It seems that in the midst of conflict there are many obstacles to overcome. Frustration and difficulties can bog down even the most successful leaders. Fortune Magazine studied dozens of CEO failures over the past several years and determined that in seven out of ten cases, the leading cause of the executive’s downfall was the "failure to put the right people in the right jobs, and the related failure to fix people problems in time." (June 21, 1999)

To help you, this case study applies fifteen years of practical business experience, process improvement strategies taught at the Harvard Business School and the insights of some of history’s greatest leaders. There are no imaginary story lines or fictitious characters in this case study. What you are about to experience actually happened.

The individuals in this case study struggle with real-life issues just like you. The only difference perhaps is that they are safely on the other side of their conflict whereas you might be in the initial stages of your journey. Take heart. The process yields successful results, and the journey is not nearly as long as you might think.

The names of the participants have been changed to respect their privacy. At critical junctures in the case study, you will be given the opportunity to assess the actions of specific participants. You will also be given the opportunity to prescribe next steps. As you work through the case study, invest the time to carefully write your prescriptions and see how well you do as the next section of the case study unfolds.

Case Study: Up Against The Wall

Cast of Characters:

Richard: Team Leader

Crystal: Chief Critic of Richard

Jane: Crystal’s Ally

Betsy: Frequently Absent

Rachael: Supporter of Richard, but non-productive

Lois: Wallflower

Act One: Boiling Over
"They are all acting like a bunch of children. They think this is a game!" Richard growled into the phone as he related the details of the unfolding situation. "With all these antics going I’m being compelled by our Human Resources Director to have a meeting, but I feel that all I would be doing would be putting gasoline on the fire." "This is our busy time, we don’t have time for this nonsense!"

How had Richard reached this point? And how was he going to address the situation before the company’s president stepped in and removed him?

Richard was the Department Manager of Finance and Accounting for ABC, a prominent mid-Atlantic manufacturing company. His ten-year career with ABC had led him to become the key insider supporting the president by handling complex financial matters, but now the president was considering removing Richard for Richard’s lack of team building focus and poor people management skills.

Richard’s position looked bad. Two members of his team had filed complaints against him, and a third was carefully preparing a four-page document outlining Richard’s unfair treatment of her requests for time off. The first two complaints had been sent directly to the president, with copies forwarded to the Human Resources Department. Richard was at his wits end. Why wouldn’t his team members simply do their jobs?

In most complex conflict situations the case will look open and shut. One side being the "good guys" and the other side being the "bad guys." Who is who depends of course on which side of the battle lines you are standing. In Richard’s case the president perceived that Richard’s lack of people skills was the issue. In Richard’s performance review, the president wrote, Areas For Improvement: "Professional presence, Less confrontational, Positive attitude, Less critical of others, Work well with all members of our team." With this review on file, and a third complaint "waiting in the wings," time was running out.

Discussion Questions:

1. How many people do you think lose their jobs because of lack of quantitative results, E.g., missing a deadline or a production goal. How many people do you think lose their jobs for "not getting along well with others?"
2. How much time do you think the president should invest in understanding the details of the situation before he makes his decision about Richard?
3. Why do you think Richard’s team will not simply just do their jobs?
4. What do you think Richard should do next?

Act Two: The Plot Thickens
Richard called for a conflict consultant. The consultant’s first step was to understand the "whole picture" by interviewing each member of the team. As the interviews unfolded it became clear that Richard’s position was precarious. For example: Six months prior to the current crisis, a company-wide employee survey had revealed negative feedback about Richard. Richard promptly sat down with his team and tried to determine exactly who had said what in the survey.

Other comments and actions of Richard’s were outside the scope of acceptable management practices. For example: Crystal, one of the single mothers on the team, was talking with Richard about the difficulty of a raising her teenage son after the death of her husband. Richard suggested that Crystal simply "lay down the law."

However, in Richard’s defense, a full review of the team revealed deeper issues. Crystal continually left work early without notifying Richard or her teammates. She left coded messages on the team’s bulletin board like "LAMB," which meant that she believed that Richard should be ritualistically sacrificed. Crystal also suggested that Richard be "cut up for fish bait" while they were on the team’s annual boat trip.

Betsy was frequently absent, and just about everyone interviewed, including one of the company’s owners, accused Betsy of having extra-martial affairs.

Jane refused to try any new assignment and insisted that she was overworked even though her in-basket was never full and her desk never had more than one stack of paper on it at any given point in time.

Rachael, refused to do any filing, but ardently supported Richard.

Crystal and Jane formed a hardened alliance against Rachael because Rachael never said anything negative about Richard and because they suspected Rachael of "informing" on them to Richard. Meanwhile Lois just stayed out of the way. To say the least, it was a mess.

Discussion Questions:

1. Where do think Richard should begin reconciling broken relationships?
2. What is the relevance of Betsy’s alleged extra-marital affairs?
3. Why do you think Richard chose not to reprimand Rachael for failing to perform basic job functions such as filing?
4. What steps of "progressive discipline" do you think Richard should implement? Against which team members?

Act Three: New Hope
After completing the team interviews, the consultant asked the team to meet together briefly. The consultant outlined that there were a number of positive outcomes that could be achieved even in this difficult situation. Achieving those outcomes would however take a little bit of time to work through. He asked team members to set aside their grievances for two weeks to give the process an opportunity to work. The team agreed.

Under the agreement to "set aside grievances for two weeks," the four-page complaint against Richard that was "waiting in the wings" was not filed. This team member’s willingness to give the process a chance to work gave the team a new lease on life. For the ensuing two weeks, Richard, the company’s Director of Human Resources and the consultant met together to develop a plan to give everyone on the team an opportunity to be successful.

The Director of Human Resources agreed that team members could no longer leave work early or ignore company production goals, but that something also had to be done to restore the team’s trust in Richard’s integrity. The proposed approach was to establish a new team "covenant."

Covenants are promises that team members make to each other because they want to. Team members agree to new covenants because they want something more than just a "nine-to-five" existence and a paycheck. Covenants create a protective framework where team members can contribute their best efforts and know that counterproductive behavior will be addressed constructively.

Covenants focus on what teams can become if they choose to work together and not on what will happen if they fail. The new covenant was unveiled during an off-site leadership retreat including all the team members, Richard, the Director of Human Resources and the consultant.

The team’s new covenant was as follows:

"Unity in the essentials.
Diversity in the non-essentials.
Charity above all."

Unity In The Essentials
"Unity In The Essentials" meant that no member of management would cross the line of the laws of the state or the policies of the company, and that the company would not "naturally side with Richard" in a dispute. "Unity In The Essentials" also meant that team members agreed to meet company expectations for production goals and adherence to generally accepted policy. Team members not pulling their weight by leaving early or not completing their work on time would incur appropriate and clearly articulated consequences.

Diversity In The Non-Essentials
"Diversity In The Non-Essentials" meant that no member of the team would speak ill of, or cast dispersions on the private choices of another team member. Each person’s private personal preferences remained their own domain. The team also agreed to spend their break times and their lunch hours exploring the different interests of other team members. The team even invested some of its time during the leadership retreat talking about each other’s hobbies and outside interests. Not only did this lay the foundation for ending negative dispersions, it opened the door for team members to see that they were not so different as they first may have imagined.

Charity Above All
"Charity" for this team took on the ancient meaning of selfless acts for the benefit of others. The team agreed to foster an environment rich in kindness, goodness, gentleness and self-control. The team wanted to transform their work environment beyond the typical "nine-to-five" existence into something that would be attractive to others in the company. The team considered the possibility of becoming known as the team that people wanted to join, not the team that people wanted to leave.

The Grand Finale
During the leadership retreat, the team also experienced a workshop entitled "The Skills Of Forgiveness." This workshop put forth the proposition that since so many mistakes had been made on both sides of the battle lines that "letting go of the past" was a better choice than the choice to hold onto the deadlock. The team worked through the fundamental reasons for choosing forgiveness, and the process skills necessary to ensure that future offenses did not recur. In the end, each team member agreed to let go of the past and start over.

The final upshot of all of this was that the team came together. Not only did it come together, it did so in record time. It also came together without a single dismissal or act of progressive discipline.

The team’s quantitative production results were astounding. Within six weeks of the team’s leadership retreat, the team was able to reduce its month-end processing time from four weeks to ten days. As Richard handed the president the quantitative proof of the team’s success, the president said to Richard, "Well, it’s rare that you see a three hundred percent improvement!"

To this day, the team continues to meet its goals and foster a productive work environment. The president once again relies upon Richard as a trusted advisor and continues to increase Richard’s sphere of influence. Richard now talks of retiring from ABC, and the team can’t say enough good things about Richard’s new management style.

Discussion Questions:

1. At what point do you think the team began to turn around?
2. What do you think was the most important decision Richard made during the process?
3. What do you think would have been the financial cost to the company if the president had stepped in and fired Richard?
4. In what do you think was the lasting effect of each team member learning the skills of forgiveness?

Summary
Conflict situations are a normal part of everyday life. Routinely we hear clients say "There is always one or two people who make it difficult for the rest of the team." However, effectively resolving conflict requires the careful analysis of the "whole picture." Despite the symptoms of "one or two people," the conflict usually runs much deeper, as it did in this case study. Had the president simply fired Richard he would have lost Richard’s detailed financial knowledge of the company and he would have given tacit approval to the company’s employees that it was acceptable to flaunt company policy.

By investing in the process, and seeking the ideas of everyone, the president achieved the quantitative results he desired and successfully avoided the fate of the executives in the Fortune Magazine article that failed "to put the right people in the right jobs, and the related failure to fix people problems in time."

If you have any questions or would like to discuss how we can help resolve recurring conflict within your organization, please telephone our office and a trainer would be more than happy to speak with you confidentially.

TRC Copyright 2001 David E. Keating. All Rights Reserved.