

Gelfand, M. J., & Brett, J. M. (2004). The cultural negotiation model. Negotiation Journal, 20(3), 307-319.

Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W. W. (2014). Interpersonal conflict (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Kolb, D. M., & Williams, J. (2003). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The Romance of Leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(1), 78–102.

Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Raven, B. H., & John R. P. French, Jr. (1958). Legitimate Power, Coercive Power, and Observability in Social Influence. Sociometry, 21(2), 83–97.

Schneider, M., & Honeyman, C. (2007). Mediation in the business context. Negotiation Journal, 23(1), 63–74.

Seneca the Younger. (2023, MAY). On Benefits/Book VII, #1. Retrieved from Wikisource: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Benefits/Book_VII

Susskind, L., & Cruikshank, J. (1987). Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. Basic Books.

Wall, J. A., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management, 21(3), 515–558.

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?