When a significant problem between individuals or groups crops up in organizations, no one knows quite what to do. Typically, a series of meetings is held to resolve the problem; leaders meet with the individuals involved separately and together. Sometimes, though, leaders do nothing, hoping that the problem will disappear on its own. In other instances, people are transferred to other groups or a leader lays down the law and insists all the bickering stop immediately. Rarely, though, is there a systematic process in place to resolve conflict that everyone understands and accepts.
Tony possesses such a process, and it is a structural element of his organization. This process must have been born out of necessity. When you’re dealing with violent criminals and lack a dispute resolution process, the likely outcome is that disputes will be resolved with blood. To avoid this outcome, Tony’s group embraces the sit-down process, the mechanics of which follow.
MECHANICS OF A SIT-DOWN
Ground rules
- A sit-down can be requested by anyone in the organization.
- It is facilitated by a trusted third party (consigliere, underboss, etc.) and sometimes the overall boss.
- The decision by the third party is binding and must be executed.
Process
- The trigger is that an individual requests a sit-down.
- The sit-down is arranged by the previously agreed on/appointed third party.
- The third party may do some fact-finding prior to the sit-down. This would involve talking with both sides and/or those directly involved in the situation.
- The individual who requested the sit-down brings his boss as does the person who the dispute is with.
Both sides lay out facts. The third party attempts to facilitate a resolution with clear agreements and next steps. If no resolution can be reached, the process moves up the chain of command. The boss of the two parties would facilitate this round. If there were no resolution, a third sit-down would be facilitated by the next level of management and so on.
The best and most humorous example of the process was when Johnny Sack hears from Paulie that Ralph has made a joke about Johnny’s wife’s weight at a dinner. In the mob world, one of the key rules is that you don’t disrespect a man’s wife, daughter, or mother. If you disrespect the woman, you disrespect the man. Johnny first takes out his anger by beating up one of Ralph’s guys. When Tony finds out, he urges Ralph to placate but not apologize to Johnny; apologizing would be an admission of guilt. When this strategy backfires, Johnny goes to Carmine to request a hit on Ralph. Carmine basically says that he will tax Ralph but that Ralph is too big of an earner to be taken out. Still seeking retribution, Johnny requests a sit-down under the guise of sorting through the no-show arrangements for the Esplanade contracts. At the sit-down are Ralph, Tony, Johnny, and Carmine. Johnny ends up walking out. The process then escalates to the next level, and a meeting is held without Ralph but with Tony (Ralph’s boss), Junior, Johnny, Carmine (Johnny’s boss), and Sil as a third-party mediator. In this instance, Carmine has the last word and tells Johnny to let it go. They go back and forth on this issue until Johnny agrees to drop it.
Admittedly, a certain amount of acrimony and vacillation marked this process. Yet it allowed both parties to vent their emotions, to feel like something was being done, and to move toward a resolution of the conflict. Too often, either people in organizations are prohibited from expressing their strong feelings or a boss decides about the conflict unilaterally. Psychologically, this is tremendously unsatisfying. Johnny might not have been happy that he couldn’t kill Ralph, but at least he felt as if his point had been heard and his feelings acknowledged.
The decision reached in the sit-down is binding and must be carried out, and this widely understood fact causes people to take sit-downs seriously. While some companies use conflict-resolution processes, few people take these approaches seriously because their decisions aren’t binding. Not only are sit-down decisions binding, but once a decision is reached, it is not to be discussed or revisited again. It also is an astonishingly democratic and versatile method of resolving conflict. Anyone can call a sit-down, which can be used for everything, from clarifying new business limits to establishing territorial boundaries.
Many organizations lack a process for resolving conflict. In some instances, conflict is resolved by a manager stepping in. Because this is an ad hoc approach, it often carries little weight with employees. In other instances, conflicts are allowed to spiral out of control before anyone does anything. Angry memos, e-mails, and voice mails are exchanged, gossip about the conflict rages, facts are misconstrued, and feelings are hurt before a manager finally steps in. Tony Soprano usually calls for a sit-down before conflicts reach the crisis stage and a significant amount of damage has already been done.
XYZ, a global organization, removed marketing and manufacturing functions from the control of the general manager in each country to achieve economies of scale. They centralized these functions into shared service centers. Invariably, conflicts arose because general managers no longer had control over their resources and face-to-face interactions were infrequent (because of the geographical distance between general managers and service centers). Even worse, this company had a "gentlemanly" culture in which open conflict—and its resolution—were frowned on. People were encouraged to work toward consensus, and airing grievances and arguing loudly were discouraged. As a result, the conflicts involving this shift to the service centers went underground. General managers felt as if they were losing control of their resources and that the resources weren’t being allocated properly, but general managers ended up voicing only mild protests to the service center managers. They didn’t want to rock the boat, and this created marketing and manufacturing inefficiencies.
XYZ could have used a sit-down process to bring underground conflicts to the surface to resolve them. If you’re interested in integrating such a process into your company, here is what you need to do.
DEVELOPING YOUR SIT-DOWN AS A MANAGEMENT PROCESS
Step 1
Decide on how the sit-down will be positioned. Is it to resolve any type of conflict or dispute or just for a specific type of conflict? Who can take advantage of the process? What are your ground rules?
Step 2
Decide what will trigger implementing a sit-down. Who do you tell that you want to have a sit-down? What needs to be done to proceed?
Step 3
Decide who your third-party facilitators will be and how you’ll do the fact-finding prior to the sit-down. You may want to determine the questions that you’ll ask beforehand.
Step 4
Decide the consequences for not adhering to agreements reached at the sit-down. Be sure everyone, including those at the top, adheres and does not overturn agreements reached.
Step 5
Provide training in facilitation skills or third-party mediation.
Step 6
Communicate the process to those who will be affected.