Moreover, other members of the organization were not included in the process and therefore could not examine their own roles in the conflict or participate in a solution. They also neglected to examine how the organizational structure contributed to the tension. The VPs never explored how their own untested assumptions about each others’ motives escalated the conflict. What didn’t work about the process was that it failed to address the talk underlying interpersonal and organizational structures that had given rise to the conflict. And it was easy to schedule: Only the adversaries and the consultant had to coordinate their calendars. It was also fast: It took four hours of the VPs’ time. What worked about the mediation process was that it enabled the adversaries to discuss their areas of disagreement and develop solutions. Though everyone was initially satisfied with the outcome, the results of the intervention would prove short-lived within one month, the VPs had resumed their battle of wills-to the detriment of the company as a whole. By the end of the session, the VPs were talking and even laughing together. But as they began to understand the impacts of their actions on one another and explore new ways to interact, their outward animosity gave way to greater cooperation. At the beginning of the session, the two VPs refused even to look at each other. The relationship between the two had deteriorated so badly that they were communicating only through memos, voicemail messages, and other people.
ACT BY SAGE 2010 RESOLUTION OF THE DEPENDENCY FAILED PROFESSIONAL
Recently the president of a large professional services organization brought in an external consultant to mediate a conflict between two vice presidents.