Consulting and change

“levellers”. Sharpeners include those people who ask specific, detailed questions concerning the change process. They tend to be genuine objectors who want to be convinced that the change proposal is justified, and are responsive to logical argument. Levellers are those who generalize and broaden the issue under review. They are usually difficult to convince as they are often more interested in the form of their objections than in the content.

Objections and resistance to change can be expressed in many different ways. Non-verbal messages, such as gestures, facial expressions, or repeated attempts to avoid discussing the issue with the manager or the consultant, may be significant and tell more than words. In general, whenever a manager or a consultant senses that people object to the change proposed, he or she should help those concerned to express their doubts or apprehensions. The objections should be analysed: they may point to weaknesses of the proposed scheme, show that not enough information was given to people affected by the change, reflect an aversion to the manager’s or the consultant’s behaviour, or express fear or resistance that will need to be dealt with.

When the consultant has to handle specific objections, it is more useful to repeat the objection, put it in writing if appropriate, break it down into component parts, and treat each component as a separate entity rather than attempt to deal with the problem as a whole. It is recommended to commence with the items on which agreement is most likely to be reached and move later to the items causing most disagreement. The consultant should frequently take the opportunity to recapitulate, and to refer to parts of the original objection on which agreement has already been reached, before continuing with new points. Should a total impasse be reached on an issue, it may be helpful to reword the disagreement in objective terms, since the objector may have used highly emotional words originally.

If a point is reached when the consultant does not have the appropriate information to hand, this should be readily admitted and the objector advised that the information will be obtained and transmitted to him or her at a later date. The consultant should not fail to do this.

4.4Managing conflict

When objections to change become a matter of intergroup conflict, different problems requiring special treatment may arise. This may happen if a group is to give up its activity or work method to adopt one practised by another group. If a group sees itself as threatened, there will be a closing of the ranks and more cohesive action, and the group will become more tolerant of authoritative rule by its chosen leaders. Hostility to other groups is likely to arise, especially if the situation is perceived as a “win–lose” encounter. Communication will become distorted and difficult, as each group will be prepared to admit only the positive aspects of its own argument and the negative aspects of the “enemy’s”.

Basic strategies to reduce intergroup conflict (box 4.5) include the establishment of goals upon which both groups can agree in order to restore genuine

101

Management consulting

Box 4.5 How to manage conflict

In planning and implementing change, interpersonal or intergroup conflict may develop for a number of reasons:

●poor communication;

●disagreement on objectives and results to be pursued;

●disagreement on intervention methods used;

●differences over the pace of change;

●resistance to change;

●fear of losing influence and power;

●competition for resources;

●non-respect of commitments;

●refusal to cooperate;

●personality and culture clashes;

●poor performance and inefficiency.

The principal methods of resolving interpersonal conflict were summarized by Gordon Lippitt in the following terms:

Withdrawal: retreating from an actual or potential conflict situation.

Smoothing: emphasizing areas of agreement and de-emphasizing areas of difference.

Compromising: searching for solutions that bring some degree of satisfaction to the conflicting parties.

Forcing: exerting one’s viewpoint at the potential expense of another – often open competition and win–lose situation.

Confrontation: addressing a disagreement directly and in a problem-solving mode – the affected parties work through their disagreement.

As a rule, it is advisable to depersonalize conflict by ensuring that the disputants do not sit in judgement over each other, and to focus the conflict on the basic issue by concentrating disagreement on factual grounds. Withdrawal avoids the issue, but the solution may be only provisional; it may be used as a temporary strategy to buy time or allow the parties to cool off. Forcing uses authority and power and can cause considerable resentment; it may be necessary in extreme cases where agreement obviously cannot be reached amicably. Smoothing may not address the real issue, but permits the change process to continue at least in areas of agreement. Compromising helps to avoid conflict, but tends to yield less than optimum results. Confrontation is generally regarded as most effective, owing to its problem-solving approach involving an objective examination of available alternatives and a search for an agreement on the best alternative. Finally, adopting an attitude of one side winning and the other side losing is like pouring gasoline on the fire of conflict.

Source: Gordon Lippitt: Organizational renewal (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1982), pp. 151–155.

102