"Productive insight; clear (often sudden) understanding of a complex situation." Free Dictionary
Pop the bubble of conditioned thinking and emerge into the creative realm of "no absolutes," continuous change, uncertainty and unlimited possibilities.
Then, there can be innovation, adaptation and optimal performance.
Performance & Open-minded Mindfulness:
Open-minded: questioning everything, accepting diversity and uncertainty.
Mindful: consciously aware; concentrated.
Foundation for blending process, project, engagement and knowledge management into a cohesive approach to optimize performance.
This Newsletter
Our aim is to stimulate the kind of thinking, dialogue and understanding that leads to optimal performance.
"You have a choice. You can promote and support adversarial advocacy, politics and division or collaboration, synergy, exploration and excellence."1
When it comes to conflict management, it is far more likely to reach effective resolutions if the parties in conflict share some basic values. In fact these values are at the heart of effective relationships and effective relationships are at the heart of team and organization performance. Conflict management is just one aspect of relationship management.
When these values are NOT present the probability of poor outcomes is higher.
What are the values?
Mutual benefit & Non-harming
Trust
Honesty
Respect
Optimal resolutions
Non-attachment.
Being a practical realist I must accept the fact that there are circumstances where win-win solutions are not possible. Also, there are more than a few people who do not and maybe never will share these values, and we have to coexist with them. For example, there are those who apply these values within their self defined inner group (religion, family, tribe, clan, race, company, nation, etc.) but when it comes to outsiders, anything goes, cheating, stealing, and even killing. Dealing with these parties in conflict, or any relationship is one of the two critical challenges. The other one is keeping oneself from becoming one of them.
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." Friedrich Nietzsche.
Is an approach to conflict management that is based on these values practical? Is it justifiable based on a cost benefits analysis; or is it just something to do because it sounds nice and feels good?
From a purely analytical perspective, I think it is quite practical, particularly when we look at conflict resolution results over time. What happens when one side wins without considering the outcome's effect on the other party? Often the result is a long term dissatisfaction that eventually undermines the resolution and the relationship. Take an example in which a conflict over price is resolved by the stronger of the parties 'forcing' the other party to agree to a less than satisfying price.
Will the forced party be motivated to cooperate through the delivery process? Will the forced party look forward to doing future 'deals' with the stronger party? In the geo-political realm, we have centuries of examples of what happens when conflicts are settled by force (Yugoslavia, Iraq ...). Frustration and anger fester and as soon as the force is removed there is an eruption.
Conflict management styles that value winning at all cost and devalue harmonious relationships and their long term benefits seem to be less effective than those that are based on confronting problems collaboratively. Resolving conflicts in a way that leaves a dissatisfied opponent, who is going to be around for the long term, risks failure, not only in the current situation but into the future. Remember that conflicts are events within a larger process. They are parts of a system in which any action anywhere can affect the system everywhere. When we do something that may give us short term gain, we must think of the long term results as well. We want to avoid hostility that results in active resistance, lack of motivation, opposition, or contentiousness.
What are the consequences of one's actions. When we are committed to action stemming from the intention to do no harm and, instead, to help, we will be less likely to create unintended negative ripple effects. When we can step back and, at least for a moment, become unattached to the end results, we are more likely to see the big picture and think creatively. Ideally we can behave compassionately with loving kindness and sympathetic joy. We can achieve useful outcomes and perfect our process. Perfecting our process makes it easier to sustainably achieve optimal outcomes.
When we recognize that there is more to any conflict than the left brained components like time, money and product quality we are more likely to seek win-win resolutions. The right brain components of feelings, pride, trust, etc. must be considered to find the optimal resolution.
What is the optimal resolution to a conflict? It is the one that leads to an outcome that meets as many of the parties' acceptance criteria as possible and results in a stronger relationship among the parties. A stronger relationship will reduce the volume of conflicts going forward and improve the quality of resolutions and the ease of resolving those conflicts that do arise.
That brings us back to the basic values. These values are the foundation of strong relationships.
Over the next few issues we will explore conflict management and these values in more depth. If you have anything to add to the dialogue, please submit your comments, questions or concerns to info@pitagorskyconsulting.com.
Conflict management is the focus of my next free webinar and one of subjects in the Optimal Performance Program.
References
1. George Pitagorsky, Conflict - Opportunity for Relationship Building and Effective Decisions, Project Management for the Business Professional: A Comprehensive Guide, Ed by Joan Knutson, Wiley & Sons, 2001
Blending People, Process and Tools to Achieve Optimal Performance By George Pitagorsky
Picture three strands intertwined to make a rope. Take away one strand and the rope is weakened. Weave the strands effectively and the rope is stronger.
Weaving people, process and tools into an optimally performing team or organization requires a significant emphasis on organizational and cultural change. What is "optimal performance"? It is regularly meeting or exceeding expectations; satisfying customers, sponsors, managers and performers while adapting to change over the life of the process. In projects that means delivering acceptable products on time and budget and within other constraints. Optimal performance implies the ability to sustain high performance and to apply peak performance when it is needed.
Far too often the emphasis is on engineering the process (e.g., methodology implementation) and getting the tools in place without sufficient attention to the behavioral side. My guess is that the cause of that tendency is left brainitis. Methodologists and project managers (especially in engineering, scientific and IT settings) are far more likely to be more analytical (left brain dominated) than say people in the arts, helping professions or sales. The people side is messy. Not everyone thinks the same way. Not everyone is 'rational' all the time. People don't even have the same definition of rational and are often resistant to change.
The most successful organizations are those that cultivate buy-in, manage resistance and knowledge and accept the challenge of continuous improvement. They realize benefits because they value their intellectual capital and human resources enough to make the effort to create a human friendly process. Most of the performance problems are sourced in the process. Einstein said "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." We need to look at our processes with clarity and from a fresh perspective.
From a process engineering perspective we need effective planning, visibility, insight and control, enhanced decision making, improved alignment with business strategy, optimal use of resources, knowledge management, measurement and continuous improvement.
From a psychological or behavioral perspective we need to address adaptability, resistance to change, transparency, politics, conflicting success criteria, conflicts of interest, different thinking and social styles, cultural fit, emotional intelligence, relationships, communication and awareness.
From a tools perspective we need decision support, work flow automation, dynamic scheduling and estimating, reporting, collaboration and knowledge management. Tools to support these functions are integrated into the process and engineered to make sure that there they are easy to use and support a collaborative culture cost effectively.
Once we can look at the issue from multiple perspectives, not preferring one perspective over the other but using all to obtain a clearer understanding of the issue and its needs, then we can engineer human centered process that optimizes performance that is supported by the right tools, continuously improves and is self sustaining.
Congratulations to Jeffrey Brown for winning a signed copy of The Zen Approach to Project Management.
Tell your friends and family to sign up today for their chance to win in next month's drawing by visiting our website at www.pitagorskyconsulting.com
Didn't win, but still want a copy of The Zen Approach to Project Management get a copy today by emailing info@pitagorskyconsulting.com and mention coupon code NEWSLETTER to save $10 off cover price.
