By Guy Harris
Working in a conflict free environment sounds great to most people. I know that it appeals to me, my work colleagues, and the workshop participants I have had conversations with. A great deal of discussion in our Bud to Boss workshops is directed towards finding ways to address and resolve workplace conflicts so that they do not interfere with getting results.
All that effort to resolve conflicts is good for business, good for teams, and good for results. There is one type of conflict, though, that you may never resolve. In fact, you might not want to resolve it in all cases. That type of conflict is structural conflict.
Structural conflict is created when different teams, or individuals, have conflicting objectives and goals. They are called structural conflicts because the structure of the organization creates the conflict.
In many cases, structural conflicts are unintentional – managers of different teams set goals that conflict with each other because the goals are not coordinated at a higher level. In this case, the conflicting goals can hurt organizational performance by encouraging different members of the team to work in competing or conflicting directions. In these cases, having coordination conversations at the leadership level that can resolve the conflict will remove the unintended structural conflict so that you can get all team members working towards the same goals.
Sometimes, though, structural conflicts are intentional, and they help the overall organization stay on track towards a higher goal. In these cases, structural conflicts can act like a checks-and-balances system. The conflicts can help to balance important and competing issues that affect the organization so that you do not go too far on one particular issue.
For example: quality control versus production in a manufacturing environment.
On a big picture basis, both the quality control team and the manufacturing team have the same objective: producing as much product as possible at the best quality possible. If you dig deeper and consider only a single unit, you can see a conflict develop. For any given unit of production (a part, a pound, or a gallon), the quality control team is focused on whether the product meets specifications while the manufacturing team is focused on getting the product into inventory or shipped.
The conflict here is not always obvious, and in most situations, it will not be an issue. Products are usually produced well within specification, and they ship. Or, they are clearly out of specification, and they do not.
What happens when the product is close to the line – not clearly good or bad? Someone will need to make the call: is the product good or not? When that situation arises, the goals (and rewards) of the quality control team can be at odds with the goals (and rewards) of the manufacturing team.
If this structural conflict is viewed through the lens of a personal conflict where one party or the other is seen as difficult or unwilling to cooperate, it can blow a team apart as it becomes more personal and emotional.
When viewed through the lens of natural checks-and-balances between competing interests that force conversation about how to best improve operations and meet customer needs, the conflict can be a good thing that helps the organization get stronger and better. It might be a bit uncomfortable in the moment and still good for the long-term health of the organization.
Should you work to resolve structural conflicts?
That depends.
If the conflict was created unintentionally because of communication or coordination failures in the organization, then, yes, align the organization and resolve the conflict.
If the conflict helps to drive conversation about how to improve, then let it remain.
Looking to hear more about conflict resolution? Check out Virtual LeaderCon. Registration is for the 4 day event free!
0 comments