Unavoidable Clashes: CL3
Filling the organization with capable people and organizing them into divisions (or sections, or departments, or units, &c.) generates the potential for disputes that would never emerge so starkly in a disorganized enterprise, or when the enterprise was very small and unitary.
Organizations are «at the mercy» of:
- the activities that must be managed,
- the individuals who must be employed, and
- the disciplinary expertise that must be applied.
Tribes based on value systems exist throughout society: we are all members of several of them. Organizations are part of society and their staff come from society. So it is inherently impossible for them to escape tribalism and its consequences.
The commonest tribal clash is between employees upholding managerial values and experts in particular disciplines.
«Individual v Organization» Tension
Q: Can individuals be members of tribes that exist independently of the organization?
A: Certainly. 
More ►
Q: Can there be tribes whose existence is a function of the organization?
A: Certainly. More ►
So there are two Centres at this level; which means we must determine which is dominant.
Dominance is about which resolution is more critical for the organization:
► Clashes between the differing perspectives of organizationally-created divisions—usually provoked by work issues.
OR
► Clashes based on professional &/or private interests of individuals—usually related to group sensitivities to status and power.
Power-based clashes are far more problematic than . Powerful tribal groups ramify in society and sometimes internationally. So that is where dominance resides, and resolution of such disputes is therefore placed on the right in the diagram.
More on Disputes
Structure-based clashes can be brought under control and rarely pose any threat to viability. If the will is there, the issues can be resolved quickly: either amicably or by resolute action from above. E.g. ►
Power-based battles are commonly reactive to actual or planned changes by management that may lead to benefits or losses to group members. E.g. differential remuneration, staff cut-backs, changes in working practices, introduction of new technologies, specific sacrifices. There are never easy answers. Any discussion feels like a battle that each side is determined to win. An intensity of feeling develops, so that each side becomes ready to harm the organization by shut-downs or disruption to customers.
Compromises and syntheses of both types must adapt to and align with each other—or there will be even more disputes and disruption.
So we can name the channel: ALIGNMENT
- Now turn to consider the processes for handling disputes based on the Centres already identified.
- Then, we can then move on to providing a direction for the organization.
Originally posted: 17-Sep-2011