Interpersonal Conflict 

Conflict is a normal part of human relationships, even in the church. The New Testament shows that Paul, Peter, Barnabas, and others had conflict with people — even with other Christians. 

However, not all conflict is bad. In fact, conflict may at times be good for an organization. Conflict gets our attention. Normal and healthy conflict can help a group clarify its goals. It can also be the catalyst for making necessary changes. 

Remember also that sometimes what appears on the surface to be the source of conflict is not the true source at all; it is only a symptom of the real problem. The source is almost always below the surface. 

But let’s assume you are facing the “unhealthy” version of conflict among some of your team members.  What should you do?  Before you begin your involvement in this process, confirm that the individuals in conflict have attempted to work out the problem among themselves.  Assuming that they have made an attempt and yet the conflict remains: 

1. Get involved informally.  Discuss the incident with each employee and listen for both sides of the story.  If it’s a minor issue (e.g., poor communication) and both parties agree to be reconciled, merely place a simple note in each employee’s file documenting what happened.
2. If the above does not work, begin the formal reconciliation process by conducting a careful investigation to get all the facts straight.  When management takes action before investigating thoroughly, it devalues the workers involved and true justice is not served with love.
3. Obtain written statements from witnesses.
4. Present your observations to each individual orally.  Allow time for discussion and clarification.  If this discussion confirms your initial findings, present those findings in writing to the employee and explain how this incident falls short of minimum expectations.
5. Ask each employee for a written response.
6. Decide on a course of action (this may involve some form of training).  Remember, the goal is reconciliation.
7. Develop something similar to the above as a policy within your organization which you follow and enforce.

There is great value in a functional justice system in your workplace.

 (Matthew 5:9, Matthew 18:15-17, and I Corinthians 6:1-11) 

--see http://www.ibiblioteca.ro/justiceinpractice.html for more information

Performance Problems 

I would venture a guess that everyone reading this Weekly Insight has, at one time or another, been involved with a performance appraisal system (either as a supervisor/manager or an employee).  Most of us would not question the potential value of a well-thought out and well-executed system.  So why is it that most of these systems just do not work?  Here’s an observation as to why: most supervisors and managers do not have the courage to be honest about their feelings and observations regarding performance problems.  It’s so much easier (emotionally and otherwise) to just deliver a feel-good message that will be readily accepted by an employee.   But easy does not mean right.   

When done correctly, a performance review summarizes prior conversations you’ve had with the employee, perhaps through your monthly one-on-one meetings (see 1-23 COACH in the DayStar Consulting Archive).  There are no surprises during the performance appraisal session.  Performance problems documented here should be no different from  any performance problems you’ve been working on throughout the year (this assumes an annual formal appraisal).  This idea of Performance Coaching versus Performance Appraisal is very appealing to me.   

Letting Someone Go 

I used to talk to my colleagues about allowing individuals to “fire themselves.”  That is, rather than trying to build a case against the employee by documenting one performance issue after another in the person’s file, I would work on helping the employee improve his performance.  I called these documents “get well” plans.   

Once a performance issue came to light, I would start the “get well” process.  This involved identifying to the employee the performance issue (where he was falling short of expectations) and gaining agreement from the employee on that issue.  We would then brainstorm what needed to be done to improve the employee’s performance.  These terms were usually cast as S.M.A.R.T. goals (i.e., Specific, Measurable, Agreed to, Realistic, and Time Based).  The employee was given a deadline (usually 30 days) in which to make the behavior change, knowing that consequences (up to and including termination) would follow. 

If after the allotted time the employee had not brought his performance up to our agreed-upon standard, I would give him (as a final measure) one day off with pay to think about whether he wanted to remain in our organization. 

Upon his return to work, he would sign a document that agreed to an immediate change in behavior.  He also understood that any further performance issue along this same line would basically lead to his “firing himself.”

Of course, if he chose not to return to work, we both understood that he had chosen to “fire himself.” 

The above system is not perfect, but I have experienced some success using it. 

Remember, part of your job as a leader is to communicate expectations and then hold people accountable to those expectations.  It is your employee’s job to then live up to these responsibilities.  It takes courage from both the leader and the follower to do what is right.

Have a great week!

Keith