Tag Archives: conflict resolution

Invisible Conflict

There was no ticker-tape parade. It was much too early to celebrate. In May of 1998, Wall Street celebrated one of the largest corporate mergers in history. Daimler-Benz, the maker of Mercedes-Benz automobiles, and Chrysler Corporation announced a “merger of equals.” The combined company was valued at more than $36 billion, and analysts predicted more than $1 billion in bottom line value creation. It looked like the perfect strategic fit.

Chrysler brought strong North American distribution, a line-up of mini-vans, Jeep models and light trucks. Daimler brought German engineering in a luxury brand. Each company had a successful culture that sparked a conflict of invisible disagreement. Each had its own unwritten set of rules that were about to collide.

At Mercedes, precision mattered. Decisions were deliberate, carefully documented and followed a formal process. Chrysler built its success on speed. Cross-functional teams solved problems quickly and products cycled to market faster.

Neither company was wrong in its own world, they were just wrong together. The merger failed. It wasn’t engineering. It wasn’t manufacturing. It wasn’t finance. It was the belief system held by each respective management team.

The breakup was a war of attrition, not a visible conflict. Meetings became longer. Decison making slowed. Impatient Chrysler executives left. The power dynamic shifted. To many Chrysler executives, the merger of equals increasingly felt like a takeover.   The individual belief systems could not exist in the same container.

After paying $36B to acquire, Daimler made the decision in 2007 to sell 80 percent of Chrysler to Cerberus Capital Management for $7.4B. Chrysler was eventually purchased out of bankruptcy by Fiat and is now part of Stellantis North America.

The most interesting question isn’t why the merger failed.  The question is “What did Daimler have to believe for its management system to make perfect sense?”  And, “what did Chrysler have to believe for its management system to make perfect sense?” Financial models are remarkably good at estimating purchasing efficiencies, manufacturing savings, and economies of scale. They are much less effective at estimating what happens when two organizations bring fundamentally different beliefs about authority, decision making, accountability, and risk into the same conference room.

Culture isn’t an employee engagement survey. It isn’t a list of values framed in the lobby. Culture is the collection of management decisions that become so consistent they eventually define “the way we do things around here.”

The Daimler-Chrysler merger wasn’t undone by incompatible automobiles. It was undone by incompatible beliefs.

Premeditated Culture is now available on Amazon.

How HR Can Help Resolve a Conflict

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
I have a question about how to resolve conflicts between a manager and a team member. Is this a role that is appropriate for hospitality HR consultants, or should the conflict be resolved by the MOR (Manager Once Removed)?

Response:
I am a big fan of the HR role. HR roles help bring discipline to all those functions that involve humans. And, many times, our problems are created by a lack of discipline.

  • Lack of discipline in the hiring process
  • Lack of discipline in context setting
  • Lack of discipline in the delegation process
  • Lack of discipline in the planning process
  • Lack of discipline in project reviews
  • Lack of discipline in effectiveness reviews

And, where HR can help in discipline, accountability still rests with the manager and the MOR.

You asked about a conflict between the manager and the team member. In all situations, I need more detail, but I assume most conflicts would be about work method or priority conflict. In some cases, there may be a conflict related to underperformance or misbehavior. In all cases, it is still the manager and the MOR who are accountable for resolving the conflict.

If the conflict is about work method or priority conflict, the team member is accountable for giving best advice. The manager is accountable to consider the advice and make an appropriate decision. If the two are still at loggerheads, the manager should seek advice and coaching from their manager (the MOR). Either manager can seek advice from the HR professional, but the manager and MOR are accountable for the decision and the consequence of that decision.

If the conflict is about underperformance or misbehavior, the discussion is different, but the accountability is the same. Elliott Jaques always traced underperformance or misbehavior to one of these four absolutes –

  • Capability
  • Skill (technical knowledge and practice)
  • Interest or passion for the work, value for the work
  • Required behaviors (contracted behaviors, habits or culture)

Elliott would also expect the manager to know which of these four absolutes contributed to the underperformance or misbehavior. The underlying cause might lead to more training, coaching or de-selection.

No matter the resolution, while HR can assist in the discipline of the process, the accountability remains with the manager and the MOR.