Discussion: View Thread

On 4 Dec 98 at 16:01, Erwin Rausch wrote:


> When writing on conflict, at least during the last few years, I have
> attempted to make it clear that I am speaking of 'potentially
> damaging' conflict, because, as everyone is aware, competition is a
> special form of conflict. Much internal as well as external
> competition can be very useful for all kinds of things. And
> competition is not the only type of conflict that CAN be productive
> or have a silver lining.

That's certainly consistent with my work also. I use the phrase
potentially damaging conflict, or damaging conflict.
>
> However, when speaking of conflict MANAGEMENT, I believe we are
> really referring to more than conflict resolution - though I admit
> that even my own early views and approaches to the topic did
> concentrate on the RESOLUTION phase.

It sound like you know your way around the subject, but conflict
management is usually (or perhaps properly) defined as a rational
process of making choices about how to handle a particular conflict
situation. In some cases that choice might be to ignore or avoid it,
or compromise, etc. Resolution really refers to working with it so it
is no longer an active force.

>
> Since then, however, I have come to appreciate more and more the
> importance of IDENTIFICATION, and PREVENTION (primarily of
> potentially damaging conflict, of course) as topics, issues, or
> skills, that deserve serious attention in management education and
> development.

This year, in addition to a book to hit the stores this week on
Performance Management, I did another book entitled "Conflict
Prevention In The Workplace - Using Cooperative Communication" which
deals directly with at least part of the issue (the
language/communication side in a broad sense).

Feel free to drop by one of our websites for more info:

Try http://members.xoom.com/cooperate/index.htm (Our main site)

http://members.xoom.com/workconflict/index.htm (Our conflict site)

OR, you can actually read the middle section of the book in Acrobat
format at: http://members.xoom.com/worknews/index.htm

Robert Bacal, Join the Performance Management/Appraisal discussion group by sending an email to perfmgt-subscribe@egroups.com
Visit the Perf. Management/Appraisal Resource Center at http://members.xoom.com/perform/index.htm

On 4 Dec 98 at 18:24, Edward Hampton wrote:


> The more competition is maintained on a cognitive level - - e.g.
> competition against a standard versus other peers or other
> teams/organizations, the more likely it will produce positive
> impacts. Rationale (generalizing your distinction to this
> application): once competition slips from the cognitive level, it
> intuitively seems that it will move to an interpersonal level and
> will more likely engender interpersonal conflict.

I'm not sure I understand completely, so if I have this wrong, please
let me know. It sounds to me that you are talking about conflict
which is "cognitive" (relatively unemotional?) and that which is
affective (emotionally charged?).

I agree that the more emotionalized a conflict the more likely it
will be personalized which is almost always destructive in most ways.
However, in essence most conflict involves emotion when people care
about the issues. Passion and commitment to a position is important,
but is not necessarily going to result in personalization.

One of the things I am doing, after a long time in the conflict
management and anger defusing arena is working with people (via book
and seminars) to teach them how to communicate their positions, to
appreciate the positions of others in ways that will reduce the
probability of personalized conflict occuring.

We can disagree. We can disagree in ways that are confrontational and
likely to create high emotions and non-listening. We can disagree and
"conflict" in ways that will be productive.

Sort of a "fighting fair" slant.


So,
> organizations who reward based on a subjective appraisal of "best"
> are probably more likely to create adverse effects than an
> organization who rewards based on objective criteria or competition
> against a standard. Why? because subjective standards invite
> comparison at an interpersonal level while objective standards
> encourage/enable operation at a cognitive level. As you say,
> "interpersonal conflict is to be avoided at all cost." So, a
> "prevention" that Erin Rausch speaks to would be to structure reward
> systems so they don't "become personal", i.e. rewarding based on
> achieving a standard versus "beating" a fellow worker/team member.

I dislike subjective appraisals. My experience (appraisals and
conflict happen to be the two areas of interest to me this year) is
that what you cite doesn't HAVE to happen. In fact, lousy appraisal,
whether it be subjective or objective can have the effects you
describe.

Robert Bacal, Join the Performance Management/Appraisal discussion group by sending an email to perfmgt-subscribe@egroups.com
Visit the Perf. Management/Appraisal Resource Center at http://members.xoom.com/perform/index.htm

Driving home last night and mulling over postings on this net and
another, I had this flash:

To make conflict a useful tool in performance or change management,
"conflict management" should be viewed as the intentional introduction
of conflict to effect change in a team or organization.

To explain,

While I agree with earlier comments that we focus too much on conflict
management and not conflict resolution, that focussing on conflict
resolution (because conflict is "bad") can cause us to overlook the
essential requirement and utility of conflict. For example one cycle of
change espouses the sequence: denial, resistance, exploration, and
comittment. And a popular model for group growth is Forming, Storming,
Norming, Performing (I peronsally like Shultz's Inclusion, Control,
Opennes).

At any rate you see a common idea is that there is a phase of tumult.
All would agree that that phase is not only unavoidable, it is
necessary.

This is true in development. And in development, we orient towards
conflict resolution, i.e. getting the team beyond the tumultous phase.

But what about a team who is at the "end" of the sequence? I believe to
gain higher performance you have to throw them back into the tumultuous
phase. As Margaret Wheatly might say, get them into chaos or bring out
the quantum nature of people, i.e. remove patterns so new patterns can
emerge. If you throw in the idea of frozen groups and the necessity of
the disruptive role you might see this cycle:

Group develops thru conflict resolution, Group stabilizes, Consultant
destabilizes by introducing conflict in an intentional way, Group
develops thru conflict resolution, ad infinitum.

Thoughts?

Ed
Drive On!

Ed

I believe that in addition to the thoughts you expressed is the notion that
conflict may exist at two levels and it is important to understand the
impact of these two levels as the context for your remarks. I believe that
interpersonal conflict is to be avoided at all costs while cognitive
conflict is to be encouraged and initiated if necessary. So introducing
cognitive conflict to improve performance is good but introducing
interpersonal conflict is not good.

Glenn

At 01:25 PM 12/4/1998 -0500, you wrote:
>Driving home last night and mulling over postings on this net and
>another, I had this flash:
>
>To make conflict a useful tool in performance or change management,
>"conflict management" should be viewed as the intentional introduction
>of conflict to effect change in a team or organization.
>
>To explain,
>
>While I agree with earlier comments that we focus too much on conflict
>management and not conflict resolution, that focussing on conflict
>resolution (because conflict is "bad") can cause us to overlook the
>essential requirement and utility of conflict. For example one cycle of
>change espouses the sequence: denial, resistance, exploration, and
>comittment. And a popular model for group growth is Forming, Storming,
>Norming, Performing (I peronsally like Shultz's Inclusion, Control,
>Opennes).
>
>At any rate you see a common idea is that there is a phase of tumult.
>All would agree that that phase is not only unavoidable, it is
>necessary.
>
>This is true in development. And in development, we orient towards
>conflict resolution, i.e. getting the team beyond the tumultous phase.
>
>But what about a team who is at the "end" of the sequence? I believe to
>gain higher performance you have to throw them back into the tumultuous
>phase. As Margaret Wheatly might say, get them into chaos or bring out
>the quantum nature of people, i.e. remove patterns so new patterns can
>emerge. If you throw in the idea of frozen groups and the necessity of
>the disruptive role you might see this cycle:
>
>Group develops thru conflict resolution, Group stabilizes, Consultant
>destabilizes by introducing conflict in an intentional way, Group
>develops thru conflict resolution, ad infinitum.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Ed
>Drive On!
>
>
W. Glenn Rowe
Associate Professor of Strategic Management
and, Director, Centre for Management Development
Faculty of Business Administration
Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. John's, NF, A1B 3X5
709 737 7977 or 4363
709 739 9148 (H)

In response to Ed Hampton's posting, I feel that he certainly has a point that
deserves consideration. It might be useful to add another thought to the
issue of 'conflict management'.

When writing on conflict, at least during the last few years, I have attempted
to make it clear that I am speaking of 'potentially damaging' conflict,
because, as everyone is aware, competition is a special form of conflict.
Much internal as well as external competition can be very useful for all kinds
of things. And competition is not the only type of conflict that CAN be
productive or have a silver lining.

However, when speaking of conflict MANAGEMENT, I believe we are really
referring to more than conflict resolution - though I admit that even my own
early views and approaches to the topic did concentrate on the RESOLUTION
phase.

Since then, however, I have come to appreciate more and more the importance of
IDENTIFICATION, and PREVENTION (primarily of potentially damaging conflict, of
course) as topics, issues, or skills, that deserve serious attention in
management education and development.

I have not seen much on these two aspects directly, though they are, of
course, tacitly implied, in part, in team building, trust development, values,
etc.

Any thoughts or leads?

Erwin (Rausch)

Ed--

I think your point about needing "a conflict stage" is well-taken. I
would go beyond that to say that we need conflict not only in
the developmental process of groups but also as part of every
decision-making process in which they engage.

If our work groups develop norms to avoid conflict, we are likely to
end up in the Abilene Paradox--where the group makes a decision to do
something that no one in the group really likes (Jerry Harvey)--or
groupthink--where individuals in the group never really evaluate others'
positions or express alternative viewpoints (Irving Janis). Both of these
common, even pandemic, dilemnas are avoided primarily by people "owning
up" to their own views and feelings--which requires a willingness to
engage in conflict (specifically, to risk "rejection" by the group.)

I teach my students (in Group Dynamics) to welcome constructive
(cognitive) conflict but to address it immediately--in an atmosphere of
respect and openness--so as to keep it from going on so long that it
deteriorates into destructive (affective) conflict. Not always easy, of
course but IMHO we have no alternative.

Ruth
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth H. Axelrod | For every complex
Organizational Behavior & Development | problem, there is a
The George Washington University | simple solution--
Home: | and it's wrong.
(301)593-4938 |
11372 Baroque Road, Silver Spring, MD 20901 | H. L. Mencken
Mailto: raxelrod@gwu.edu |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, Edward Hampton wrote:

> Driving home last night and mulling over postings on this net and
> another, I had this flash:
>
> To make conflict a useful tool in performance or change management,
> "conflict management" should be viewed as the intentional introduction
> of conflict to effect change in a team or organization.
>
> To explain,
>
> While I agree with earlier comments that we focus too much on conflict
> management and not conflict resolution, that focussing on conflict
> resolution (because conflict is "bad") can cause us to overlook the
> essential requirement and utility of conflict. For example one cycle of
> change espouses the sequence: denial, resistance, exploration, and
> comittment. And a popular model for group growth is Forming, Storming,
> Norming, Performing (I peronsally like Shultz's Inclusion, Control,
> Opennes).
>
> At any rate you see a common idea is that there is a phase of tumult.
> All would agree that that phase is not only unavoidable, it is
> necessary.
>
> This is true in development. And in development, we orient towards
> conflict resolution, i.e. getting the team beyond the tumultous phase.
>
> But what about a team who is at the "end" of the sequence? I believe to
> gain higher performance you have to throw them back into the tumultuous
> phase. As Margaret Wheatly might say, get them into chaos or bring out
> the quantum nature of people, i.e. remove patterns so new patterns can
> emerge. If you throw in the idea of frozen groups and the necessity of
> the disruptive role you might see this cycle:
>
> Group develops thru conflict resolution, Group stabilizes, Consultant
> destabilizes by introducing conflict in an intentional way, Group
> develops thru conflict resolution, ad infinitum.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Ed
> Drive On!
>

Thank you and well put.

Your distinction and comments by Erwin Rausch inspired this glimmer
towards answering the question of what makes competition healthy or
unhealthy.

The more competition is maintained on a cognitive level - - e.g.
competition against a standard versus other peers or other
teams/organizations, the more likely it will produce positive impacts.
Rationale (generalizing your distinction to this application): once
competition slips from the cognitive level, it intuitively seems that it
will move to an interpersonal level and will more likely engender
interpersonal conflict. So, organizations who reward based on a
subjective appraisal of "best" are probably more likely to create
adverse effects than an organization who rewards based on objective
criteria or competition against a standard. Why? because subjective
standards invite comparison at an interpersonal level while objective
standards encourage/enable operation at a cognitive level. As you say,
"interpersonal conflict is to be avoided at all cost." So, a
"prevention" that Erin Rausch speaks to would be to structure reward
systems so they don't "become personal", i.e. rewarding based on
achieving a standard versus "beating" a fellow worker/team member.

Again, thanks to your and Erin Rausch for this needed clarification in
my thinking.

Have a great holiday.

Ed
Drive On!


>>> Glenn Rowe <growe@MORGAN.UCS.MUN.CA> 12/04 3:06 PM >>>
Ed

I believe that in addition to the thoughts you expressed is the notion
that
conflict may exist at two levels and it is important to understand the
impact of these two levels as the context for your remarks. I believe
that
interpersonal conflict is to be avoided at all costs while cognitive
conflict is to be encouraged and initiated if necessary. So
introducing
cognitive conflict to improve performance is good but introducing
interpersonal conflict is not good.

Glenn

At 01:25 PM 12/4/1998 -0500, you wrote:
>Driving home last night and mulling over postings on this net and
>another, I had this flash:
>
>To make conflict a useful tool in performance or change management,
>"conflict management" should be viewed as the intentional
introduction
>of conflict to effect change in a team or organization.
>
>To explain,
>
>While I agree with earlier comments that we focus too much on
conflict
>management and not conflict resolution, that focussing on conflict
>resolution (because conflict is "bad") can cause us to overlook the
>essential requirement and utility of conflict. For example one cycle
of
>change espouses the sequence: denial, resistance, exploration, and
>comittment. And a popular model for group growth is Forming,
Storming,
>Norming, Performing (I peronsally like Shultz's Inclusion, Control,
>Opennes).
>
>At any rate you see a common idea is that there is a phase of tumult.
>All would agree that that phase is not only unavoidable, it is
>necessary.
>
>This is true in development. And in development, we orient towards
>conflict resolution, i.e. getting the team beyond the tumultous
phase.
>
>But what about a team who is at the "end" of the sequence? I believe
to
>gain higher performance you have to throw them back into the
tumultuous
>phase. As Margaret Wheatly might say, get them into chaos or bring
out
>the quantum nature of people, i.e. remove patterns so new patterns
can
>emerge. If you throw in the idea of frozen groups and the necessity
of
>the disruptive role you might see this cycle:
>
>Group develops thru conflict resolution, Group stabilizes, Consultant
>destabilizes by introducing conflict in an intentional way, Group
>develops thru conflict resolution, ad infinitum.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Ed
>Drive On!
>
>
W. Glenn Rowe
Associate Professor of Strategic Management
and, Director, Centre for Management Development
Faculty of Business Administration
Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. John's, NF, A1B 3X5
709 737 7977 or 4363
709 739 9148 (H)

Hey, there, I am not an "Ed"---I am an "Edryce"---please.

Okay, conflict certainly exists in the ways you describe. I just have a
different take on the "badness" of introducing interpersonal conflict.
That kind of conflict occurs so often in the workplace, in life, why
wouldn't we want to help people learn to deal with it?

Edryce
(I am female!)


On Fri, 4 Dec 1998 17:06:59 -0300 Glenn Rowe <growe@MORGAN.UCS.MUN.CA>
writes:
>Ed
>
>I believe that in addition to the thoughts you expressed is the notion
>that
>conflict may exist at two levels and it is important to understand the
>impact of these two levels as the context for your remarks. I believe
>that
>interpersonal conflict is to be avoided at all costs while cognitive
>conflict is to be encouraged and initiated if necessary. So
>introducing
>cognitive conflict to improve performance is good but introducing
>interpersonal conflict is not good.
>
>Glenn
>
>At 01:25 PM 12/4/1998 -0500, you wrote:
>>Driving home last night and mulling over postings on this net and
>>another, I had this flash:
>>
>>To make conflict a useful tool in performance or change management,
>>"conflict management" should be viewed as the intentional
>introduction
>>of conflict to effect change in a team or organization.
>>
>>To explain,
>>
>>While I agree with earlier comments that we focus too much on
>conflict
>>management and not conflict resolution, that focussing on conflict
>>resolution (because conflict is "bad") can cause us to overlook the
>>essential requirement and utility of conflict. For example one cycle
>of
>>change espouses the sequence: denial, resistance, exploration, and
>>comittment. And a popular model for group growth is Forming,
>Storming,
>>Norming, Performing (I peronsally like Shultz's Inclusion, Control,
>>Opennes).
>>
>>At any rate you see a common idea is that there is a phase of tumult.
>>All would agree that that phase is not only unavoidable, it is
>>necessary.
>>
>>This is true in development. And in development, we orient towards
>>conflict resolution, i.e. getting the team beyond the tumultous
>phase.
>>
>>But what about a team who is at the "end" of the sequence? I believe
>to
>>gain higher performance you have to throw them back into the
>tumultuous
>>phase. As Margaret Wheatly might say, get them into chaos or bring
>out
>>the quantum nature of people, i.e. remove patterns so new patterns
>can
>>emerge. If you throw in the idea of frozen groups and the necessity
>of
>>the disruptive role you might see this cycle:
>>
>>Group develops thru conflict resolution, Group stabilizes, Consultant
>>destabilizes by introducing conflict in an intentional way, Group
>>develops thru conflict resolution, ad infinitum.
>>
>>Thoughts?
>>
>>Ed
>>Drive On!
>>
>>
>W. Glenn Rowe
>Associate Professor of Strategic Management
>and, Director, Centre for Management Development
>Faculty of Business Administration
>Memorial University of Newfoundland
>St. John's, NF, A1B 3X5
>709 737 7977 or 4363
>709 739 9148 (H)
>

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

In a message dated 98-12-04 16:56:25 EST, you write:

<<
On 4 Dec 98 at 16:01, Erwin Rausch wrote:

> When writing on conflict, at least during the last few years, I have
> attempted to make it clear that I am speaking of 'potentially
> damaging' conflict, because, as everyone is aware, competition is a
> special form of conflict. Much internal as well as external
> competition can be very useful for all kinds of things. And
> competition is not the only type of conflict that CAN be productive
> or have a silver lining.

That's certainly consistent with my work also. I use the phrase
potentially damaging conflict, or damaging conflict.
>
> However, when speaking of conflict MANAGEMENT, I believe we are
> really referring to more than conflict resolution - though I admit
> that even my own early views and approaches to the topic did
> concentrate on the RESOLUTION phase.

It sound like you know your way around the subject, but conflict
management is usually (or perhaps properly) defined as a rational
process of making choices about how to handle a particular conflict
situation. In some cases that choice might be to ignore or avoid it,
or compromise, etc. Resolution really refers to working with it so it
is no longer an active force.

>
> Since then, however, I have come to appreciate more and more the
> importance of IDENTIFICATION, and PREVENTION (primarily of
> potentially damaging conflict, of course) as topics, issues, or
> skills, that deserve serious attention in management education and
> development.

This year, in addition to a book to hit the stores this week on
Performance Management, I did another book entitled "Conflict
Prevention In The Workplace - Using Cooperative Communication" which
deals directly with at least part of the issue (the
language/communication side in a broad sense).

Feel free to drop by one of our websites for more info:

Try http://members.xoom.com/cooperate/index.htm (Our main site)

http://members.xoom.com/workconflict/index.htm (Our conflict site)

OR, you can actually read the middle section of the book in Acrobat
format at: http://members.xoom.com/worknews/index.htm

Robert Bacal, Join the Performance Management/Appraisal discussion group by
sending an email to perfmgt-subscribe@egroups.com
Visit the Perf. Management/Appraisal Resource Center at
http://members.xoom.com/perform/index.htm
>

Robert

Glad to see that we are fellow travelers on the 'conflict prevention' trail.

When it comes to 'management' vs. 'resolution', we are mostly into
definitions, though it would seem that management is a broader term that can
easily accommodate resolution and other activities, while it does not work as
well the other way 'round.

I have always looked at the selection of options as one of the steps in
resolution of a conflict and here I see merit in your mention of 'ignore it'
as one possible option in addition to the five on which Wally Wohlking got me
started: acceding, using authority, postponing, compromising and finding a
creative/win-win solution. Usually I have looked at 'ignoring' and
'avoidance' as decisions that precede the steps in resolution, and may not
even be part of 'managing' conflict. However, all this becomes more a matter
of personal preference and it's up to the practitioner how to categorize so
the thought processes and the actions that spring from it will fit her or his
personal style and preferences.

As soon as I get rid of some of the alligators that are in the way, I'll take
a look at your websites.

Erwin (Rausch)

On 5 Dec 98 at 22:16, Leon Levitt wrote:

> This will probably come as an alien incursion to this list, but has
> no one here read any Alfie Kohn? He has written for personnel as
> well as educational journals; and his books are accessible. One
> need not buy the whole theory, but he certainly does have a view
> that MG-ED types need to think about.

Yes, perhaps the latest fad, the lastest pop psych approach using
things that have been around for decades.

Frankly, I ain't all that keen on supposedly legitimate academics
that water down research and make it "easy"...


Robert Bacal, Join the Performance Management/Appraisal discussion group by sending an email to perfmgt-subscribe@egroups.com
Visit the Perf. Management/Appraisal Resource Center at http://members.xoom.com/perform/index.htm

This will probably come as an alien incursion to this list, but has no one here
read any Alfie Kohn? He has written for personnel as well as educational
journals; and his books are accessible. One need not buy the whole theory, but
he certainly does have a view that MG-ED types need to think about.

Erwin Rausch wrote:

> In response to Ed Hampton's posting, I feel that he certainly has a point that
> deserves consideration. It might be useful to add another thought to the
> issue of 'conflict management'.
>
> When writing on conflict, at least during the last few years, I have attempted
> to make it clear that I am speaking of 'potentially damaging' conflict,
> because, as everyone is aware, competition is a special form of conflict.
> Much internal as well as external competition can be very useful for all kinds
> of things. And competition is not the only type of conflict that CAN be
> productive or have a silver lining.
>
> However, when speaking of conflict MANAGEMENT, I believe we are really
> referring to more than conflict resolution - though I admit that even my own
> early views and approaches to the topic did concentrate on the RESOLUTION
> phase.
>
> Since then, however, I have come to appreciate more and more the importance of
> IDENTIFICATION, and PREVENTION (primarily of potentially damaging conflict, of
> course) as topics, issues, or skills, that deserve serious attention in
> management education and development.
>
> I have not seen much on these two aspects directly, though they are, of
> course, tacitly implied, in part, in team building, trust development, values,
> etc.
>
> Any thoughts or leads?
>
> Erwin (Rausch)

Those of you interested in Conflict at another level than resolution, you
might enjoy a book on Conflict Transformation by Brian Muldoon. It is called
The Heart of Conflict. I have never seen better.

Barbara Golden

On 7 Dec 98 at 14:07, David Miron wrote:

> Robert Bacal wrote (in response to the first paragraph below):

> Frankly, I ain't all that keen on supposedly legitimate academics
> that water down research and make it "easy"..."
>
> I am puzzled. Are you (Robert) making these comments having read
> Kohn? Are you making comments based on the idea that he has made
> some of his writing "accessible"? I was under the impression that he
> has done a tremendous amount of research as the basis for his
> writing. What's up?

David, the experimental research on the effects of rewards and
reinforcement on intrinsic and extrinsic motivaton has been around
for, literally, decades. It's just that it hasn't been popularized
before in a format that is more accessible to people with little or
no understanding of psychology.

There is a general problem here, and one that I have written about in
an article entitled The Problem with Pop Psychology In The Workplace,
which can be accessed at
http://members.xoom.com/cooperate/articles.htm

The problem is actually a bit complex and ties in with the book and
authoring industry, marketing, issues around "a little knowledge is a
bad thing" etc.

Pop psychology books which purport to give a balanced view of
something rarely, if ever do that. That's because you can't sell a
pop psych. book by being wishy washy or on the fence. The result is
that to get a book published (other than for an academic audience),
one has to pick and choose the research one summarizes. Or rather one
doesn't HAVE to, but most do. You find the same things in what I call
the arena of pseudo-psychology -- MBTI, Enneagrams, etc.

The questions one has to ask about a book on such a subject by a
single author, are:

Are we getting an unbiased complete picture of the existing research?
(with pop psych. books the answer is almost always NO).

What kind of critiquing process is/was available for the book?

What efforts did the author make to DISCONFIRM his or her
conclusions?

Did the author appear to START with the conclusion and then go out
and collect evidence to support it, or start looking at the evidence,
and THEN draw a conclusion.

Books such as this (and similar ones that create fads) do so by
watering down the research reviewed (most are based on REVIEWING past
research, not creating new research), simplifying it so it is easy to
read, and avoiding critiques of the research methods used in the
studies reviewes.

Unless the reader is familiar with the field, these books are likely
to be more misleading.

In short, if you want to examine the conclusions in this book and any
similar book you can't trust the author or publisher, you MUST go to
the source research, and do your own assessments.

Unfortunately, most people don't have the skills to do that
assessment, so they DO rely on books such as Kohn to get the real
deal.



>
> David Miron
Robert Bacal, Join the Performance Management/Appraisal discussion group by sending an email to perfmgt-subscribe@egroups.com
Visit the Perf. Management/Appraisal Resource Center at http://members.xoom.com/perform/index.htm

Edryce

I apologize although the name at the end of the message I responded to was
just Ed not Edryce. :)

Edryce, I agree with helping people to deal with it but I disagree with
introducing it to help people to deal with it. Affective conflict is very
damaging and when it occurs it generally means that organizational
performance will suffer. On the other hand, cognitive conflict enhances
performance as it allows better ideas to come to the fore and these ideas
are better implemented.

Glenn

At 04:27 PM 12/4/1998 -0800, you wrote:
>Hey, there, I am not an "Ed"---I am an "Edryce"---please.
>
>Okay, conflict certainly exists in the ways you describe. I just have a
>different take on the "badness" of introducing interpersonal conflict.
>That kind of conflict occurs so often in the workplace, in life, why
>wouldn't we want to help people learn to deal with it?
>
>Edryce
>(I am female!)
>
>
>On Fri, 4 Dec 1998 17:06:59 -0300 Glenn Rowe <growe@MORGAN.UCS.MUN.CA>
>writes:
>>Ed
>>
>>I believe that in addition to the thoughts you expressed is the notion
>>that
>>conflict may exist at two levels and it is important to understand the
>>impact of these two levels as the context for your remarks. I believe
>>that
>>interpersonal conflict is to be avoided at all costs while cognitive
>>conflict is to be encouraged and initiated if necessary. So
>>introducing
>>cognitive conflict to improve performance is good but introducing
>>interpersonal conflict is not good.
>>
>>Glenn
>>
>>At 01:25 PM 12/4/1998 -0500, you wrote:
>>>Driving home last night and mulling over postings on this net and
>>>another, I had this flash:
>>>
>>>To make conflict a useful tool in performance or change management,
>>>"conflict management" should be viewed as the intentional
>>introduction
>>>of conflict to effect change in a team or organization.
>>>
>>>To explain,
>>>
>>>While I agree with earlier comments that we focus too much on
>>conflict
>>>management and not conflict resolution, that focussing on conflict
>>>resolution (because conflict is "bad") can cause us to overlook the
>>>essential requirement and utility of conflict. For example one cycle
>>of
>>>change espouses the sequence: denial, resistance, exploration, and
>>>comittment. And a popular model for group growth is Forming,
>>Storming,
>>>Norming, Performing (I peronsally like Shultz's Inclusion, Control,
>>>Opennes).
>>>
>>>At any rate you see a common idea is that there is a phase of tumult.
>>>All would agree that that phase is not only unavoidable, it is
>>>necessary.
>>>
>>>This is true in development. And in development, we orient towards
>>>conflict resolution, i.e. getting the team beyond the tumultous
>>phase.
>>>
>>>But what about a team who is at the "end" of the sequence? I believe
>>to
>>>gain higher performance you have to throw them back into the
>>tumultuous
>>>phase. As Margaret Wheatly might say, get them into chaos or bring
>>out
>>>the quantum nature of people, i.e. remove patterns so new patterns
>>can
>>>emerge. If you throw in the idea of frozen groups and the necessity
>>of
>>>the disruptive role you might see this cycle:
>>>
>>>Group develops thru conflict resolution, Group stabilizes, Consultant
>>>destabilizes by introducing conflict in an intentional way, Group
>>>develops thru conflict resolution, ad infinitum.
>>>
>>>Thoughts?
>>>
>>>Ed
>>>Drive On!
>>>
>>>
>>W. Glenn Rowe
>>Associate Professor of Strategic Management
>>and, Director, Centre for Management Development
>>Faculty of Business Administration
>>Memorial University of Newfoundland
>>St. John's, NF, A1B 3X5
>>709 737 7977 or 4363
>>709 739 9148 (H)
>>
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
>Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
>or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>
>
W. Glenn Rowe
Associate Professor of Strategic Management
and, Director, Centre for Management Development
Faculty of Business Administration
Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. John's, NF, A1B 3X5
709 737 7977 or 4363
709 739 9148 (H)

Robert Bacal wrote (in response to the first paragraph below):

> This will probably come as an alien incursion to this list, but has
> no one here read any Alfie Kohn? He has written for personnel as
> well as educational journals; and his books are accessible. One
> need not buy the whole theory, but he certainly does have a view
> that MG-ED types need to think about.

"Yes, perhaps the latest fad, the lastest pop psych approach using
things that have been around for decades.

Frankly, I ain't all that keen on supposedly legitimate academics
that water down research and make it "easy"..."

I am puzzled. Are you (Robert) making these comments having read Kohn?
Are you making comments based on the idea that he has made some of his
writing "accessible"? I was under the impression that he has done a
tremendous amount of research as the basis for his writing. What's up?

David Miron