On the 9-Dec-98 18:54:38 you wrote:
> Your answer didn't address disagreement head on, you rightfully showed how it
> could be avoided in the first place. Here's an actual case:
>
> My boss said that I needed to help make new sales calls to boost revenues. I
> said, and provided evidence, that calls on existing customers resulted in far
> more revenues than new sales calls, even if they resulted in a sale. Second
> sales revenues were greater than first sales plus many first sales calls did
> not result in any revenue at all. However, salesmen received a commission on
> first sales and almost nothing for second and subsequent. I received no
> commission, but would get raises based on total revenues supported (I was a
> support person). We fundamentally disagreed and that was conflict. For what it
> is worth, I did offer to compromise and do 25% new sales (to help keep salesmen
> employed) and 76% growing existing accounts, but that was summarily rejected.
> Now what?
> --
> Prof. John L. Naman naman+@pitt.edu
>
What an appalling manager!!
Conflict resolution is another topic that demands our attention, and
falls outside the SMA debate.
The conflict here came about due to a mis-match between the
individuals role and the way they are rewarded. It makes no sense to
the individual to concentrate on non revenue generation calls as the
individual would be out of pocket. The compromise sounds like a
good one.
The individual lin this case has few positive choices:
1. put up and shut up
2. use the grievance procedure to achieve change
3. attempt to change the reward structure
4. transfer to another dept
5. leave
It would be interesting to know what the line managers objectives
were. I'll wager his staff turnover is quite high!
Under SMA the whole process is more open as there is a clear, overt
link between departmental and business objectives, therefore
minimising this type of conflict.
Regards
Steve Wright
National H.R.
SWRIG@KILONDON