How should you go about reconciling the differences between groups that need to cooperate but that already have swords drawn?
Overcoming Group Warfare
by Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton
Reprint 84603
Harvard Business Review
This document is authorized for use only by Miguel Alfonzo Gervis in BUS 455: Management, Leadership and Team Building in the Project Environment (Fall “A” 2023) at Atlantis University, 2023.
How should you go about reconciling the differences between groups that need to cooperate but that already have swords drawn?
Overcoming Group Warfare by Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton
Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton are directors of Scientific Research, Inc., a consulting firm located in Austin, Texas. They are well-known for their work in organization development, especially for developing the “managerial grid,” which they wrote about with Louis B. Barnes and Larry E. Greiner in HBR exactly 20 years ago in the November-December 1964 issue (see “Break- through in Organization”). This is their first HBR article since then. It is adapted from their book, Solving Costly Organizational Conflicts: Achieving Intergroup Trust, Cooperation, and Teamwork (Jossey-Bass, 1984).
This document
While many people worried about the absence of experienced air traffic controllers after the Profes- sional Air Traffic Controllers Organization went on strike in 1981, they also wondered why it was so difficult for the FAA and PATCO to come to terms before the strike was called. Important groups that need to cooperate can often overcome their difficul- ties and continue working together, but sometimes they can’t. Over the years disputants in the trans- portation and coal industries have had skirmishes that have resulted in open warfare. Even when the battles are not waged so publicly or fiercely, the human and material costs organizations pay can be staggering.
We have identified two strategies for resolving intergroup conflicts, each with variations. What we have come to call the interpersonal facilitator ap- proach relies on a neutral person to provide a bridge to help disputing parties find common ground. The facilitator does this by identifying areas of agree- ment as well as disagreement so that the latter can be reduced and resolution achieved.
In what we call the interface conflict-solving ap- proach, disputants deal with each other directly as members of whole groups. A neutral person helps the groups go through a program of steps that aids principal members of both groups to identify and resolve their differences.
Line managers and internal consultants who are respected and neutral may serve as facilitators or administrators of the step program. The person se- lected should be of a rank comparable to or higher than that of the highest-ranking member in either of the groups in conflict. A neutral of lesser rank is likely to be brushed aside by a higher-ranking mem- ber in a group bent on attack. When the conflict is between headquarters and a subsidiary or when top management is involved in both groups, as in a
Copyright © 1984 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. All rights r is authorized for use only by Miguel Alfonzo Gervis in BUS 455: Management, Le
2023
merger, the groups should consider calling in an outsider who will have no stake in the outcome.
In the first approach, the facilitator on occasion be- comes involved in the discussions themselves and carries messages and proposals from one side to the other. In the second approach, the spokesperson or administrator is uninvolved in the content of discus- sions and acts principally as a guide to the process.
These two models are quite different, and any reader who wishes to use one or the other approach needs to understand their pros and cons. In what follows, we present two actual but disguised cases that illuminate the benefits and pitfalls of the two models and show how each works. The first case in- volves a long-term conflict between central engi- neering and plant management in a large industrial complex. The second case is a union-management conflict of long standing.
Trouble at the Elco Corporation In this description of how the interpersonal facil-
itator approach worked at the Elco Corporation, we present the events chronologically through a month of negotiations.
The story & the players. The president of Elco, Stewart McFadden, had been frustrated for a long
eserved. HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November-December 1984 adership and Team Building in the Project Environment (Fall “A” 2023) at Atlantis University, .
This documen
time by reports of constant bickering and poor co- operation between central engineering and plant management. Among the many things McFadden told Jim Craig when hiring him as vice president of human resources, was, “This is a nasty situation. I’d like you to take a look at it.”
About a month later, when it came up again, Craig said to the president, “I’ve met several people from both central engineering and plant manage- ment, and it looks like quite a one-sided problem to me. The people in central engineering aren’t in- volved that much. They feel this problem is one of those inevitable tensions in organization life, and they are trying to be patient. But the people in plant management are up in arms. They are furious.”
“It’s hopeless,” said McFadden. “That depends,” said Craig, “on whether the
problem is one of competence or of communica- tion. If it’s the former, yes, it’s hopeless. If it’s the latter, it’s not.”
“Competence? No way. They are the cream of the crop – upper 10% of graduating classes, all of them. So it’s not competence. Can you help?” McFadden asked.
“Well, I’ve been through a lot of hang points with unions, and in principle this situation is no differ- ent. They realize I’m a newcomer with no ax to grind. Possibly I can get them together to talk it out. At least it’s worth a try.”
“Anything,” said McFadden. “I’m so sick of it. What do you propose?”
“I’d like to get the principals of both groups to- gether for a day or two to get the facts out on the table. Then we’ll see what can be done,” said Craig.
“You’ve got my blessing. I look forward to what- ever happens, even if you have to bang a few heads together to get their attention.”
Later that week, Craig, Walt Reeves, vice presi- dent of engineering, and Jack Lewis, central coordi- nator of the plant management group, set up the meetings. They agreed that the purpose of the meetings was to study how the groups might co- operate. Reeves wanted Craig to take part in any ne- gotiations as a full partner, speaking for Elco head- quarters, and Lewis wanted Craig to mediate the discussions but not to formulate and present sub- stantive proposals.
By offering the services of his office, Craig made it appropriate that he implement his own strategy. He planned for the two groups to meet initially as one large group. Craig saw himself as a facilitator. “My thought was,” he reported later, “that both groups would come to know and understand each other better in a constructive atmosphere and that they would trust me to be honest and fair in my role
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November-December 1984 t is authorized for use only by Miguel Alfonzo Gervis in BUS 455: Management, Le
2023
as moderator, mediator, and, if necessary, active ne- gotiator. I also thought that without an established agenda, the main issues would surface.”
Accompanying Walt Reeves from central engi- neering were four of his key personnel. With Jack Lewis from the plant management group were five others – two from the plant in question and three from different plants. Craig himself was joined by other senior personnel, including the human re- sources advisors assigned to central engineering and to plant management. From time to time, de- pending on the issue, the group consulted other se- nior people.
Mutual trust & respect. The first meeting was held in a large room that didn’t have a table. To break up a “we-they” seating arrangement and help each person participate according to his or her own con- victions rather than follow a party line, Craig placed the chairs at spaced intervals around the room.
Craig, seated near the center, opened the meet- ing. “As you know, the president has long been con- cerned about how to get your groups to cooperate. He asked me to see if I could help. This meeting has no agenda beyond what the problem is and how we can solve it. Anyone is free to speak, but to keep things moving forward, I will moderate the discus- sion. Who’d like to start?”
“I’ll tell you the problem,” a member from cen- tral engineering said. “Each engineering disci- pline, not to mention emerging new materials and construction techniques, is becoming more com- plex. Plus we’ve got rapid changes in requirements from EPA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, OSHA, and half a dozen other agencies. The heavy fines for operations that violate requirements are bound to teach us all a lesson we should have learned long ago. On these scores, we’ve got to keep ourselves risk free. There’s no option but to centralize engineering.”
“That’s not the problem at all,” a member of plant management shot back. “We’re qualified en- gineers, every one of us, but we are treated like chil- dren who can’t be trusted to build a derrick with an erector set. It’s demeaning. We manage millions in operating expenses, but we can’t spend $100 on an air conditioning duct.”
The meeting thereupon broke down into mutual recriminations. Later, trying a new tack, Craig stopped trying to moderate discussion between the two groups and held meetings with the two leaders instead.
From the very beginning, Craig had felt that Walt Reeves and Jack Lewis didn’t trust or respect each other, and he thought that if he could get them into an informal setting, things would ease between
3 adership and Team Building in the Project Environment (Fall “A” 2023) at Atlantis University, .
GROUP WARFARE
This documen
them. He thought it was important for Reeves and Lewis to know each other better before he brought the two groups together again.
Craig wanted to accentuate the positive. He cau- tioned Lewis not to overreact when he first heard Reeves’s formal statement about central engineer- ing being responsible for 100% of engineering and plant management for 100% of operations.
After the first meeting between Reeves and Lewis, Craig reported that “the meeting did pro- duce a buildup of tensions. Reeves’s fixed position in regard to the 100% engineering concept was the primary reason. I already knew this to be entirely unacceptable to Lewis. We didn’t make much progress, and another session was scheduled.”
At this point Craig was not free to reveal to Lewis what Reeves had told him in confidence. Later Craig said, “I felt Reeves was ready to make imme- diate, even if minor, modifications,” such as recom- mending an increase in the amount plant managers could authorize for small projects. Craig also knew that Reeves deeply distrusted Lewis’s reasons for wanting to do “gut” engineering. He tried to help Reeves appreciate Lewis’s motives.
Craig used the same strategy again and again: “When we got under way, I stepped back from the discussions because I wanted them to speak to each other directly. Soon they refrained from talking to me or even attempting to draw me into the con- versation. Their talk was full of accusations and counteraccusations. Their faces became flushed. The niceties of diplomatic protocol slipped away. They had almost forgotten I was there, while I just continued taking notes.
“Eventually, the argument bogged down when each began to repeat himself and to ignore the oth- er. By the end they were both talking at once. My at- tempts to change the subject were futile. As they moved toward the door, I got in front of them to block the way. I urged them not to stop these con- versations but to give me another chance to use my influence. I said, ‘If you have no confidence in me, then these tensions will remain.’
“Lewis agreed readily. I looked Reeves in the eye, and finally he nodded agreement. They left without speaking to each other. During the 30 or so days this effort took, I spent a lot of time preventing the sessions from being interrupted or terminated and in defending and explaining each of them to the other.”
During the next few meetings, Craig took a more active role: “I began acting as a referee and made ef- forts to put the discussion back on track, occasional- ly explaining what I thought someone meant when the other person seemed to misinterpret it. After
4 t is authorized for use only by Miguel Alfonzo Gervis in BUS 455: Management, Le
2023
one of these sessions, when they were going back to their offices, Reeves drew me aside and said, ‘Look, I don’t want to talk to that SOB anymore. If you want to talk to him, you can represent my point of view, but I’ve had it up to here. Tell me about any progress you make, and I promise to be as constructive as possible in meeting their criticisms of us. I want you to understand the issue is not one of simply dividing engineering up in a 25-75 or a 50-50 way. Just to give them some will not solve the problem.’”
With this breakdown, it was no longer possible to bring the two men together to discuss their fixed po- sitions. Craig summarized his feelings at the time this way: “I did not know where to go from there. We had accomplished little, except to name the dif- ficult issues and to recognize the depth of disagree- ments. There was little or no commonality between them as men, and almost every discussion deterio- rated into an unproductive argument that reopened old wounds. The final meeting ended with Reeves and Lewis casting accusations at each other.”
Craig now shifted to the go-between strategy, which became the arrangement for the remainder of the month. He proposed that he be an intermediary who formulated positions. “I asked them to give me the opportunity to devise my own compromise pro- posals and to present my views to both of them.”
As he continued to work with various individu- als and subgroups within both departments, Craig drafted proposals. Then he met again with each principal to solicit reactions to his ideas. He ex- pressed his intention to each as follows: “This pro- posal is drafted with the idea that neither side will alter it substantially. I’ve tried to keep in mind what your group wants and needs. My commit- ment is to continue to try to represent your inter- ests and to negotiate for you.”
Better times. The turning point in Reeves’s atti- tude came after he and Craig had slipped into a win- lose argument about the necessity for central engi- neering to accept some local engineering on small-plant projects. The hot, unpleasant, and repetitive argument deteriorated until Craig stood up to leave and accused Reeves of being willing to give up peace with plant management because of an unrealistic, rigid position. Craig explained what had happened: “My strong statement made me ap- pear tilted to the plant’s perspective and therefore less trustworthy.
“In a final effort to persuade Reeves to continue these negotiations,” Craig continued, “I explained the serious consequences of unilaterally breaking off. This action would harm the relationship be- tween central engineering, the personnel function, and the corporate offices. He would be violating his
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November-December 1984 adership and Team Building in the Project Environment (Fall “A” 2023) at Atlantis University, .
This documen
promises to me, and the onus of failure would be on him. Also, I described how headquarters might give up and simply realign assignments by edict.”
Reeves saw the seriousness of the situation and realized that even though he wasn’t convinced about Lewis’s motives or whether concessions would satis- fy him, he would have to be less rigid himself.
Ultimately, the relationship between Reeves and Lewis improved, but the division of responsibility for engineering and operations did not change. Three central engineering people now provide liai- son engineering. They are located so that they can quickly communicate and troubleshoot as well as provide the plant employees firsthand knowledge of in-plant engineering activities. The liaisons have reduced tensions and improved services in a variety of ways – removing bottlenecks, solving priority issues, and enabling engineering to do more realis- tic, functional design work. A gray area that allows plant managers to do a few functions in the name of maintenance, which in fact do involve some engi- neering, now exists between construction and maintenance.
What Craig did. Jim Craig’s role during the nego- tiations shifted often. When pushed to the wall, for instance, on occasion Craig himself would become confrontational. He too became angry and fearful of disastrous consequences if something didn’t change. But he kept discussion moving with many intervention techniques:
Building anticipation. Before the meetings Craig told Lewis that Reeves was coming forward with the strongest statement about a 100% to a 0% engineer- ing-operations proposal and the reasons why. He also reported to Reeves that Lewis had no plans beyond trying to work with the situation as it developed.
Controlling discussion. When the going got tough, Craig authorized who should speak to whom and in what order, particularly in the three-way dis- cussions: “I asked Reeves to begin – I then asked Lewis to respond – ” and so forth.
Reversing antagonists’ roles. Craig helped each participant clarify his understanding of the other’s position by asking, “Would you repeat what Reeves just said?” and asking for confirmation: “Is that a fair statement?”
Relieving tension. After Reeves’s strong initial presentation, Craig ended the strained silence by saying, “Perhaps it’s appropriate now for Jack to accept the position as stated and send a memo around to that effect.”
Transmitting information. Craig passed informa- tion between the two principals to prevent the pro- cess from breaking down: “I conveyed Lewis’s posi- tion to Reeves by saying, ‘Lewis sincerely wants to
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November-December 1984 t is authorized for use only by Miguel Alfonzo Gervis in BUS 455: Management, Le
2023
continue to explore how to make use of plant engi- neers to do local engineering.’”
Formulating proposals. From the beginning, Craig saw part of his job as drafting possible solu- tions and proposing them to the principals.
Near the end of the process, as he shuttled back and forth, Craig kept coming up with new ideas. He suggested that central engineering perform a check-and-balance function when the people in the plants did some engineering on their own. Al- though things do not always run smoothly at Elco, enough of the conflict has been resolved that the disagreements between engineering and plant man- agement are not constant thorns in McFadden’s side. Jim Craig continues to shuttle, keeping sparks from becoming fires.
The Hillside Strike Another, though less familiar, approach also works
effectively in dealing with conflict between groups. Underlying this approach is the assumption that key leaders and their staffs in whole groups can resolve win-lose conflicts through direct confrontation.
The Hillside facility, a large modern plant serving the paper products industry, was wracked by an un- resolved management-union conflict. Like true en- emies, both parties had placed themselves in peril to deprive the other of a “victory.”
After months of conflict, Jeff O’Hare, plant man- ager, said, “We are on a collision course toward a contract expiration date only months away. If a pos- itive, productive relationship can’t be established, it means another head-on clash. I’m not sure how we’d survive another shutdown as a viable econom- ic entity, but I am sure that when and if we start up again, this plant won’t be operated by the same peo- ple who are managing and operating it now.”
Relationship-building strategy. Hal Floyd, corpo- rate employee relations manager, proposed to Jeff O’Hare that they try solving their problems with the union face to face. Floyd had read about a situa- tion similar to Hillside’s in which a union and man- agement had used the interface approach. O’Hare reluctantly agreed.
Floyd explored the possibility with the president of the local union, Rick Keenan, and then both made a joint pitch to the international union repre- sentative, Bruce Boyd. Boyd was as pessimistic and doubtful as O’Hare had been but agreed, saying, “I don’t want to be accused of causing a strike because I wouldn’t respond to a constructive gesture.” Since no one in the company or the union could be regard- ed as neutral, Floyd contracted with an outsider to act as administrator.
5 adership and Team Building in the Project Environment (Fall “A” 2023) at Atlantis University, .
GROUP WARFARE
This documen
Six members of top management and six union officials made up the two groups participating in the meetings. Because its members sat together, each group kept its feeling of solidarity. The admin- istrator, Bob, started the sessions by reviewing goals.
“Our goal for this session is to answer the ques- tion, Can these two groups shift from a destructive relationship based on fear and suspicion to a prob- lem-solving relationship based on respect?”
Bob explained the procedure: “As a first step, each group is to meet separately to prepare descrip- tions of what a sound union-management relation- ship would be for Hillside. You should record these on large sheets so that we can compare them at a joint session. Each group should select a spokes- person to present its conclusions in the next gener- al session. The spokesperson may be the designated leader, but since O’Hare and Keenan have faced one another so many times in the past, it may be better to ask someone else to give your reports.
“The rest of you should try to avoid taking spon- taneous potshots. They don’t produce useful in- sights and often just cause counterattacks, which only make things worse. If you feel something im- portant needs to be said, ask the spokesperson if you may speak. After you finish, you’ll identify the similarities and differences in your separately pro- duced descriptions to develop a consolidated model to which both groups can be committed.”
He continued: “The next step is to describe the actual conditions that characterize the here and now. You’ll later consolidate these into a joint statement of union-management problems at Hill- side. You can then identify steps you can take to move away from the antagonistic situation to a co- operative one, with specific plans for follow-up, re- view, and reevaluation.
“To keep track of what’s going on,” he said, “I’ll be in and out of both rooms, but I don’t expect to take an active part. I’ll be happy to answer any ques- tions about the procedure.”
Visualizing a sound relationship. At first, man- agement seemed unable to concentrate on trying to formulate the ideal sound relationship. The session began with O’Hare questioning Keenan’s, the union president’s, motivations.
“I wonder what Keenan means by ‘recognition’?” said O’Hare, referring to a remark Keenan had made in the joint meeting.
“Special treatment for the union president is my guess,” Mike Barret, general foreman, replied. “We know they want to run the plant.”
“Give ’em an inch,” Allen, head of maintenance, commented supportively, “I’ve seen it over and
6 t is authorized for use only by Miguel Alfonzo Gervis in BUS 455: Management, Le
2023
over – they’ll squeeze this plant dry, even dryer than it already is.”
“I can’t respect Keenan or his tactics,” Sam Kobel, the manufacturing supervisor, said. “Maybe we’d be better off with somebody else as union president. He’s a political animal. He doesn’t care about the plant or the people. He just wants to move up the union ladder.”
Management knew that Keenan wielded consid- erable influence over the membership. Wayne, the personnel manager, said, “When he personally fa- vors a management proposal, he presents it at the union hall in a straightforward, positive way. If he wants a proposal rejected, he twists it to emphasize negative implications and works to see it defeated.”
After venting their anger, which often partici- pants must do before they can take a more con- structive approach, management concentrated on identifying the ele
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
