The subject is Positive Conflict. Positive Conflict is considered in the
vein of creative tension and catalysis of change. Of course this presumes
change is viewed positively.
If you've read this far and are still interested, you may want to read on.
I am writing today because it is the first chance I've had to respond to
queries by several participants to define and explain Positive Conflict,
as well as provide a few references.
I am going to write about C+ in a flow-of-consciousness manner,
characterized by the opening three sentences. I do not intend to compose
my thoughts before setting them down, so what enfolds is likely to be
unorganized. I am not going to include verbatim extracts from my writings
on the subject and its relationship to other areas of my interest. So, in
a sense, what is to come is new.
On the other hand, most, if not all, of what I can say about Positive
Conflict will not be new to you. C+ is simply a name. It is perhaps a
new way of looking at conflict. It is most of all an explanation of an
intuitive and natural process that entails (1) using tensions inherent in
most interaction; (2) stimulating tension in situations where it is
ostensibly absent; and (3) facilitating understanding of conflict and
tension and an acceptance that they are not only natural and likely
inevitable, but constructive, if not essential, to human growth. I speak
of individual learning and maturation as well as organizational and
societal survival and health.
About five years ago, I began seriously thinking about change and what
leads to it. As an educator I had been concerned with individual learning
and how to optimize it. As an OD consultant and change agent, I became
concerned with organizational effectiveness and how to bring it about. At
the crux of both fields is overcoming some blockage to change, growth, and
learning. There usually appears to be inertia and resistance, which need
to be overcome. Some write this off as resistance to change, particularly
in management and, surprisingly, among OD practitioners ourselves.
I found the notion that resistance to change is an inevitable feature of
human behavior troubling. I am not saying that it does not exist, but
that its existence is incongruent with the human being's inherent
proclivity to learn and to grow. I agree: this is a presumption, but we
must start somewhere. And, if human beings do not possess natural
curiosity and will to survive, then there is little reason for us to
explore human behavior or make an attempt at organizational learning.
That many individuals seem to lose interest in learning and change over
time is consistent with our experience and observation. Ergo, "you can't
teach an old dog new tricks." This dangerous assumption allows us to
discount individual and organizational potential and places blame on the
individual or unit instead of on the system within which they reside.
Early organizational and behavior theorists and practitioners recognized
the tendency of individuals and groups to gravitate toward a status quo.
The tendency was described as natural and probably even healthy (people
need stability, for example, we need a resting period after a period of
change). Thus, change can be thought of as incremental, analogous to
stair-steps: periods of plateau punctuated by periods of learning and
growth. The change agent's mission was to break inertia by increasing
pressure or incentives. Jeffrey Goldstein's book "The Unshackeled
Organization" explains this wonderfully.
Change does imply growth and vice versa (okay; this is another idealistic
presumption). But think of a snake or a crab who, to grow, must shed its
skin. Think of your own experiences at learning, many of which were
probably painful. The event or process was not easy, though afterward you
can appreciate what you gained from it. This can all be explained in
matters of energy exchanges; though that discussion is beyond the scope of
today's ruminations. That point is, clearly, some precipitous event,
energy, or CATALYSIS is necessary to break the inertia and lead to change.
This is the case with typical human systems. We neglect the natural
curiosity of individuals to learning and grow. In fact, we strive to
prevent their independence and variance: it is dangerous to them and to
the order. The machine model works particularly hard to dampen variance
in the name of efficiency and control. Early childhood experience,
schools, religious institutions, and other organizations all strive to
de-individuate people. Our creativity and diversity are anathema. You
might argue that this is changing with all the "empowerment" and "valuing
diversity" initiatives going on.
If such initiatives are to succeed, we have a lot of work to do on our
assumptions about people and about the design of learning and work to
allow and promote growth. Recognition of this need leads to movements
such as "organizational learning" which are laudable and well-intentioned.
Nevertheless, no one knows how to learn organizationally. Few accept
individual potential to learn. Few understand how our institutional and
organizational systems undermine learning by removing opportunities.
Anyway, this is all has to do with my initial explorations of what I
called conflict, cooperation, and change cycles. The related area of
interest here is in self-organizing systems. Self-organizing systems,
borrowed from chaos theory, lended themselves quite nicely to my ideas on
conflict and change, and resulted in the publishing, not surprisingly, of
studies on self-organization in the classroom. I've also written on
consulting as a self-organizing activity.
But back to the blaming of individuals and not the system, and here is
where traditional notions of conflict are particularly detrimental. We
have been taught to abhor open conflict. We dare not argue, especially
with authority. Questions and challenges are only acceptable under
certain circumstances. Provocations and confrontations are to be avoided
or repressed. Only right answers are acceptable. Criticism is okay, as
long as it comes from a person of superior position.
Under these conditions--and we've all grown up in them--who in his or her
right mind is going to challenge anyone [at least until we have earned our
superior position (college professors and senior managers are examples)]?
BUT, until these conditions alter and greater proportions of individuals
in families, organizations, and institutions begin challenging themselves
and one another, individual and organizational learning will continue to
limp along, desired and well-intentioned ends. These conditions are
changing too slowly because we have no means to change them. Our
experience set is too lean. We do not possess the tools. We have neither
the confidence nor the competence to change things, EVEN if we have the
opportunity, which we too seldom, but sometimes do have.
The tools and methods about which I've written in past LO submissions
attempt to help individuals recognize the value in confrontation and
tension. They attempt to assess levels of creative tension, and they
explain how constructive conflict can be achieved and channeled.
Techniques may consists of seemingly nothing more than assertiveness
training, negotiation, and conflict resolution. But they have more the
flair of group problem solving wherein conflict is perceived as healthy
than of our typical approach to conflict. One tool, for example, would be
an instrument to assess one's own conflict management style, with
recommendations for training and coaching to overcome less helpful
strategies such as avoidance or argumentation.
Any tools and methods I am developing are unproven and inadequate. I'm
sure there is a suitable array out there, and would appreciate any
recommendations.
Useful books/authors for further reference include Dean Tjosvold, Richard
Tanner Pascale, "Managing on the Edge," and Jeffrey's book earlier
mentioned.
I hope this has helped more than confused. If it generates questions and
comments, I'll be pleased.
Joe Hays
hays@volpe1.dot.gov
--"Hays, Joe" <HAYS@volpe1.dot.gov>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>