As much as we like to think of the workplace as a bastion of teamwork and collegiality, in reality it's often a hotbed of personality conflicts, power struggles, disagreements about competence, breaches of trust, hurts and anger.
The longer you work with the same people, the more these emotions and conflicts are likely to pile up. Eventually, you and your colleagues may come to resemble a dysfunctional family where everyone pushes each other's buttons.
How can you nurture the interpersonal harmony that an advisory practice needs in order to operate productively? To explore solutions, I interviewed several experts in the field of workplace transformation. In the first part of this series, Diane Katz explains an elegant and efficient system to resolve conflicts. Stay tuned to future issues of Investment Advisor for insights from Ira Chaleff that may help you become more courageous in fulfilling your company's mission; and Dennis and Michelle Reina's seven-step process to rebuild trust after it has been broken or eroded over time.
I met organizational consultant Diane Katz, Ph.D., several months before the publication of her powerful new book "Win at Work! The Everybody Wins Approach to Conflict Resolution" (Wiley, 2010). Through her Working Circle process, Katz has helped facilitate conflict resolution for many organizations. (Disclosure: Katz worked with an organization headed by my brother, Stuart Mellan.) I was eager to reconnect with her, knowing that many advisory firms struggle with workplace conflicts that hamper growth and succession planning.
Mellan: Diane, what drew you into this work?
Katz: I've always been interested in how organizations can be more successful and work more collaboratively. My corporate career was in financial services (American Express, Chase, KPMG), where I did interventions that helped divisions or departments that were not getting along well to cooperate better and improve profitability. As head of HR for the U.S. operations of Alexander & Alexander, I designed a national conflict resolution process. My doctoral work was the development of a process for resolving conflicts and making decisions without confrontation.
In 1995, I started my own company, The Working Circle, to help organizations become more successful by valuing their people. Every time I've used the Working Circle process with groups or teams, they have reached resolution. I now have over 250 clients nationwide.
Mellan: In Win at Work! you contrast masculine and feminine conflict resolution styles. Explain those to us.
Katz: The masculine style is typically linear, aggressive, competitive and more traditional. The feminine style is more withdrawing, conciliatory and compassionate.
If an organization's style is heavily weighted toward either style, conflicts will not get resolved. For example, in an organization where the style is heavily masculine, internal competitiveness will prevent the accomplishment of organizational goals. On the other hand, organizations (these are much fewer) that are heavily feminine in style will not resolve conflicts because people are too "nice."
The Working Circle enables organizations to balance the masculine and the feminine, so creative problem-solving and collaborative conflict resolution can take place.
Mellan: What are the eight steps of your Working Circle process?
Katz: The Working Circle is literally a circle, not a linear process with a beginning and an end. Each step is linked to a fundamental question that will help resolve conflict.
Question one is "What are the facts of the situation?" We ask people to assess what is happening as if they were a camera. This helps defuse subjective reactions. People start to calm down, even in a highly conflicted situation.
For example, one financial advisor had issues with an employee who wasn't producing enough income and refused her suggestions to network more. When she sat down with him, she led the conversation with a version of question one: "Let's look at the situation with the facts only. We both have emotions about this, but let's just look at what's going on." It was clear that his performance was questionable, but the conversation wasn't dominated by emotion. If he became defensive, she said patiently, "Let's just look at the facts for now."
Then they went to questions two and three. Question two is "What is negotiable?" This helps disputants find common ground, which again helps to defuse the situation. In this situation, "how to get there" was negotiable. The employee needed to win more clients, but how he got them was up to his own style, preferences and level of comfort.