Stop The Innovation Wars

First of all, conflict in an organization can be quite burdensome, complex and detrimental to the companies bottom-line. Unfortunately, it is also a natural part of working in a team and, while toilsome for all members involved in modest amounts it can even be healthy and stimulate creativity (Brett, 1988). Disagreements are bound to arise in a group when it is faced with a task that has even a minimum amount of complexity. However when a dispute escalates to the point where the performance of business is impacted the viability of the firm is at stake. The authors of the Harvard Business Review article: “Stop the innovation wars,” Chris Trimble and Vijay Govindarajan, have observed a troublesome trend concerning interdepartmental relations which is present in many Fortune 500 firms. This trend engenders hostilities between the innovation team or the research and development department and the personnel responsible for day-to-day operations or the performance engine.?

Certainly altercations between the research and development department and performance engine are to be anticipated since they have conflicting roles in an organization. Namely, the performance engine is responsible for routine actions needed to sustain the firm whereas the innovation initiative which is tasked to find new breakthroughs needs to function non-routinely. Such differences in mindset cause internal conflict which can quickly escalate to long-term rivalries. The conventional corporate solution to this problem is to separate the innovation team from the rest of the organization. Of course, this comes with its own set of predicaments. For example, innovation is severely abated since when the team is asked to conceive a new product or process in isolation and the group is highly susceptible to replicating a corporation's previous work. Not to mention, this segregation also deprives the innovation initiative of a significant amount of assets.

The reality that a partnership must be established to bridge the long-term differences of opinion is often overlooked by many companies consequently most team leaders assume they should alleviate disagreements as they emerge. However, leaders are recommended to take a more proactive approach to allay this affliction; it is advised that a solid conflict management procedure be instituted to deal with the conflicts between departments. This procedure should include establishing behavioral precedents such as implicit and explicit team norms before dissension arises. Moreover, it should also include consulting both parties individually to substantiate the rules of engagement by each side. When a dispute between departments arises team leaders should intervene early since a simple disagreement can turn into a serious conflict within milliseconds (Boyatzis, 2004). To solve the dispute the team leader can refer back to the principles established previously in the consultation and peacefully solve the conflict by putting forward a rule both parties had agreed upon priorly.?

Although many executives often seek to eliminate tension entirely between the innovation initiative and performance engine, this is not a feasible strategy (Meinert, 2017). A better approach is to redirect the vehemence wasted on infighting towards a positive pursuit. According to Regier, chief executive officer of Next Element, a global advisory, consulting and training firm, conflict can be defined as the gap between what we want to have happen and what we are actually experiencing. Now, if we redefine the vehemence that arises during conflict as simply energy it prompts the question: how will this energy be utilized? Negative conflict energy utilization can be characterized by a struggle against other employees and personnel at the firm; this type of utilization will ultimately only enervate the team. Nevertheless, positive energy utilization instigated from conflict can precipitates engagement, trust and innovation among all team members involved; this type of utilization will end up strengthening the group’s working relations.?

In order to channel the energy produced from conflict in a positive way team leaders should try to change the perspective of disputing members. What should be emphasized to traverse the gap between the innovation team and the performance engine is compassionate accountability. This program involves the development of three key “soft skills” which help balance compassion with goals, and aspirations with standards. These skills need to be developed by both the performance engine and the innovation initiative.

? The first skill employees need to develop is compassion or emphasizing with others and being open minded. Team leaders and the human resource department can help disparate sectors emphasize with each other by persistently reminding each sector that good work is being completed daily by good people on the opposite side of the firm. It is important for leaders to keep in mind that the fear of job security, and the constant pressure of having to allocate scarce resources often underlie the hostile sentiments felt by employees. As mentioned earlier the company should be perceived as a team by both departments and reminded that each side is dependent upon the actions of the other. For instance, the profits from the performance engine pay for the research and development departments' innovative efforts. Furthermore, any restrictions or restraints from the performance engine are simply other employees trying to run operations as effectively as possible and should not be taken as a personal offense to the department. At the same time, team leaders must also help the performance engine recognize that upheavals in the industry or disruptions and changing market conditions purport that no performance engine can last forever without an innovative unit to back it up.?

Likewise, the second skill employees must develop is to be more resourceful and ask for others' opinions first before proclaiming their own. As a rule, in order to gain a better understanding of the current situation each side should be quiet and listen to the whole account of the other department. Generally speaking, interjection is seen as a sign of disrespect and can elicit an obstructive response which will provoke further dissension. Implementing this procedure will allow both sides of the conflict to recognize what the actual motives and intentions behind budgetary decisions are and prevent the fabrication of false presumptions.

?Lastly, the third skill individuals in a firm need to practice is to be persistent and clear about their expectations. While the team leader is responsible for setting interdepartmental norms each member must be sure to also set their own conduct standards. On a whole, executives must make sure to show appreciation equally for the work provided by both departments even when a project initiated in one sector is viewed as critical for the firm's success and takes monetary precedence over another. This is because emotions such as envy and jealousy are common causes of the resentment which underlie the rivalry.

Similarly when staff members' responsibilities are split between the two corporate divisions special incentives or targets should be instituted by the company which provide motivation for employees to keep up with the demands of both the innovation initiatives and ongoing operations. Alternatively, another option for many firms choose to implement is to charge the innovation initiative for the shared staff’s time. That way, staff with contradictory priorities treats the innovation leaders like a customer rather than a diversion.

In conclusion, managing the work relations between employees is a pivotal factor for maintaining a firm’s longevity. In fact, a study conducted by CPP renowned for brands and services such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Test found that total annual loss due to workplace conflict in firms equates to $359 billion dollars (Hayes, 2008). This means incorporating professionalism into the behavior of a company’s personnel is essential and based on both financial and ergonomic grounds. As a consequence, it forms the basis of properly contriving an productive and all-inclusive environment which gives prominence to purpose, values, and identity for all employees. For this reason, executives should take heed to not underestimate the ramifications of seemingly benign disputes in the workplace as left to escalate these disagreements could cost the company upwards of millions of dollars in revenue in the future.?

References:

Boyatzis, Richard, Mckee, Annie, and Goleman Daniel. Primal Leadership: Learning to Lead with Emotional Intelligence. Ventura, Ca, Academic Internet Publishers Incorporated, 2004.

Gallo, Amy. “Get Your Team to Stop Fighting and Start Working.” Harvard Business Review, 9 June 2010, hbr.org/2010/06/get-your-team-to-stop-fighting.

Govindarajan, Vijay, and Chris Trimble. “Stop the Innovation Wars.” Harvard Business Review, 1 July 2010, hbr.org/2010/07/stop-the-innovation-wars.

Meinert, Dori. “Why Workplace Conflict Can Be Healthy.” www.shrm.org, www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/hr-magazine/workplace-conflict-can-healthy.

Ury, William L., Jeanne M. Brett, and Stephen B. Goldberg. Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing Systems to Cut the Costs of Conflict. Jossey-Bass, 1988.