Responding to Structural Organizational Conflict
The vertical and horizontal nature of bureaucratic and hierarchical organizations creates “structure conflict”. Structural conflict happens when the features of the organization itself (e.g. organizational chart, human resource policies, and standard operating procedures) generate spaces for destructive leadership styles and problematic interpersonal dynamics including power differentials, exclusion and discrimination, and aggression to unfold. Structural conflict is inevitable, but it does not have to become a source of dysfunction or poor performance. When managers and leaders are aware of when and where structural conflict happens they can intervene to reduce its negative effects.
Vertical Conflict
Vertical hierarchies are a natural feature of the human experience. We are socialized to them from the beginning in our families where patriarchy and matriarchy are the norm. In corporations, vertical hierarchies can create powerful position-based platforms for toxic leaders, executives, and managers. Militaries epitomize these dynamics – commands are expected to be followed without resistance. Corporations have many similar dynamics. Words like “top-down”, “unilateral”, and “command-and-control” are words that resonate with those subjected to these uses of scalar power and authority. Similarly, governmental organizations at all levels operate in vertical hierarchies that may become platforms for these dynamics. And, nonprofit organizations, whose structures are often shaped by the large agencies that fund them, may begin to mirror these bureaucratic tendencies. The power differentials created by vertical hierarchies, when left unchecked, can be extremely problematic both for the people within them and the communities they serve.
Horizontal Conflict
Horizontal conflict is also common and inevitable. Large organizations often have specialized workers segregated into professions – engineering, accounting, finance, legal, production, marketing and purchasing and so on. Small and growing organizations have similar divisions. Specialization happens in all kinds of small businesses including retail, restaurants, bars, and entertainment venues. And, they are a feature of small and large nonprofit organizations.
Differing professions, languages, professional standards, and missions combine to create “turf battles” and personality or style-based conflict between the leaders of specialized divisions. For example, the director of marketing may continually criticize the manager of a plant about high of cost, slow production, and appeal of products. The vice president of finance may complain about the high cost of marketing and sales, which cuts in to profit margin.
In Sum
Structural conflict arises from both vertical and horizontal modes of interaction and standard operating procedures in organizations. The symptoms of structural conflict include aggression, competitive rivalry, and toxic leadership. Structural conflict is inevitable and managing it requires effective strategies to prevent negative impacts on organizational performance and survivability.
Managing Structural Conflict
Given that structural conflict is unavoidable, how can we manage it? There are some general “steps” that can open the door to conflict resolution. These steps include stakeholder analysis, listening, meeting together, and generating actionable next steps.
Stakeholder Analysis
The first step is to identify where the conflict is, the structural elements that provoke it, and who the stakeholders are in terms of sponsoring and resolving the conflict. This kind of internal assessment should be done by someone in the organization who has a bird’s eye view of the horizontal silos involved, and also has some authority over people in the vertical hierarchy. Additionally, it is advantageous for this individual to be perceived as knowledgeable and fair – not on anyone’s side. Both internal and external consultants may be relied on to fill this role so long as it is clear they are not carrying out a hidden agenda on the part of the CEO or other senior executives.
Listening
Interventions for structural conflict should begin with listening closely, and deeply, during interviews with each stakeholder to gain an understanding of their thinking and feeling regarding the conflict. Hearing the stories of multiple organizational members will allow the listener to reconstruct the history of the conflict which, for some organizations, is a way of life spanning many years. The listening should be active with follow-up questions and full engagement, but the listener should avoid offering on-the-spot, knee jerk, or shooting-from-the hip advice or instructions. This mode of listening should create a “safe” space for those interviewed and encourage a sense of trusting, openness, and respect. Simply listening many times raises expectations that the conflict will be resolved, and work life and work will be made better.
Meeting Together
When the listening process is complete, the next step is bringing together the people involved in the conflict. The listener should facilitate the meeting because of the understanding they have gained of the vertical layers and horizontal dimensions of the organization, and their established relationship with the stakeholders. The meeting requires a creative facilitator who is able to draw out the perspectives of group members regarding the sources and origins of the conflict. This form of discussion often yields spontaneous insights that arise as group members listen to each other. The use of a white board and perhaps chart paper allows the facilitator to “document” the points of view for further discussion and systematic integration, and provides the platform for locating what needs to be changed and how. This plan for change must then be drilled down to the “next steps”. For this process to work at its best, the facilitator must have both the capacity and the willingness contain the strong feelings and conflict that are likely to emerge during the meeting. That is, the facilitator must help the group manage the boundary between telling their stories and listening to one another, while not recreating the historical conflict in the moment.
Next Steps
When a facilitator completes the “white board” exercise of recording, linking, and filling in missing information during the meeting the end product allows all of the participants to wonder “What can “we” do to fix this?” “Brainstorming” often arises after everyone is heard and all points are written on the board. This part of the meeting can be fun, energizing, and lead to participants learning more about each other and what they have in common. Removing the structural conflicts identified in favor of vertical and horizontal voluntary coordination and cooperation will require the entire group to become engaged. The group learns that “We can fix this!”
When brainstorming is complete, the facilitator should lead the group in locating a serious of “next steps” the individual group members can take both independently and jointly. Often, joint action and ongoing collaboration is required due to the interlinking quality of structural conflicts (systemic repair and healing). It should be clear to everyone in the group what the next steps are, who is responsible for ensuring they get done, and the hoped-for outcomes identified. In the event considerable change is needed a resourced timeline may be developed and a project manager assigned to coordinate work on a number conflict managing projects to achieve the envisioned organizational outcomes that improve performance.
Do you need help assessing structural conflict?
We can help you better understand where it is coming from and how to reduce its negative impact on your people and your bottom line. Get in touch with us to learn how we can help.
