Innovative Conflict Resolution

Most of us who have worked for someone else, especially in a large corporate setting, already know that extrinsic motivators, like bonuses or other rewards, don’t work. These are attempts to create a Darwinian, survival-of-the-fittest environment, the theory being that people will do their best to try to reach the carrot dangled in front of them.

Interestingly, study after study show that extrinsic motivators can actually reduce productivity. In fact, if three different-sized rewards are offered to three different groups, the group being offered the largest incentive will perform the worst.

Seriously.

However, companies who allow people autonomy and creativity, and who give people purpose — all intrinsic motivations — will see not only an increase in production, but an increase in creativity and excellence.

Watch Daniel Pink spell this out:

I want to work for a company like this.  Don’t you?

A post on ComLab India today begins

Demotivation is contagious: even one demotivated employee who constantly cribs about work or other undesirable factors can quickly work on demotivating others too. Organizations are prone to the dangers of demotivation at all times. However, it’s important to be aware of it and to recognize and tackle it without delay.

To tackle demotivation effectively, an organization must know the reason behind its lackluster attitude. If a boss or colleague can help motivate such a coworker, it could go a long way to boost the employee’s morale and motivate him to be optimistic and have a positive attitude.

The article then lists several causes of demotivation, and some things to do to prevent demotivation from happening.

Demotivation is, to put it bluntly, a leadership issue. While individuals can have personal things that can cause them to lost motivation, if demotivation exists in a team, you must look to leadership / management.

While not technically a conflict management issue, it is closely related. A lack of motivation automatically creates conflict, although it may not yet be apparent. If motivational issues are left ignored, eventually conflict will erupt in one area or another.

Management, or Leadership?

I think it is somewhat unfortunate that management is the standard term for those who supervise others; the concept of manage implies that something is out of line and requires some restraints to keep it in place.  Contrast this with the concept of leadership, where the person in charge is leading the charge, not just keeping people in line.

The difference in attitude between managing and leading can make all the difference in the world.

This week has been very interesting, between President Obama’s comments and Congress “grilling” BP CEO Tony Hayward over the Gulf oil disaster.  I don’t intend to get political here at all, but comment on the situation from a conflict management perspective.  An excellent summary of the situation comes from MSNBC’s H. Josef Hebert, whose column today begins:

Congress was given a chance to vent its frustrations. And BP’s top executive, the target of the rage, did what he hoped to do — deflect the most probing questions and avoid any serious gaffes.

While outrage filled the air, the much-awaited grilling of BP CEO Tony Hayward by a House of Representatives committee produced good theater but little new information about what caused the catastrophic oil spill that has wrought economic havoc and environmental devastation across the U.S. Gulf Coast region.

Listen to the list of conflict words used: vent, target, rage, deflect, probing, avoid, outrage, grilling.  Now consider the language that the President himself has chosen to use. First, he declared he was looking for “someone’s ass to kick.” In the first few seconds of his Oval Office speech this past Tuesday, he referenced “the battle we’re waging against an oil spill that is assaulting our shores.” A bit later on he stated, “We will fight this spill with everything we’ve got for as long as it takes.  We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused.”

Almost universally, politicians of both political parties have done whatever they could to appear strong, tough, and in charge—the classic “director” posture. Only one dared take a different approach, and those of his own party were quick to turn on him, lest they, too, be seen as weak. And almost universally, those involved have engaged in finger-pointing, as if finding someone to blame would somehow solve the problem.

While all this may be wise from a political point of view (although the polls seem to disagree), how does this play from a problem-solving, conflict management perspective? For one thing, it is one more example of how pointing fingers takes the emphasis off the real problem and focuses instead on the parties. Agreeing on the problem and the need to find solutions should be the first step in problem-solving. There is plenty of time to point fingers once a plan is in place. Also, there are different ways of appearing strong and in control, if this is the politicians’ goal. You can hop around and beat your chest, or you can take charge and lead a problem-solving mission.  Collaboration is the strong thing to do, if collaboration is what is called for.

It seems to me that this situation makes it evident that there is a great need for leaders who understand how to problem-solve, and how to make conflict—inevitable in politics—productive. Do we have any mediators out there interested in running for office?

Dealing with a large insurance company is a classic David vs. Goliath scenario, and is probably almost as intimidating as dealing with the IRS.  Most people have very negative feelings about insurance companies (including many of the people who work for them); they are too big, too powerful, and have too much money. You, on the other hand, are none of these. However, as David proved, size doesn’t necessarily matter.  He met Goliath armed with a sling and five smooth stones, and as the story goes, he only needed one stone.

What I’ve tried to do in the following articles is to provide you with your own version of five smooth stones, should you be facing your own insurance Goliath. You can successfully negotiate your own insurance claim much of the time. I know from experience, as I was a claims adjuster for over twenty years. Understanding the claims process and the motivations of claims adjusters will go a long way to level the proverbial playing field.

Let me know if you have any questions in reading through these articles.  Please keep in mind that I can’t provide advice on specific issues in this type of format, but I will address general questions and issues.

1. How to negotiate an insurance claim
2. How to negotiate a personal injury claim
3. How to Negotiate a Personal Injury Claim, Part 2: The Inside Scoop on Insurance Adjusting
4. How to Negotiate an Insurance Claim: Tips and Tricks of Claims Negotiation
5. How To Mediate an Insurance Claim, Part 1
6. How To Mediate an Insurance Claim, Part 2

Each of us is a unique individual, with differences in background, education, religion, and so on, that impact how we communicate. As good communicators, we do our best to make the information accessible to the other person so they can interpret it as close to our intended meaning as possible. The proper exchange of information is, after all, one of the primary purposes of communication.

Besides the obvious cultural differences which impact our communication, we have different thinking styles that can have a great impact on our ability to communicate with others. As with conflict styles, we are predisposed to a certain style, but we are not necessarily limited to that style. It may take a bit of work, but we can learn how to package what we want to say so that the other person can better receive it.

Example: Carla and Susan

A couple of weeks ago I met with Carla (not her real name) concerning a communication issue she was having with her boss.  Carla was an obvious external processor, and recognized that fact. She needed to bounce ideas off other people, and even more than that, needed to verbalize her thought processes for others.  There’s nothing wrong with this; it is simply how Carla processes information.

She went on to explain that whenever she met with her boss, Susan, she had the feeling that her boss was becoming irritated with her, and she didn’t understand why. From what she had already told me about Susan, I gathered that Susan was quite the opposite from Carla in how she processed information. I commented that Susan appeared to be a “bottom-line” kind of person, and Carla readily agreed. In fact, Susan often used that term when talking to people.

I then pointed out that to a “bottom-line” thinker, having to sit through someone else’s thought processes was indeed irritating, and at times tortuous. It becomes a kind of information-overload; the bottom-line thinker isn’t trying to be rude, they just can’t deal with all of that information, especially if they are busy and don’t understand the purpose of the meeting.And, external processors run the risk of seeming to be “needy” and therefore someone to avoid.

This was all new information to Carla, who hadn’t considered that Susan simply wasn’t able – at least in the context they had been working in – to assimilate the information that Carla was sharing.  I suggested that Carla do 3 things:

1. Whenever possible, present Susan with a bottom-line summary whenever possible. When more information was needed, summarize everything in short bullet-points.
2. Find someone who is also an external processor to talk to.
3. When Carla required some external processing with Susan, ask for a meeting specifically for that purpose. If Susan understood the purpose of the meeting and what Carla needed, she could prepare herself accordingly.

Bottom-Line

If you are having difficulties connecting with someone, whether a boss, a co-worker, neighbor or spouse, take some time to try to recognize what kind of a thinker they are. Are they an extrovert, energized by others, or an introvert who can be quite outgoing, but who needs to suddenly retreat to recharge?  Are they internal or external processors? Do they make quick judgments, or perhaps can never seem to make a decision?

Try to match the other person’s style, or at least be sensitive to it. If that starts working, then let them know who you are, too. Don’t deny your own communication needs, or you’ll soon run dry. But, be aware: not everyone will be capable of meeting your communication needs. Hopefully, though, at least you’ll be able to connect on a better level than before.