Conflict is unavoidable in any situation
involving other people. The art of
management (or, if you will, servant leadership) involves to a great extent the
ability to resolve conflicts in a just manner. That means respecting the
natural dignity of every human person involved in the situation.
Within the Just Third Way, there
are three critical factors to resolving conflict. These are, 1) Solidarity, 2) Institutional
structures for resolving conflicts when they arise, and 3) Capital ownership
within a business enterprise.
Solidarity
Solidarity, a key element of the Just Third
Way, relates to the three principles of economic justice, 1) Participation, 2)
Distribution, and 3) Social Justice.
Solidarity is acceptance by all members of the group of the basic
principles that define the group as that specific group.
Solidarity is key to the effective functioning
of the group as a group, as well as to acceptance of the rights of private
property and free association that provide the “glue” holding society
together. Solidarity, however, presumes that
all members of the group can understand, and then communicate effectively, the
basic principles that define the group as that group. This presents a problem if communication is
ineffective.
The success of a
business depends upon effective communication within the organization. Managing communication and promoting healthy
conflict resolution should, therefore, be a goal of management. If nothing else, effective communication can
decrease conflict that interferes with the proper functioning of a business
enterprise.
For example, a
study commissioned in 2008 by CPP
Inc., the Myers-Briggs Company, revealed that workers spend nearly three
hours per week dealing with conflict. Compounded
across all workers in the U.S., this results in 385 million working days per
year.
This is a
significant period of time devoted to activity that does not support productive
activity either directly or indirectly. Businesses
cannot afford to lose that much potentially productive effort and resources to
conflict.
Unless everyone
in an organization or institution accepts the basic assumptions of that
organization or institution, and accepts them in the same way, conflict can
ignite from the smallest word or action and spark destructive responses and
behaviors. Unresolved or poorly
navigated conflict can damage and even destroy relationships.
Conflict,
however, does not have to be destructive. Handled effectively, conflict can actually
contribute to stronger, deeper relationships and can help to address ongoing
problems and concerns. Effective
communication skills serve a key role in successfully resolving conflict, both
in the home and in the workplace.
Institutional Structures for Conflict Resolution
There are two types
of conflict in any organization, and thus two general methods of resolving
conflict, depending on the kind of conflict involved.
The first type of conflict is that based on flaws in the institution
itself. As a “social tool,” an institution
must be designed properly and used correctly, or it won’t work the way
intended. Conflict can — unintentionally
— be built in to the organization.
Institutional flaws, however, are often the
ones most people ignore: something wrong in the structuring of power
relationships at any level or all levels within the institution. True, as Lord Acton noted, power tends to
corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. That is why everyone within an institution
must have the equal opportunity and means to acquire power so that power is
broken up and shared.
Then, while
solving institutional conflicts should be the job of those inside the
institution or organization, the advice of an outside observer may be
essential. This is because people inside
the institution can simply be too “close” to the problem and fail to see
it. Plus, where power is concentrated
within an institution, leaders cannot address conflicts among different levels
within the institution or recommend corrective actions.
If the institution
promotes solidarity, and everyone goes along with it, institutional conflicts
can often be resolved very easily. If
everyone within the institution shares power to resolve conflicts, and everyone
wants the conflict to be resolved, everyone will work with others to help
restructure the institution.
What happens,
however, when the institution is restructured to promote the empowerment of all
workers, but some feel others in the organization are manipulating them or otherwise
taking unfair advantage? Or suppose
there are people who just aren’t getting along with others or with the
institution as a whole?
This is the second type of conflict, personal
conflict, and it is sometimes the most difficult to resolve. It most often results from a feeling of
powerlessness, which isolates people from their co-workers and others in
society.
Traditionally,
leaders and managers have often tried to resolve personal conflicts informally,
on a one to one basis. This can sometimes
work . . . but don’t count on it. When
someone with power relates to someone without power, someone is going to feel
as if he was imposed on . . . and it won’t be the one with power.
It is much better
that there be some “institutional mechanism” in place to deal with personal
conflicts. This must be a part of the system itself, to deal with this kind of
conflict effectively — or at all.
The specific
structuring of a means of dealing with personal conflict within an organization
must be carefully considered. It is,
after all, far too easy for people with the wrong kind of power to manipulate a
grievance committee or arbitration board and use it to get rid of people they
don’t want, cover up their own incompetence, or even seize even more power and
concentrate it in their own hands to the ultimate detriment of the
organization.
Any such
mechanism must be objective, fair, and — especially — it must be perceived as
such. An arbitration board or committee can
be objective and fair, but if people do not think so, it is useless.
In a “typical”
company in which there are owners, managers, and workers, and never shall any
of them meet on common ground, the perception of fairness, much less actual fairness,
is virtually impossible. No one is equal
in status, so fairness and justice, which can only truly function among equals,
are out of the question.
There is, in
fact, only one proven method to provide a foundation for fairness and justice
in the workplace, and to lay the groundwork for effective conflict
resolution. And that is to make sure
that every worker has power, and the only way to do that is to ensure that
every worker has the equal opportunity and effective means to become an owner
of that organization.
Capital Ownership Within a Business Enterprise
To many people it
seems as if expanded capital ownership is touted as a panacea as a result of
all the problems it has the potential to solve.
That, however, is a misleading way to look at it. Expanded capital ownership has the potential
to solve so many problems because having ownership — and thus having power — is
an inherent part of what it means to be human.
To deprive people
of ownership (and thus power), or the means of acquiring and possessing capital,
is to deny human nature. And that causes more problems than anyone
ever thought of solving by abolishing private property. Nature is unforgiving, and always takes revenge.
True conflict
resolution depends on people meeting together as “power equals” and getting
matters settled, not only with fairness and justice, but with the perception
that fairness and justice are the guiding principles. And that is one reason why having
worker-owners, instead of mere workers, is so important to build solidarity and
get everyone pulling together in the same direction.
It is, after all,
an ancient dictum that “Power naturally and necessarily follows property.” In order to have the power to change the
institutions of your organization or institution, or to resolve conflicts
between individuals in a just and fair manner, you must have the power to do so
and the right that comes only from ownership.
That is why any
system that conforms to the principles of the Just Third Way must include
capital ownership as an integral part of that system. When a society or institution has both people
with power, and people without power, there is going to be conflict. Everyone in an organization must have power.
No leader or
manager can truly resolve conflict simply by imposing desired conditions from
above or silencing dissent by fiat. That
only whitewashes a problem and lays the groundwork for bigger problems in the
future, whether institutional or personal.
True conflict
resolution depends on people of equal status, and that means everyone has an
equal opportunity and access to the means to become capital owners. They can then organize to study and correct the
problems that are causing the conflict at both the individual and the institutional
level.
#30#