Chris Michel asks if organizational conflict is created by the
2-dimensional nature of the organizational chart.
This is an interesting area for research. It is not anything I have ever
thought, but there may be merit in it.
I may be a contrarian on this issue of organizational conflict. My view
is that conflict creates an environment of creative tension in which
paradigms are more likely to change, but only if the conflict is a
constructive one. Of course, since changing paradigms is good, then
constructive conflict is also good. Therefore the real problem with
organizational conflict is that it is so infrequently constructive.
You ask a series of questions, and I can give you my viewpoint on them.
It may shed light on your research.
You ask, "Why do cross-functional projects generate conflict in my
corporation?"
My perspective is that it is because within our current paradigm, our
goals appear to conflict.
You ask, "How do organizational objectives, seemingly aligned at the
Senior Management level, become disjointed and conflicting objectives as
they cascade to down through the org?"
In my company, it is because even at the senior level it is understood
that the objectives, viewed within our current paradigms, conflict. In
other words, senior management agrees that they need the organization to
achieve "mutually conflicting" objectives. They are, in effect, asking
the org to find a new paradigm. My experience is that new paradigms can
be found if the participants can engage in constructive conflict.
"How do other companies deal with these struggles; do other companies
experience the same of similar problems?"
Some companies are able to engage in constructive conflict. They may be
able to change paradigms more easily than other companies. However,
constructive conflict is often a pretty heated affair. Just because it is
constructive does not mean that there is no passion. Only that the
passion is directed at the problem, and not the people.
"What can be done about this seemingly pervasive organizational phenomena?"
Mostly, training can help move to constructive conflict. However, some
people seem unable to learn to leave personalities out.
I would suggest a subtle change to your hypothesis. 'Non-constructive
conflict originates from mental models that result from interpretation of
the org chart.'
I suggest really 2 changes. First, focus on non-constructive conflict,
not all conflict. Second, when you refer to mental models originating in
the one-dimensional org matrix, you are implicitly suggesting the solution
which is multi-dimensional org matrix. I think you may be on to something
about the org chart being a cause, but it may not be its dimensionality.
For example, from my own experience I can imagine that the head of a
department may have a mental model that it is her job to achieve the goals
of her department. The org chart 'teaches' her that by its layout with
her at the top. Another viewpoint -- which might lead to a more
constructive set of interactions with other department heads -- could be
to see her job as to help the COMPANY achieve its goals. With that
viewpoint she might approach interactions with others in a more
collaborative fashion. It would be especially true if that viewpoint
about achieving COMPANY goals was widely shared among her peers, so that
they then had a common goal.
Good luck with your research. Keep us posted.
-- Rol Fessenden LL Bean 76234.3636@compuserve.com