I need a assignment done for my week 9 JWI 556: Leading Change by Putting People First Class

JWI_556_Week_9_Lecture_Notes.pdf

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >I need a assignment done for my week 9 JWI 556: Leading Change by Putting People First Class

© Strayer University. All Rights Reserved. This document contains Strayer University Confidential and Proprietary information and may not be copied, further distributed, or otherwise disclosed in whole or in part, without the expressed written permission of Strayer University.

JWI 556 (1196) Page 1 of 7

JWI 556

Leading Change by Putting People First

Week Nine Lecture Notes

JWI 556 (1196) Page 2 of 7

MANAGING CONFLICTS DURING CHANGE

What It Means

Conflict management is an important leadership skill that has been discussed in previous JWMI courses. In

times of change, the opportunities for conflicts to erupt can increase dramatically. Putting people first while

leading change requires that HR professionals be particularly active and sensitive in anticipating where

these conflicts are most likely to occur. It also presents an opportunity to help other managers learn to deal

with conflict in ways that allow the impacted parties to express their concerns without undermining the

momentum or efficacy of the change.

Why It Matters

 Being aware of the most common types of conflicts that surface during change initiatives will help

keep you from being blindsided.

 Taking preemptive actions based on early warning signals makes it a lot easier to manage a

potential conflict rather than fix a problem that has escalated into an all-out battle.

 Leveraging what you learned about competing commitments and hidden assumptions can pave

the way for a more open and honest dialogue.

“All widespread communication in a

change effort must be jargon free.”

John Kotter

JWI 556 (1196) Page 3 of 7

THE MOST COMMON TYPES OF CONFLICT DURING CHANGE INITIATIVES

Change – especially large, transformational, disruptive change – has the potential to elevate negative

tendencies that, under normal conditions, would not have caused issues. It does this, in part, because it

pushes people out of their comfort zones and asks them to engage with new ways, and often new people,

they may not like.

Change initiatives open the door for all kinds of power struggles. These struggles can be over the control

of a team or business unit, or they can be over control of a process. If there are too many open questions

during the change around who will own what, or which processes will be applied where, the opportunities

for conflict can escalate out of control. This is one of the reasons why having a strong guiding coalition, a

clear vision and communication plan, and well-defined benchmarks is so important.

This increase in conflict can impact even our best managers.

“For people who have been raised in a managerial culture where having everything under

control was the central value, taking steps to push up the urgency level can be

particularly difficult. Bold moves that reduce complacency tend to increase conflict and to

create anxiety, at least at first. Real leaders take action because they have confidence

that the forces unleashed can be directed to achieve important ends.”

Leading Change, p. 46

While conflict can have a variety of drivers, there are several that surface frequently during change

initiatives. Being aware of these can help you identify where to direct your efforts to uncover, and

address, the conflict. The most common sources of conflict include:

 Cultural misalignment where new teams are required to work together, but have deeply

ingrained, often hard-to-articulate values about how business should get done

 Fundamental disagreements over the new model, strategy, or direction the company is taking

 Competition for jobs in the new organization because redundancies will lead to layoffs, and/or

because the new structure will present additional opportunities that will only go to a few

standout players

 A dislike for a new boss or member of a new team; this can arise from a number of real or

perceived issues, including incompatible personalities, management styles, past performance

track records, or inadequate skillsets

 An unwanted reassignment to a new office/city/team/division

 Lack of skills or interest to perform the duties that are part of the post-change workflow

In identifying these potential conflicts, understand which ones are navigable and part of the growing pains

that come with change, and which ones are lethal. You probably won’t know until you begin to address

them, and assess the stakeholders’ willingness and ability to respond to coaching and support.

JWI 556 (1196) Page 4 of 7

WHAT CAN HR PROFESSIONALS DO TO PREEMPT

AND RESOLVE CONFLICT?

The best approach to managing a conflict is usually to keep it from happening in the first place. There

may be a few circumstances where you will intentionally allow a pending conflict to come to a boil so that

the fallout draws attention to an issue that can no longer be ignored. But this must be done exceedingly

carefully so the outcome does not create more damage than can be managed.

The most effective change leaders are not just the ones who can see a potential conflict before it sparks.

They are the ones who have been working for years to build a culture of truth, trust, and honest dialogue

that allows them to surface an issue and face it head on.

Jack reminds us about the role of HR leadership in such situations.

“If your HR is on track, pastor-parents are ready to handle friction and crises – channeling

anger, forging compromises, and if need be, negotiating dignified endings.

They are there to help managers manage people well.”

Winning, p. 103

In restructuring situations, especially during a merger or acquisition, the opportunities for conflict multiply.

As Jennifer Fondrevay notes in the article, “After a Merger, Don’t Let ‘Us vs. Them’ Thinking Ruin the

Company” (2018), one of the great ironies of M&A activity is that trust, a key ingredient for business

success, often quickly dissolves as M&A activity is usually cloaked in secrecy. A workforce can feel

blindsided when a deal is announced, eroding trust and transparency in three mutually reinforcing ways:

1. Our Company Versus Their Company

Conflicts can develop around culture, quality, processes, or just about anything where people

can ask, “Our way is better than their way, so why do we have to change?”

2. Executives Versus Frontline Employees

The perception is often that executives will be the real winners in a merger or restructuring, and

the employees will be mere pawns

3. Who Stays Versus Who Goes

Often, there are not enough jobs to go around, especially if the merger has taken place to gain

efficiency, and competition and dissatisfaction can be fierce as colleagues either openly or

secretly compete against each other and sow seeds of mistrust

As Fondrevay notes, the challenges with #3 are very real, and are something we will revisit in Week 8.

“Deciding who stays and who goes are hard-wrought decisions. Transparency is difficult

as executives and managers are either legally prohibited from being more open or don’t

know how things will play out. Trust is diluted further when, in an attempt to keep people

motivated, early communications sometimes say that ‘nothing will change,’ and yet

employees see change happening as people are let go.”

JWI 556 (1196) Page 5 of 7

Kotter’s advice on addressing these conflicts and not allowing them to derail the change initiative is

straightforward and compelling:

“From what I’ve seen, the best solution to this kind of problem is usually honest dialogue. Here’s

the story with the industry, the company, our vision, the assistance we need from you, and the

time frame in which we need all this. What can we do to help you help us? If the situation really is

hopeless, and the person needs to be replaced, that fact often becomes clear early in the

dialogue. If the person wants to help but feels blocked, the discussion can identify solutions. If the

person wants to help but is incapable of doing so, the clearer expectations and timetable can

eventually make his or her removal less contentious. The basic fairness of this approach helps

overcome guilt. The rational and thoughtful dialogue also helps minimize the risk that good short-

term results will suddenly turn bad or that [the person resisting the change] will be able to launch

a successful political counterattack.

Guilt, political considerations, and concerns over short-term results stop people all the time from

having these honest discussions. In retrospect, executives often express regret that they didn’t

confront problem managers sooner in the process. If I’ve heard it once, I’ve heard it a hundred

times: ‘I should have dealt with Hal/George/Irene much earlier.’”

Leading Change, p. 118

You’re not going to make peace with everyone all the time, and you’re not going to be able to manage all

situations where everyone comes out with what they want. Still, you have to find as much common

ground as possible. This is, again, where having a strong, clear, and agreed-upon Mission and Values

can pay huge dividends.

 Get clarity on the facts and conflicts and stay away from rhetoric and inflammatory language

 Present the rationale for each position and how this aligns to the stated objectives of the

change initiative

 Make sure everyone’s voice is heard, but don’t let the conflict carry on. If the two sides can’t

agree, then someone will have to go.

In their article, “Make Your Enemies Your Allies” (2012), Brian Uzzi and Shannon Dunlap share the

following:

“Because rivalries can be so destructive, it’s not enough to simply ignore, sidestep, or

attempt to contain them. Instead, effective leaders turn rivals into collaborators –

strengthening their positions, their networks, and their careers in the process. Think of

these relationships not as chronic illnesses you have to endure but as wounds that must

be treated in order for you to lead a healthy work life.”

“Many well-intentioned efforts to reverse rivalries fail in large part because of the complex

way trust operates in these relationships. Research shows that trust is based on both

reason and emotion. If the emotional orientation toward a person is negative – typically

because of a perceived threat – then reason will be twisted to align with those negative

feelings. This is why feuds can stalemate trust: New facts and arguments, no matter how

credible and logical, may be seen as ploys to dupe the other side.”

JWI 556 (1196) Page 6 of 7

“Most executives who decide they want to reverse a rivalry will, quite understandably,

turn to reason, presenting incentives for trustworthy collaboration. But in these situations,

the ‘emotional brain’ must be managed before adversaries can understand evidence and

be persuaded.”

ADDRESSING THE COMPETING COMMITMENTS AND HIDDEN

ASSUMPTIONS THAT UNDERMINE CHANGE

At the beginning of our course, we looked at a great article by Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow Lahey

called “The Real Reason People Won’t Change” (HBR 2001). As you consider the guidance presented in

your readings for this week, go back and review this article and the process they outline to:

1. Diagnose the Competing Commitment

2. Identify the Big Assumption

3. Test – and Consider Replacing – the Big Assumptions

In particular, focus on the application of their model in resolving conflicts in organizations, because, as

they remind us:

“Although competing commitments and big assumptions tend to be deeply personal,

groups are just as susceptible as individuals to the dynamics of immunity to change.

Face-to-face teams, departments, and even companies as a whole can fall prey to inner

contradictions that ‘protect’ them from significant changes they may genuinely strive for.”

Kegan & Lahey, 2001

Leading change by putting people first means opening the door for honest discussions. It means not

sweeping issues under the rug, or strong arming people to keep quiet and just get over it. The more you

can channel conflict into positive dialogue, the more you can leverage passions and problem-solving skills

to get to common ground. This is where HR leaders, as neutral parties and advocates for the workforce,

have an important role to play.

Despite all the useful tools that exist to support conflict resolution, we should remind ourselves of what

Patty McCord says about the value of open, candid discussion.

“I [caution] about the limited value of formal employee-development practices such as

conflict-resolution and management classes. There is simply no comparison between the

learning employees may take away from such courses and what they’ll gain from

participating in debates about business decisions. Ask anyone at your company whether

they’d rather spend a day in a negotiation seminar or be able to ask – with impunity – a

tough but fair question of a high-level manager at a big company meeting or engage in a

serious debate with their managers about the problem they’re being asked to solve. I

promise you, nobody but nobody is going to choose the seminar.”

Powerful, p. 67

JWI 556 (1196) Page 7 of 7

GETTING THE MOST OUT OF THIS WEEK’S CLASS

As you read the materials and participate in class activities, stay focused on the key learning outcomes

for the week:

 Explore the most common types of conflict that occur during change initiatives, including

competition for jobs, cultural misalignment, and sabotage

Identify, and prepare for, the types of conflict you are most likely to encounter during a

change initiative. Run “what-if?” scenarios with managers and HR colleagues to walk

through potential fallout, and to formulate plans to address these conflicts. Use the

stakeholder maps you developed to identify people who are going to be negatively

impacted by the change, and create options for best-case and worst-case conflicts, and

how you will address them.

 Examine the steps that HR professionals can take to preempt and resolve conflict

The best conflict management is the one that addresses the conflict before it escalates.

Proactively sharing information, being honest about what’s happening and why, and

developing clear “what’s in it for me?” and “what’s in it for the company?” statements can

go a long way to head off major conflict. True, you won’t be successful in preempting

everything, but the more that you can ground the change initiative in the Mission and

Values of the organization (assuming these have been front and center before the change),

the more likely it will be that conflicts will resolve themselves as the change unfolds.

 Apply tools to articulate and address the competing commitments and hidden

assumptions that undermine change

Ignoring a conflict and hoping it will go away seldom works. You may not have to deal with

in directly at that moment, but it will more than likely continue to simmer and will, in the long

term, lead to ongoing problems that undermine the lasting success of the change.

Don’t be afraid of direct and honest discussion about the conflict. Use what you have

learned in this course to help stakeholders understand where their own sources of conflict

come from and how they can reframe these in a positive way. Review materials from your

previous JWMI courses on emotional intelligence and conflict resolution, and leverage

practices to acknowledge the conflict and the negative impact it has, and to seek out

common ground and find a way forward.