Handling Disputes

Compromises are needed to deal either with group power battles or with differences arising from structures created by management. These two types of resolution must adapt to and align with each other—or there will be more disputes and disruption. So we can name the channel: Structural Issue Resolution-CL3O ↔ CL3I-Group Power Resolution: ALIGNMENT

Issues for resolution in both L3-Centres may blow up or be settled because of L1-action, or by changes in L2-accountability. Accountable managers often find that handling dialectic challenge is stressful.

Issue Resolution (CL3) ↔ Accountability (CL2)

Assertion of accountability is commonly the first step to issue resolution. The resolution of issues may well have implications for accountability, adjusting where it resides or how far it extends.

Disputes immediately generate the issue of accountability-L2, because their resolution is urgent. Accountability of those involved in a clash is the major force in expediting attempts to resolve group-based issues. Professional groups or unions look actively to those who are accountable for resolution via agreements and plans. Once the resolution is satisfactory, there is an end to the disruption or stoppage and work can recommence.

We name the CL3I ↔ CL2B channel: INITIATION

Clashes can arise from management structures themselves. This occurs when each party, as well as the person responsible for resolving the matter, genuinely believes that their views fit with their accountability-CL2. So any viable resolution must reflect adaptation of these accountabilities one way or another. Equally, any resolution developed by the accountable manager will require each division to adapt. If both parties 'win', then their manager may have to adapt.

We name the CL3O ↔ CL2B channel: ADAPTATION

Disputes (CL3) ↔ Action (CL1)

Any dispute calls for attention so that it does not get out of hand. Certain actions or alterations of activities will resolve issues, whether with unions and professional groups (CL3I) or in relation to departmental or divisional clashes (CL3O). Conversely, agreed resolutions in both cases may well affect future necessary actions (CL1).

Actions-L1 affecting conditions, status or remuneration tend to be inflammatory and that groups feel that gives them permission to down tools, work to rule, or cease cooperation in some other way. Resolution of the issue permits activities to continue. Conversely, taking action of some sort will permits the anger to subside and the issue to be resolved.

We name the CL3I ↔ CL1B channel: PERMISSION

Appropriate prompt action, as agreed, is the way all parties endorse resolution of inter-divisional disputes. Conversely, the fact that issues are resolved endorses the actions that are being, and will be, taken.

We name the CL3O ↔ CL2B channel: ENDORSEMENT

Stability without Achievement

By this point, we have a stable-looking «organizational action» structure. However, there is no input for an organization's strategies and goals—except as broadly embodied in role descriptions and assigned tasks.

In cultural development, we noted that progress could cease at Stage-3 and staff culture could then become self-serving rather than focused on either customers or investors. Exactly the same situation is represented here, but now from the perspective of achievement.

Originally posted: 17-Sep-2011