Interview with Sunday Business Post Newspaper Sunday 1 December 2002

By Elaine O'Regan

Dublin, Ireland, 1 December, 2002

Comedian Ricky Gervais's recent BBC comedy The Office catapulted the issue of incompetent management into the realm of high comedy -- and into public consciousness.

Politicians, TV personalities, pub landlords and cockney wide boys have all felt the brush of mainstream satire, but rarely has the office manager come under such intense and at times painful scrutiny.

Managers who want to avoid the dreaded David Brent comparison should remember that they are not, and never will be, "one of the gang", according to Margaret Corbett of Stress Coach Ireland.

It would also be wise to note that a sizeable proportion of managerial time and energy goes not on improving company efficiency and boosting profits, but on sorting out staff squabbles.

A recent US survey reported that as much as 42 per cent of a manager's time is typically spent resolving staff conflicts but, despite this, many managers who are good at achieving bottom line results are afraid to deal with more personal staff behavioural issues, said Corbett.

"They will take the ostrich-in-the-sand approach to staff conflict, simply because they are keen to be seen as one of the gang. This is never a good approach to obvious conflict. It will remain there under the surface and eventually erupt as a much bigger problem," she said.

The reality in the modern team-based working environment is that most people who are unhappy with their jobs have issues not with the work itself, but with the people they work with.

Competitive business environments, in which company performance is thought to rely on healthy competition between individuals and departments, can significantly up the ante and leave many managers unsure when exactly the competitive spirit turned nasty.

Corbett said that managers should ideally intervene as soon as an uncooperative stalemate emerges between two "interdependent" parties, as this will inevitably impact on company productivity.

The two involved parties will blame each other, either openly or via the office gossip network.

"They point fingers at each other for causing or starting the conflict, they personalise their arguments, they use tactics of insinuation and criticism to undermine each other," said Corbett.

"They are angry. They feel emotionally upset but they may hide their feelings of anger with an appearance of cordiality and politeness."

It is at this point that many managers, keen to deliver a fast-track solution, will wade in with the sure-fire ultimatum. But while this might elicit a temporary standoff, ongoing threats will only worsen the situation.

"Management by fear is not a good idea. If you have a crisis on your hands and want a quick solution, you can generally get it by using the threatening approach, but it can backfire. If you opt for this management style repeatedly over a long period of time, you will make individuals more entrenched in their anger and even more uncooperative," said Corbett.

Corbett advised that managers instead take the time to "coach, council and mediate". While this may sound inordinately tricky, it does not necessarily require a degree in psychology.

The right amount of intervention will generally help to guide those in conflict out of a situation that is probably making them miserable anyway.

"Be careful if you choose this option not to get drawn into the problem and appear to take sides. It is important to structure your approach," said Corbett.

"When bringing disputing parties together, make sure your venue is private, that you are the right frame of mind and that there are no interruptions. You should also make sure that you have enough time and that you are all comfortable."

It is the manager's job in this situation to dissuade people from using derogatory or inflammatory language. If individuals become passive or withdrawn during the meeting, the manager should encourage them to participate by asking them specific questions.

Be prepared for continued barbs, even as the individuals appear to be reaching a tentative conciliation.

"Accentuate the positive and ignore the negative. Conciliatory gestures are often mixed with hostile comments.

"By focusing on the positive and showing appreciation for positive gestures, you will move the problem forward," said Corbett.

If the meeting goes as planned and the issue is resolved, the manager should then make a deal. This will highlight the fact that a solution has been found, and should encourage the individuals involved to move forward.

"Avoid the temptation to talk about your solution until you've allowed the other person to tell you about his or hers. Once you have an attitude shift from 'me against you' to 'us against the problem' you can approach the problem with a 'both gain' outcome," said Corbett.