Leadership’s Role in Lateral Conflict

There is always a vertical manager hierarchy in every organization. Some companies this hierarchy is short, others can be quite layered. When it comes to problem solving protocol, there are typically rules to follow. One well known rule is you never leap frog your direct reporting manager. This is proven political and career ending suicide. I want to address a lessor known, or possibly not practiced, management protocol regarding lateral conflict resolution.

When conflict arises between intradepartmental team members, it’s leaderships’ role to resolve it, while retaining the team member’s relationship.

Here are the steps that have worked in my experiences:

1. One or both of the conflicting team members contacts their direct manager and explains the situation
2. The direct manager contacts the non-direct member’s manager
3. The two, or more, managers involved in the situation discuss resolution, independent of the team members (this does not exclude input from the team member)
4. These managers explain the resolution to their direct reports

The benefit from this conflict resolution approach preserves the day-to-day working relationship of the team members.

This protocol can be effective at any level of management. I would hope the higher up the leadership chain the conflict rises, the quicker the solution, based on all the factors contributing to this level’s position. Too often, conflict resolution is restricted to the team member and reporting manager. This eliminates the other parties involved in the conflict and reduces resolution success, at least in the long term.

Work/LIfe Balance

You can't help but to have heard this term before. The tech industry is showing both sides of this cultural spectrum, with Netflix offering unlimited maternity time-off for both the mother and father on one side and Amazon pushing their associates to their limits on the other. Work-Live-Play complexes are sprouting up everywhere.

The operative word here is "balance". Managing a company strictly by data eliminates humanity. Too much flexibility and productivity can suffer. Every humans' needs are different. As I have mentioned in a previous blog, management is responsible to learn what motivates their associates. So how do you create the perfect balance, when no two people are the same?

The basic factors:

• Data - In business you must have measurements, financial and productivity
• Competition - I believe that a certain level of competition is healthy among associates, as well as "constructive" conflict. This country was founded on free enterprise and has thrived on competition
• Family or social life outside of work
• Health - Physical, mental and financial

What's the magic formula for work/life balance? I don't think anyone has developed it, nor do I believe it exists. How can it exist, with so many factors? If I took the time to dig very deep, I could probably write a Doctorial treatise on the subject. This would take years of research on a constantly changing target, as society evolves and companies come and go. Not only are no two people the same; no two companies are the same.

The question that needs to be asked, when choosing a company culture, is, "How much does the company own you." You can state what a miserable workplace exists at Amazon, but they were just rated the most valuable retail company over Walmart. That doesn't mean you should work there. As a company, you may decide your most valuable assets, hopefully after your customers, are your associates.

Companies will continue to push associates. Associates will continue to push back. This is how change works.