The Dispute Management Fantasy That’s Destroying Your Organization: Why “Collaborative” Solutions Often Cause More Problems Than They Resolve
I’ll going to attack one of the biggest sacred cows in modern dispute management training: the concept that each workplace disagreement can and should be resolved through “mutually beneficial” approaches.
This thinking sounds sophisticated and compassionate, but following nearly two decades of consulting in organizational development, I can tell you it’s frequently utter rubbish that generates more complications than it fixes.
Here’s the core problem with the “mutual benefit” fixation: it assumes that every conflicts are about misunderstandings or opposing needs that can be cleverly harmonized if parties just dialogue long enough.
In reality, many business disputes concern real, fundamental oppositions in priorities, valid contests for finite opportunities, or cases where one party actually has to win and another party needs to fail.
I consulted with a large marketing company where the creative department and the business development team were in ongoing conflict about campaign approach.
Creative staff demanded to create innovative, impressive work that would enhance their creative recognition. Client services staff demanded solutions that would please traditional accounts and preserve established client contracts.
Both teams had entirely reasonable priorities. Each perspectives were essential for the agency’s growth.
Executives brought in a group of conflict resolution specialists who dedicated extensive time leading “joint solution-finding” workshops.
Those workshops created detailed “compromise” approaches that looked impressive on conceptually but were totally unrealistic in practice.
As an illustration, they developed processes where all project would somehow integrate “artistic excellence” with “customer approval.” They developed elaborate review processes and review committees intended to make certain that everyone’s interests were included.
This outcome: project approval timelines that required much extended periods than before, artistic output that was compromised to the point of being ineffective, and clients who were confused by inconsistent messaging about creative direction.
Each groups were increasingly frustrated than originally because neither side was receiving what they really wanted to do their work well.
After six months of this dysfunction, I helped management to scrap the “mutual benefit” approach and create what I call “Clear Priority Making.”
Instead of trying to pretend that each project could concurrently satisfy opposing goals, they established specific standards for deciding when innovative innovation would take priority and when customer relationships would be the main focus.
Regarding prestigious clients where the agency sought to protect long-term relationships, client approval would get focus.
With newer projects or community work, innovative people would have greater latitude to develop innovative concepts.
For potential award entries, creative excellence would be the primary criterion.
Each departments understood exactly what the objectives were for each client work, what criteria would influence decisions, and what sacrifices were being made.
Conflict between the groups nearly disappeared. Both teams were able to work on doing what they did best rather than constantly debating about priorities.
Account retention increased because account management people could confidently communicate creative strategy and deliverables. Artistic innovation increased on selected campaigns because creative teams received clear freedom to pursue cutting-edge concepts.
That insight: attempting to develop “win-win” solutions for essentially conflicting interests frequently results in “everybody loses” situations where neither party gets what they genuinely require.
Smarter to be clear about choices and make deliberate, intelligent selections about when competing objectives will get priority.
Here’s a different situation of how the “mutual benefit” obsession generates problems. We worked with a technology engineering organization where experienced engineers and junior employees were in constant disagreement about project distribution.
Experienced programmers preferred concentrating on complex, prestigious assignments that would advance their skills and increase their professional standing.
Junior employees wanted opportunities to meaningful assignments to build their expertise and progress their professional development.
Finite numbers of challenging projects meant that giving more assignments to entry-level employees inevitably meant fewer access for senior team members.
Management brought in conflict resolution specialists who dedicated extensive time trying to find “innovative” solutions that would somehow meet each person’s professional needs.
These experts created sophisticated systems for “joint assignment ownership,” “mentoring arrangements,” and “knowledge exchange programs.”
Zero of these systems fixed the basic issue: there were simply not enough complex opportunities for each person to get what they desired.
This consequence: even more complexity in work distribution, delayed project planning, and ongoing conflict from each sides.
I worked with them establish a honest, merit-based process for project allocation:
Experienced roles on high-profile projects would be given based on demonstrated performance and expertise
Junior staff would receive planned training projects designed to enhance their skills methodically
Specific standards and schedules were defined for promotion from entry-level to advanced positions
Every employees knew exactly what they had to accomplish to gain access to higher-level categories of work responsibilities
Conflict within various groups almost disappeared. Entry-level employees could focus on meeting defined performance goals rather than competing for scarce opportunities. Senior developers were able to work on complex projects without repeatedly justifying their right to these assignments.
Output and performance increased substantially across every experience groups.
That lesson: honest, performance-focused allocation often produces better results than forced “collaborative” approaches that try to prevent inevitable choices.
At this point let’s examine probably the greatest problematic element of the “collaborative” mindset: how it enables poor behavior and sabotages workplace accountability.
We worked with a government organization where a single department was consistently missing deadlines, delivering poor work, and generating problems for related units that counted on their work.
Once other units complained about these performance problems, management automatically replied by organizing “cooperative dialogue” meetings to develop “mutually beneficial” arrangements.
These meetings would invariably result in convoluted “workflow improvements” that fundamentally expected productive units to accommodate the inadequate performance of the problematic department.
For example, in place of demanding the failing unit to achieve normal timelines, the “mutual benefit” approach would be to adjust every work deadlines to work around their poor productivity.
Instead of expecting them to improve their work levels, other units would be expected to offer additional quality control, assistance, and fixes to compensate for their substandard deliverables.
This approach was incredibly unjust to productive departments and directly encouraged poor work.
Even worse, it generated anger and cynicism among good performers who felt that their additional contributions was being unappreciated while problematic performers were being accommodated from accountability.
I helped administration to scrap the “collaborative” charade and implement honest accountability systems.
Leadership implemented measurable performance requirements for all teams, with specific consequences for repeated inability to achieve these requirements.
The problematic unit was provided specific training and a adequate timeframe to enhance their work. When they refused to meet the established expectations, appropriate personnel decisions were implemented.
This transformation was remarkable. Organizational efficiency rose significantly, team conflicts virtually disappeared, and staff satisfaction for good employees improved substantially.
That reality: genuine “win-win” solutions result from maintaining high performance levels for everyone, not from lowering standards to enable inadequate behavior.
Let me share what I’ve concluded after extensive experience of seeing businesses suffer with ineffective “win-win” obsessions:
Successful conflict resolution requires executives who are willing to make unpopular choices, set firm priorities, and accept that rarely all parties can get everything they desire.
Frequently the best solution is for one party to win and others to accept less. Sometimes the best approach is to remove people who are refusing to work effectively within organizational parameters.
Furthermore frequently the right solution is to recognize that specific conflicts indicate basic differences in approaches that will not be compromised through mediation.
Stop attempting to force “mutual benefit” solutions where they shouldn’t work. Begin creating systems with fair standards, equitable enforcement, and the courage to make difficult choices when cooperative approaches cannot be effective.
Company organization – and your most valuable employees – deserve no less.
If you cherished this post and you would like to acquire much more data about Selling Skills Training Perth kindly stop by the internet site.