Question

Imagine you are experiencing a major conflict in your place of work. The team with which you are working at the time has split into two factions and simply cannot see eye to eye. Each side feels like the other is not listening and does not value the other's perspective. A mediator has been asked to step in and help with the problem. Of the five strategies for conflict resolution discussed in the lesson, which strategy or strategies do you think the mediator should use? Why? If you think a combination of two or more strategies would work best, explain which should be used and why you think both of them would work better than just one.

Answer 1

The answer to this is Three-quarters of human resource managers now verbalize that adroit workers in their industries are "scarce." The cost of hiring and training a supersession worker now averages 30% of annual salary, and it's even higher in critical vocations [Ackerman 2000]. Among sources of turnover, one that stands out is workplace stress. And nothing does more to engender an atmosphere of stress than does an organizational feud.

Answer 2

Three-quarters of human resource managers now say that skilled workers in their industries are "scarce." The cost of hiring and training a replacement worker now averages 30% of annual salary, and it's even higher in critical occupations [Ackerman 2000]. Among sources of turnover, one that stands out is workplace stress. And nothing does more to create an atmosphere of stress than does an organizational feud.

Feuds damage the organization in three basic ways. They waste resources, they waste time, and they increase turnover. In turn, an organization plagued by feuds can become unable to exploit opportunities or meet critical challenges. Ending a feud is a difficult process, but failing to end a damaging feud can bring an end to the organization.

If you manage an organization that contains feuding departments or feuding teams, resolving the feuds must be your first priority. If you leave the feuds in place while you address "more immediate" problems, you could find that your attempts to address those immediate problems are undermined — subtly and otherwise — by the warfare between the feuding parties. The temptation to address first the immediate problems might come from a perception that the feud is a giant hair ball, while the immediate problem — for example, an office move — is more contained, more mechanical, and less fraught with emotional content and controversy.

Resist that temptation. If a feud is well established, it acts like the Blob of the 1958 sci-fi film of the same name [Yeaworth 1958]. To a thriving feud, anything the organization tries to accomplish is potential nourishment. Feuds feed on everything. Even a simple rearrangement of offices can become a controversy that consumes everyone and stops all work — if you're lucky. If you're unlucky, work continues, but the work products contain undetected defects. In a workplace dominated by feuds, people cannot take pride in their work. Their health suffers, and the best workers — those who have alternatives — leave.