Case Study: Conflict, Vulnerability, Bureaucracy
With a working definition at hand, I want to spend a couple of days looking at real world examples submitted by my readers and collaborators, both here and at Nonprofit Online News. My objectives for this include (1) identifying core concepts upon which I should expand, (2) grounding this conversation in real world case studies, and (3) exploring the practical issues raised by those cases.
In a very clear illustration of the connection between personal authenticity and organizational dynamics, Dane Keehn writes:
I run a conflict resolution program for the City of Seattle. Mainly, we try to get employees of the City who are having trouble with other employees, to talk authentically to each other. Not an easy thing to do. Among other things, being authentic, and having an authentic dialogue with someone you are in conflict with, means being vulnerable. In the best of situations, most individuals shy away from that. Embed that individual deep within a bureaucracy and that shyness usually petrifies into a powerful resistance.
As indicated by the title of this post, I see at least three concepts here that are worth deeper exploration: the way that conflict provides both an opportunity and a barrier to authenticity, how authenticity pushes people buttons around vulnerability, and how a bureaucracy can amplify both the sense of vulnerability and the corresponding conflict averse behavior. I think there is much wisdom to be drawn from the practice and profession of conflict resolution and I look forward to drawing that wisdom out, from you and from others I know in the field. That will no doubt be the subject of more than one entry. Vulnerability definitely relates to the well-developed field of risk and risk management, but in this context it’s much more about discovering what it takes to create a safe environment for people to take risks, particularly in what they say. The role of bureaucracy is not just about culture. I think it has a lot to do with the flow of information and power in tightly managed hierarchies. That will be particularly interesting to unravel.
If you feel comfortable sharing this, I think your example would be a very good one for helping ground us further in the real world of barriers and enablers of authenticity. Some of the questions I would ask of you include: What is it about the bureaucracy that increases resistance? How successful can one individual be in this context in championing personal authenticity? Have you seen some managers create more authentic environments than others, and if so, how? Other than mediation, what practical tools do you provide?
Posted: November 5th, 2006 under Case Studies.
Leave Comment | Comments (2)
Comments
Comment from Ivo Roper
Time: November 9, 2006, 11:41 am
I am pleased, what I’ve read here seems like an excellent stage setting for developing a powerful set of tools and perspectives.
Authentic communication is a huge challenge, especially when those involved have only the random hodge-podge of culturally supplied perspectives and communication skills.
I have an additional aspect of organizational communication that I’d like to bring up. It’s the issue of translation, even among native speakers of the same language. A significant subset of the time people will have such different personal takes on apparently simple terms that substantial conflicts can arise due to hidden miscommunications. I say hidden because many people assume that the definitions of words are singular and thus don’t even raise the question of what people might mean.
Some people have experienced that difficulty enough in their lives to feel insecure about communication in general. And sometimes it’s been generalized into pet theories such as “Some people are just crazy” or “Bill is freaky about money.” A very good moderator can often diffuse such situations as they occur, but I think improving communication expectations and skills of all involved is a worthy goal. Scarcity is part of that equation, but I personally think understanding the need for active listening and translation is a goal in itself.
To reframe the topic somewhat, I think that authenticity is supported by the belief that people can have very different subtexts for even basic words, and that one of the first things to check when a conflict occurs is what each person thinks is happening, and addressing misunderstandings. That’s partially addressed by active listening and other general communication skills, but I think knowing how different people are under the hood is important in itself.
Pingback from The Authentic Organization » Shared Vocabulary and Authenticity
Time: November 20, 2006, 2:38 pm
[...] Ivo Roper touches on an aspect of this in his recent comment: I have an additional aspect of organizational communication that I’d like to bring up. It’s the issue of translation, even among native speakers of the same language. A significant subset of the time people will have such different personal takes on apparently simple terms that substantial conflicts can arise due to hidden miscommunications. [...]
Write a comment