/

Confront and Engagefor Organizational

DevelopmentBy Robert Cunningham

Generate healtby stress and build group support at the same time. This artful technique isperfect for bringing much-needed change to a work group or company.

r'j,,

The United Stltes is under siege. Thecountry had a 3175 billion trade dericitin 1986; the accumulated federal gov-ernment debt is 52.3 trillion. Since1979, annual productivity in the ser-vice sector has increased only O.'5per-cent, according to an article by PatriciaGalagan (Training & Developmentjournal, July 1987). Eighty percent ofAmerican corporations face competi-tion from abroad. The public and pri-vate sector are not producing enoughto keep up with buying and borrow-ing, and neither is effectively meetingcompetition from abroad. ~ill theUnited Stltes address the situation orwatch its standard ofliving continue to .

, decline? .;A, chorus of scholars and practi-

tioners sings -in unison this theme: toassist in reversing the downwardtrends, organizations must do thingsdifferently-not the same things moreefficiently. Organizational develop-

I

I

jII!I

,{

'1'

Cunningham is an associate projessor ojpolitical science at the University ofTennessee 1001 ,HcQung Tower. KnoxvilleTIV37996-0410.

ment requires change in the public :mdprivate sectOr. This article proposesconfrontltion and engagement as partof J. micro level strateJITJQ~ ch:mge.Organiz:1tional development is viewedas a two-step process whereby the

Will the United Statesaddress the situation, or

watch its standard of livingcontinue to decline?

, .'

manager fIrst confronts the group andthen leverages individual knowledge

by engaging the gro~p's resources.

Confrontation

Accepting the challenge to do thingsdifferently requires that one activelyconfront present products and pro-cedures. To comI-ont is to speak thetruth face-to-face. to vigorously invitecomparisons, and to enter into open,healthy corulict. The confronter doesnot claim to possess absolute truth, butchallenges ochers in pursuit of suchtruth, based on personal perceptionsand understanding.

The choice of confrontation style isgoverned by a par:ldox and a principle.

Training & Development Journal. February 1989

The paradox is that organizationaldevelopment should simultaneouslygenerate stress and build group sup-port. Stress c:m stimulate learning andbuild a security nest within the orga-nization so that novel ideas are con-sidered thoughtfully. Members of anorganization are confronted with fail-ure, but are provided the support andsecurity chat encourages expressing,advocating, and testing new ideas. Ifsacrillce is demanded in times of dras-tic change, surviving members willbe welded into a foundational com-munity, one grounded in chatcommonstressful experience and based on faithin and commitment to the group. W.Torbert calls chat phenomenon "foun-dational grouping" in the bookManaging tbe Corporate Dream anduses as examples IBM's restructuringand Mao's long walk across China.

The principle to be invoked inresolving the paradox is chat peoplecan le:lrn only what they almostalready know, a concept described byN. Agnew and J. Brown in a 1982Organizational Dynamics article.Learning cakes place in incrementalsteps. A teacher does nOt hand an ad-vanced calculus book to a beginningalgebra student, or lecrure on arith-metic co a line:lr regression class.Learners m:lVbecome defensive, anx-ious. or hostile if their "almost alre:ldy 71

know" boundaries are stretched. Onthe other hand, too soft or gentle astimulus will not confront sufficiently,and the person in charge may appearweak, insecure, or uninformed. Theleader must confront employees at theboundary limit in order to generateacceptable stress; the challenge is tolocate the appropriate confrontationlevel and build a base of emotionalsupport.

Confrontation is often associatedwith aggressiveness, the polar oppositeof cooperation; with being directiveor task-oriented; and with mixingtask with relationship behavior(termed "selling" by P. Hersey andK. Blanchard in Management ofOrganizational Behavior: UtilizingHuman Resources).

While confrontation should be ac-tive and may be aggressive, it shouldnever rely on selling or teIling. Sellingand telling assume that the sellerltellerknows the answer. If the managerknows the right answer, the problemis not organ.iz1tional development, bUtimplementation. The manager whofacilitates, instigates. or confrontsplaces no blame for the current sitUa-

"

:1'

I II

I

-.,1- Circle No. 150 on Reaaer Servtce Card

tion, bUt pushes the organization toprobe for basic truths aboUt produCts,processes, competitors, and clients.Confronting is fundamental to ensurelong-term organizational success in achanging environment. Choosing themode of confrontation tests the man-ager's awareness of member character-istics and group dynamics; effectivelycommunicating the message of con-frontation requires sensitivity to thoseaffected. Confronting may be as gen-tle as a suggestion or as strong as atransfer or dismissal.

EngagementHaving resolved the stress/security

paradox and confronted the group, theleader must engage the organization in

If the manager knows theright answer, the problem

is nOt organizationaldevelopment, butimplementation

facing the issue. The highest insultis to be ignored, which degeneratesself-esteem by implying that one is un-worthy and insignificant. Gentle con-fronution followed by disengage-ment-allowing the group to go itsown way-conveys the impressionthat the problem is minor or themanager is weak. Vigorously confront-ing and then walking off tells em-ployees that they are seen as poorperformers wno cannOt be expected toimprove by themselves, or that themanager is just venting personal frus-trations onto the organization.

"Selling and telling" is also a riskystrategy; for managers facing uncertlinmarketS, costS, and technologies rarelyhave immutable truths to impart. Evenif managers possessed such knowl-edge, subordinates might nOt believe it,and an imposed solUtion can be killedby halfhe:uted implementation. Disen-gagement of the leader from the groupwill nor work when the org:mizationperceives threat and the solUtion isproblematic.

The manager who confrontS theemployees and engages with them intackling the issue acknowledges aserious situation and a shared concern.By engaging the group and adopting

the facilitatOr role-challenging andquestioning rather than selling andtelling-the manager can introduce ex-ternal considerations, direct attentionto the issue, and share the burden fordefining and addressing the sitUationwith those being confronted.

In confronting and engaging, a man-ager need nor know answers. It is suf-ficient (and perhaps more conduciveto creative problem solving) if themanager confesses incomplete infor-mation on the topic being addressed,bUt steers the group by asking ques-tions in a manner that challenges andsuppOrts. The manager acts as facil-itatOr or instigatOr, not judge, joiningwith the group in engaging the pro-blem creatively.

How is it different?

Confronting and engaging resembleOther managemem :1pdorganizational-development interventions. includingthe empowering leader, the decen-tralized organization, devolved deci-sion making, and the psychoanalyticconsultant. Decentralization, em-powerment, and devolvement do notmandate confrontation and engage-ment. Under those strategies accept-able group behaviors range fromallowing employees to gaze out thewindow to authoritarian decisions bya single leader placed lower in thehierarchy. The psychoanalytic consul-tant may not be sensitive to externalconstraintS. may operate from Otherassumptions of human natUre, or mayflce implementation problems from anunsupportive superior. Confrontingplus engaging demands that the leaderspeak truth-nOt symbols-and usethe power of the group for collectiveproblem solving.

Conclusion"Business as usual" cannot be an ac-

ceptable mOtto for a society or organi-zation under siege. Top-down dicrumsand quick fL"{esthat do not considerfuture implications may debilitaterather than enhance. Confronting andengaging require no technical training.They do demand that the manager besensitive to individuals and groupdynamics, and have some appreciation.of external environment. Involvingthe group can leverage the manager'sdecision-making power by expandingdiversity to face present and futUreproblems. n

bI

Tr:rining & Developmem Journ:rl. Februarv 1989