Management of Differences
The manager often experiences his most uncomfortable moments when he has to deal with differences among people. Because of these differences, he must often face disagreements, arguments, and even open conflict. To add to his discomfort, he frequently finds himself torn by two opposing desires. On the one hand, he wants to unleash the individuality of his subordinates in order to tap their full potential and to achieve novel and creative approaches to problems. On the other hand, he is eager to develop a harmonious, smooth-working team to carry out his organization’s objectives. The manager’s lot is further troubled by the fact that when differences do occur, strong feelings are frequently aroused, objectivity flies out the window, egos are threatened, and personal relationships are placed in jeopardy.
Toward Effective Management
Because the presence of differences can complicate the manager’s job in so many ways, it is of utmost importance that he understand them fully and that he learn to handle them effectively. It is the purpose of this article to assist the manager to manage more effectively by increasing his understanding of differences among the people he works with, and by improving his ability to deal with others.
A large part of what follows will focus, for simplicity of exposition, on the differences which occur among a manager’s individual subordinates. However, we would like to suggest that the principles, concepts, methods, and dynamics which we discuss throughout much of the article apply to intergroup, to interorganizational, and to international differences as well.
Our basic thesis is that a manager’s ability to deal effectively with differences depends on:
His ability to diagnose and to understand differences.
His awareness of, and ability to select appropriately from, a variety of behaviors.1
His awareness of, and ability to deal with, his own feelings—particularly those which might reduce his social sensitivity (diagnostic insight) and his action flexibility (ability to act appropriately).
There are two basic assumptions underlying our approach to this problem. Let us examine them before going any further:
1. Differences among people should not be regarded as inherently “good” or “bad.” Sometimes differences result in important benefits to the organization; and sometimes they are disruptive, reducing the over-all effectiveness of individuals and organizations.
2. There is no one “right” way to deal with differences. Under varying circumstances, it may be most beneficial to avoid differences, to repress them, to sharpen them into clearly defined conflict, or to utilize them for enriched problem solving. The manager who consistently “pours oil on troubled waters” may not be the most effective manager. Nor is the manager necessarily successful who emphasizes individuality and differences so strongly that cooperation and teamwork are simply afterthoughts. We feel, rather, that the effective manager is one who is able to use a variety of approaches to differences and who chooses any specific approach on the basis of an insightful diagnosis and understanding of the factors with which he is faced at that time.
Diagnosing Disagreements
When a manager’s subordinates become involved in a heated disagreement, they do not tend to proceed in a systematic manner to resolve their difference. The issues often remain unclear to them, and they may talk at rather than to one another. If a manager is to be helpful in such a situation, he should ask three important diagnostic questions:
1. What is the nature of the difference among the persons?
2. What factors may underlie this difference?
3. To what stage has the interpersonal difference evolved?
Nature of the difference
Now, looking at the first of these three important questions, the nature of the difference will vary depending on the kind of issue on which people disagree. And there are four basic kinds of issues to look for:
Facts. Sometimes the disagreement occurs because individuals have different definitions of a problem, are aware of different pieces of relevant information, accept or reject different information as factual, or have differing impressions of their respective power and authority.
Goals. Sometimes the disagreement is about what should be accomplished—the desirable objectives of a department, division, section, or of a specific position within the organization.
Methods. Sometimes individuals differ about the procedures, strategies, or tactics which would most likely achieve a mutually desired goal.
Values. Sometimes the disagreement is over ethics—the way power should be exercised, or moral considerations, or assumptions about justice, fairness, and so on. Such differences may affect the choice of either goals or methods.
Arguments are prolonged and confusion is increased when the contending parties are not sure of the nature of the issue over which they disagree. By discovering the source of the disagreement, the manager will be in a better position to determine how he can utilize and direct the dispute for both the short-and long-range good of the organization. As we will indicate later, there are certain steps which are appropriate when the differences are about facts, other steps which are appropriate when the differences are over goals, and still other steps which are applicable when differences are over methods or values.
Underlying factors
When people are faced with a difference, it is not enough that their manager be concerned with what the difference is about. The second major diagnostic question he should ask is why the difference exists. As we try to discover useful answers to this, it is helpful to think in terms of:
Whether the disputants had access to the same information.
Whether the disputants perceive the common information differently.
Whether each disputant is significantly influenced by his role in the organization.
These questions involve informational, perceptual, and role factors. Thus:
Informational factors exert their influence when the various points of view have developed on the basis of different sets of facts. The ancient legend of the blind men and the elephant dramatizes this point as vividly as any modern illustration. Because each of the men had contact with a different part of the elephant, each disagreed violently about the nature of the animal. In the same way, when two persons receive limited information about a complex problem, they may well disagree as to the nature of that problem when they come together to solve it.
Perceptual factors exert their influence when the persons have different images of the same stimulus. Each will attend to, and select from the information available, those items which he deems important. Each will interpret the information in a somewhat different manner. Each brings to the data a different set of life experiences which cause him to view the information through a highly personal kind of filter. The picture which he gets, therefore, is unique to him. Thus it is not surprising that the same basic “facts” may produce distinctive perceptual pictures in the minds of different individuals.
Role factors exert their influence because each of the individuals occupies a certain position and status in society or in the organization. The fact that he occupies such a position or status may put certain constraints on him if the discussion is related to his role.
Stage of evolution
Important conflicts among people ordinarily do not erupt suddenly. They pass through various stages, and the way in which the energy of the disputing parties can be effectively directed by the manager depends to some extent on the stage of the dispute when he enters the picture.
One way of diagnosing a dispute—the third major question—is to identify it as being at one of these five stages in its development:
Stage #1—the phase of anticipation.
A manager learns that his company is about to install new, automated equipment which will reduce the number and change the nature of jobs in a given department. He can anticipate that when this information is released, there will be differences of opinion as to the desirability of this change, the way in which it should be introduced, and the way in which the consequences of its introduction should be handled.
Stage #2—the phase of conscious, but unexpressed, difference.
Word leaks out about the proposed new equipment. Small clusters of people who trust one another begin discussing it. They have no definite basis for the information, but tensions begin to build up within the organization. There is a feeling of impending dispute and trouble.
Stage #3—the phase of discussion.
Information is presented about the plans to install new equipment. Questions are asked to secure more information, to inquire about the intentions of management, to test the firmness of the decision that has been made. During the discussion, the differing opinions of individuals begin to emerge openly. They are implied by the questions which are asked, and by the language which is used.
Stage #4—the phase of open dispute.
The union steward meets with the foreman to present arguments for a change in plans. The foreman counters these arguments by presenting the reasons that led management to decide to install the equipment. The differences which have heretofore been expressed only indirectly and tentatively now sharpen into more clearly defined points of view.
Stage #5—the phase of open conflict.
Individuals have firmly committed themselves to a particular position on the issue; the dispute has become clearly defined. The outcome can only be described in terms of win, lose, or compromise. Each disputant attempts not only to increase the effectiveness of his argument and his power in the situation, but also to undermine the influence of those who oppose him.
The power of the manager to intervene successfully will differ at each of these stages. He is likely to have the most influence if he enters the picture at stage #1; the least influence if he enters at stage #5. This range of possible behavior and action changes as the conflict passes through the various stages. For this reason, it is important for the manager not only to assess the nature of the given dispute and the forces affecting the individuals involved, but also to assess the stage to which the dispute has evolved.
Selecting an Approach
After the manager has diagnosed a given dispute (or a potential one) between subordinates, he is next confronted by the problem of taking action. And here there are two additional questions that it will be helpful to him to consider:
What courses of action are available?
What must be kept in mind in selecting the best one?
Assuming, first, a situation in which the manager has time to anticipate and plan for an impending dispute, we suggest that the general approaches typically available to him are (a) avoidance, (b) repression, (c) sharpening into conflict, and (d) transformation into problem solving. In deciding which to use, the manager’s primary concern should be to select the alternative that will yield optimum benefits to the organization.
Avoidance of differences
It is possible for a manager to avoid the occurrence of many differences among his subordinates. He can, for example, staff his organization with people who are in substantial agreement. Some organizations select and promote individuals whose experiences are similar, who have had similar training, and who come from a similar level of society. Because of such common backgrounds, these individuals tend to see things similarly, to have common interests and objectives, and to approach problems in much the same way. A staff thus developed tends to be a very secure one: the reactions of one’s fellows are both readily predictable and congenial to one’s own way of thinking and doing.
The manager may also avoid differences among his subordinates by controlling certain of their interpersonal contacts. He can, for example, assign two potentially explosive individuals to different groups or physical locations, or he can choose not to raise a particularly divisive issue because it is “too hot to handle.” But let us take a closer look:
When is this alternative appropriate?
Some organizations depend heavily on certain kinds of conformity and agreement among their employees in order to get the work done. Political parties and religious denominational groups are perhaps extreme examples of this. If an individual holds a different point of view on a rather fundamental issue, he may become a destructive force within the organization. This approach may be especially important if he is dealing with somewhat fragile and insecure individuals. Some persons are so threatened by conflict that their ability to function effectively suffers when they operate in a climate of differences.
What are the difficulties and dangers in this approach?
The manager who uses this approach consistently runs the risk of reducing the total creativity of his staff. Someone has said, “When everyone in the room thinks the same thing, no one is thinking very much.” In an atmosphere in which differences are avoided, new ideas not only appear less frequently, but old ideas also are likely to go unexamined and untested. There is genuine danger of the organization’s slipping unknowingly into a rut of complacency.
Repression of differences
Sometimes a manager is aware that certain differences exist among members of his staff, but he feels that the open expression of these differences would create unproductive dissension and reduce the total creativity of the group. He may, therefore, decide to keep these differences under cover. He may do this by continually emphasizing loyalty, cooperation, teamwork, and other similar values within the group. In such a climate, it is unlikely that subordinates will express disagreements and risk conflict.
The manager may also try to make sure that the potentially conflicting parties come together only under circumstances which are highly controlled—circumstances in which open discussion of latent differences is clearly inappropriate. Or he may develop an atmosphere of repression by consistently rewarding agreement and cooperation and by punishing (in one way or another) those who disrupt the harmony of the organization by expressing nonconformist ideas. But once again:
When is this alternative appropriate?
It is most useful when the latent differences are not relevant to the organization’s task. It is to be expected that individuals will differ on many things—religion, politics, their loyalty to cities or states, baseball teams, and so forth. There may be no need to reach agreement on some of these differences in order to work together effectively on the job. It may also be appropriate to repress conflict when adequate time is not available to resolve the potential differences among the individuals involved. This might be particularly true if the manager’s concern is to achieve a short-run objective and the potential disagreement is over a long-run issue. The wounds of disagreement should not be opened up if there is insufficient time to bind them.
What are the difficulties and dangers in this approach?
Repression almost always costs something. If, indeed, the differences are important to the persons involved, their feelings may come to be expressed indirectly, in ways that could reduce productivity. Every manager has witnessed situations in which ideas are resisted, not on the basis of their merit, but on the basis of who advocated them. Or he has seen strong criticism arising over mistakes made by a particularly disliked individual.
Much has been said and written about “hidden agenda.” People may discuss one subject, but the way they discuss it and the positions they take with respect to it may actually be determined by factors lying beneath the surface of the discussion. Hidden agenda are likely to abound in an atmosphere of repression.
When strong feelings are involved in unexpressed differences, the blocking of these feelings creates frustration and hostility which may be misdirected toward “safe” targets. Differences, and the feelings generated by them, do not ordinarily disappear by being ignored. They fester beneath the surface and emerge at inopportune moments to create problems for the manager and his organization.
Differences into conflicts
When this approach is used, the manager not only recognizes the fact that differences exist, but attempts to create an arena in which the conflicting parties can “fight it out.” However, like the promoter of an athletic contest, he will want to be sure that the differing persons understand the issue over which they differ, the rules and procedures by which they can discuss their differences, and the kinds of roles and responsibilities which each is expected to bear in mind during the struggle. Again:
When is this alternative appropriate?
A simple answer is: “when it is clarifying and educational.” Many an individual will not pause to examine the assumptions he holds or the positions he advocates until he is called on to clarify and support them by someone who holds contrary views. In the same way, the power realities within an organization can come into sharper focus and be more commonly recognized through conflict.
For example, the manager of production and the manager of engineering may develop quite different impressions of how the board of directors feels about the relative importance of their respective units. Each is sure that the board is most impressed with the caliber of the staff, output, and operational efficiency of his department. When a dispute arises over which group is to get priority space in a new building, top management may permit both departments to exert all the influence they can on the board. During the struggle, the two managers may each gain a more realistic assessment of, and respect for, the power of the other.
Another valuable thing learned is the cost of conflict itself. Almost invariably at the end of a long dispute, there is a strong resolve that “this shall not happen again,” as the individuals reflect on the financial costs, tensions, embarrassments, uneasiness, and wasted time and energy it caused.
What are the difficulties and dangers in this approach?
Conflict can be very costly. It not only saps the energy of those involved, but also may irreparably destroy their future effectiveness. In the heat of conflict, words are sometimes spoken which leave lifelong scars on people or forever cloud their relationship.
Because the risks involved in conflict are so great and the potential costs so high, the manager will want to consider carefully the following questions before he uses this approach:
1. What does he hope to accomplish?
2. What are the possible outcomes of the conflict?
3. What steps should be taken to keep the conflict within organizational bounds and in perspective?
4. What can be done after the conflict to strengthen the bonds between disputants, so that the conflict will be of minimum destructiveness to them and to their ongoing relationship?
Making differences creative
“Two heads are better than one” because the two heads often represent a richer set of experiences and because they can bring to bear on the problem a greater variety of insights. If the differences are seen as enriching, rather than as in opposition to each other, the “two heads” will indeed be likely to come up with a better solution than either one alone. For example, had the six blind men who came into contact with different parts of the same elephant pooled their information, they would have arrived at a more accurate description of the animal. In the same way, many problems can be seen clearly, wholly, and in perspective only if the individuals who see different aspects can come together and pool their information. Here, too, let us take a more specific look:
When is this alternative appropriate?
When it comes to choosing courses of action for a given problem, differences among the individuals in an organization can help to increase the range and variety of alternatives suggested.
The channeling of differences into a problem-solving context may also help to deal with some of the feelings which often accompany disagreement—frustration, resentment, and hostility. By providing an open and accepted approach, the manager helps to prevent undercurrents of feelings which could break out at inopportune moments. He also helps to channel the energy generated by feelings into creative, rather than into destructive, activities. Whereas conflict tends to cause individuals to seek ways of weakening and undermining those who differ with them, the problem-solving approach leads individuals to welcome differences as being potentially enriching to one’s own goals, ideas, and methods.
What are the difficulties and dangers in this approach?
To utilize differences requires time. Often it is easier for a single individual (rather than two or more persons) to make a decision. Also, when a rapid decision is required, it may be easier and more practical to ignore one side of an argument in order to move into action. Finally, unless a problem-solving situation is planned with some care, there is always the risk of generating conflict which will be frustrating to all parties concerned.
Enriched Problem Solving
Let us assume that the course of action decided on is the one just discussed—turning the difference into creative problem solving. Let us further assume, now, that the manager enters the picture when his subordinates are already involved in conflict. What are the things he can do if he wishes to transform this conflict into a problem-solving situation?
He can welcome the existence of differences within the organization. The manager can indicate that from the discussion of differences can come a greater variety of solutions to problems and a more adequate testing of proposed methods. By making clear his view that all parties contribute to the solution of problems by sharing their differences, he reduces the implication that there will be an ultimate “winner” and “loser.”
He can listen with understanding rather than evaluation. There is abundant evidence that conflicts tend to be prolonged and to become increasingly frustrating because the conflicting parties do not really listen to one another. Each attempts to impose his own views and to “tune out” or distort what the other person has to say.
The manager may expect that when he enters the picture, the individuals will try to persuade him to take a stand on the issue involved. While each adversary is presenting his “case” to the manager, he will be watching for cues which indicate where the manager stands on the issue. It is therefore important that the manager make every effort to understand both positions as fully as possible, recognizing and supporting the seriousness of purpose of each where appropriate, and to withhold judgment until all available facts are in.
In the process of listening for understanding, the manager will also set a good example for the conflicting parties. By adopting such a listening-understanding attitude himself, and by helping the disputants to understand each other more fully, he can make a most useful contribution toward transforming potential conflict into creative problem solving.
He can clarify the nature of the conflict. In the heat of an argument, each participant may primarily focus on either facts, specific methods, goals, or values. Frustration and anger can occur when one individual talks about facts while another is eager to discuss methods. The manager, having carefully listened to the discussion, can clarify the nature of the issues so that the discussion can become more productive.
He can recognize and accept the feelings of the individuals involved. Irrational feelings are generated in a controversy, even though the participants do not always recognize this fact. Each wants to believe that he is examining the problem “objectively.” The manager, recognizing and accepting feelings such as fear, jealousy, anger, or anxiety, may make it possible for the participants squarely to face their true feelings. The effective manager does not take a critical attitude toward these feelings by, in effect, saying, “You have no right to feel angry!” Rather, he tries sincerely to communicate his sympathetic feelings.
Ordinarily, we do no real service to people by encouraging a repression of their feelings or by criticizing them for experiencing fear, anger, and so forth. Such criticism—whether implied or expressed openly—may block the search for new ways out of the controversy. There is considerable evidence that when a person feels threatened or under attack, he tends to become more rigid and therefore more defensive about positions to which he has committed himself.
He can indicate who will make the decision being discussed. Sometimes heated disputes go on with respect to issues over which one or more of the persons involved has no control. When people have differing notions about the formal authority available to each, a clarification by the manager of the authority relationships can go far toward placing the discussion in clearer perspective.
He can suggest procedures and ground rules for resolving the differences. If the disagreement is over facts, the manager may assist the disputants in validating existing data and in seeking additional data which will more clearly illuminate the issues under dispute.
If the disagreement is over methods, the manager may first want to remind the parties that they have common objectives, and that their disagreement is over means rather than ends. He may suggest that before examining in detail each of their proposed methods for achieving the goals, they might together establish a set of criteria to be used in evaluating whatever procedures are proposed. He may also want to suggest that some time be spent in trying to generate additional alternatives reflecting new approaches. Then after these alternatives have been worked out, he may encourage the parties to evaluate them with the aid of the criteria which these persons have developed together.
If the disagreement is over goals or goal priorities, he may suggest that the parties take time to describe as clearly as possible the conflicting goals which are being sought. Sometimes arguments persist simply because the parties have not taken the trouble to clarify for themselves and for each other exactly what they do desire. Once these goals are clearly stated, the issues can be dealt with more realistically.
If the disagreement is over values, the manager may suggest that these values be described in operational terms. Discussions of abstractions often tend to be fruitless because the same words and concepts mean different things to different people. To help individuals become more fully aware of the limitations to which their actions are subject, the question, “What do you think you can do about this situation?” usually leads to a more productive discussion than the question, “What do you believe in?” Because value systems are so closely related to a person’s self concept, the manager may want to give particular attention to protecting the egos involved. He may make clear that an individual’s entire ethical system is not being scrutinized, but only those values which are pertinent to the particular instance.
He can give primary attention to maintaining relationships between the disputing parties. Sometimes, during the course of a heated dispute, so much attention is paid to the issue under discussion that nothing is done to maintain and strengthen the relationship between the disputing parties. It is not surprising, therefore, that disputes tend to disrupt ongoing relationships. Through oversight or deliberate action, important functions are neglected which sustain or further develop human relationships—for example, the functions of encouraging, supporting, reducing tension, and expressing common feelings. If a conflict is to be transformed into a problem-solving situation, these functions need to be performed by someone—either by the manager or, through his continuing encouragement, by the parties themselves.
He can create appropriate vehicles for communication among the disputing parties. One of the ways to bring differences into a problem-solving context is to ensure that the disputants can come together easily. If they can discuss their differences before their positions become crystalized, the chances of their learning from each other and arriving at mutually agreeable positions are increased. Having easy access to one another is also a way of reducing the likelihood that each will develop unreal stereotypes of the other.
Misunderstanding mounts as communication becomes more difficult. One of the values of regular staff meetings, therefore, is that such meetings, properly conducted, can provide a continuing opportunity for persons to exchange ideas and feelings.
If the manager wishes his subordinates to deal with their differences in a problem-solving framework, he will want to ask himself, “In what kind of setting will the parties to this dispute be best able to discuss their differences with a minimum of interference and threat?” He will exclude from such a setting any individuals whose presence will embarrass the disputants if the latter “back down” from previously held points of view. It will be a setting which reflects as much informality and psychological comfort as possible.
He can suggest procedures which facilitate problem solving. One of the key needs in a dispute is to separate an idea from the person who first proposes it. This increases the chance of examining the idea critically and objectively without implying criticism of the person. Techniques like brainstorming, for example, are designed to free people from the necessity to defend their ideas during an exploration period. Another facilitating action is outlining an orderly set of procedures (e.g., examining objectives, obtaining relevant data) for the disputants to follow as they seek a constructive resolution of their difference.
Managerial Objectivity
Thus far we have tended to make the unrealistic assumption that the manager is able to maintain his own objectivity in the face of a difference among his subordinates. Obviously, this does not easily happen because his feelings also tend to become involved. It is, in fact, not unusual for people to react to differences more on the basis of their own feelings than on the basis of some rational approach to the problem at hand.
A manager may be deeply concerned about the disruptive effects of a disagreement. He may be troubled about how the persistence of a dispute will affect him personally or his position in the organization. He may worry about the danger of coming under personal attack, or of incurring the anger and hostility of important subordinates or a superior. He may become anxious as another person expresses deep feelings, without really understanding why.
While sometimes personal feelings of this kind are at the conscious level, often they are unrecognized by the manager himself because they lie in the area of the unconscious. This, then, highlights the importance of the manager’s own self-awareness. While we do not intend to deal with this topic here, it might be well to note some “alerting signals” to which the manager might pay attention when he confronts a difference.
Certain kinds of behavior may indicate that the manager’s handling of differences is strongly influenced by his personal needs and feelings rather than by the objective interests of the organization—as, for example:
A persistent tendency to surround himself with yes men.
Emphasizing loyalty and cooperation in a way that makes disagreement seem equivalent to disloyalty and rebellion.
A persistent tendency to “pour oil on troubled waters” whenever differences arise.
Glossing over serious differences in order to maintain an appearance of harmony and teamwork.
Accepting ambiguous resolutions of differences which permit conflicting parties to arrive at dissimilar interpretations.
Exploiting differences to strengthen his personal position of influence through the weakening of the position of others.
Any of these kinds of behavior could, as we have already suggested, be appropriate in certain situations and actually serve the general interest of the organization. If, however, they represent rather consistent patterns on the part of the manager, then it may be worth his while to examine more closely the reasons for his actions.
There are times in the lives of most of us when our personal needs are the strongest determinants of our behavior. Fortunately, most organizations can tolerate a limited amount of such self-oriented behavior on the part of their managers. The danger occurs if an individual believes that his actions are solely motivated by the “good of the organization” when, in fact, he is operating on the basis of other kinds of personal motivation without being aware of it.
The manager who is more fully aware of his own feelings and inclinations is in a better position to diagnose a situation accurately and to choose rationally the kind of behavior which is in the best interests of the organization.