“If you understood everything I said, you’d be me.”
– Miles Davis
I begin this post with the above quote above in order to establish one simple point – that no two minds think alike. Therefore, it follows with this notion that conflict, in all of its salient and obscure aspects, is a perennial question in managing interpersonal relationships. The key, however, lies not in how we circumvent it. Rather, often it is how we reconcile these conflicts that determine the way any relationship develops. In essence, whether a relationship learns and flourishes, or spirals out of control, is rooted in the way each conflict experienced is handled.
Below is a personal anecdote that I wish to share. In sharing this scenario, I hope to highlight a very common cause for conflicts at the workplace:
During my 12-month stint as a chemist at a multi-national chemical waste-treatment facility, I had the rare opportunity to be actively involved in the drafting of numerous policies regarding chemical processing and safety. There were only three chemists in the laboratory, each with his/her designated role. My task was to ensure that each incoming waste complied with the safety requirements of the company. This was done so via a series of tests, compiled within a detailed report for each incoming product. The duration of testing depends on the specifications of each sample.
The problem came when the sales department began pushing for results in order to expedite the client requests. At times where the requests became urgent, the sales department would seek a once-off collection prior to the release of the laboratory report. However, this could only be done at the discretion of the laboratory manager. Otherwise, protocol had to be followed.
On one particular occasion, a sample was sent to the laboratory seeking immediate testing. However, prior to the laboratory’s knowledge, a collection was already approved by the sales-director. This was done in view of the collection’s worth, as well as the high competition the company was pit against.
As our laboratory manager was away on an overseas conference, the head-chemist took over the matter immediately. She issued a certificate of non-compliance and requested that the collection be halted immediately on the basis of safety. The sales-director, upon getting wind of this, ordered the certificate to be removed, citing her lack of jurisdiction. He even threatened her position, should she continue to interfere with the collection.
To make things difficult for the head-chemist, the sales-director banded with the other managers of the company. They claimed she lacked the experience and ‘seniority’ to make such a decision. In the end, the collection came through, with the laboratory having to work overtime in order to produce the treatment process and clearances required.
I believe the above situation does happen in many industrial contexts. Possibly the main cause for such conflicts at the workplace is the persistent, sometimes ridiculous and often perverse, need to establish dominance among co-workers. The idea of dominance is not something that is simply rooted in the hierarchical structure of an establishment. It transcends various systems, from ranks and positions, time spent within the firm, ‘seniority’, to sometimes even age, race, and religion.
In the light of the above issue, how then, should one of a lower statute seek an amicable compromise, if not agreement, from another of greater ‘seniority’?
 |
| image from cartoonstock.com |
2 comments:
I feel that the head chemist should explain to the other managers about the consequences of collecting chemical waste prior to safety testing firmly. Without testing, the collected chemical might pose potential hazards to workers and the company may not have the suitable facilities for disposal. This will probably incur further costs or even injuries. Compared to the other managers, the head chemist technically better equipped to make such decisions.
If the other managers still insist on taking the orders, the head chemist should compromise but ask them to sign a paper to acknowledge that they have been informed of the consequences from her such that she will not shoulder any responsibility if anything happens.
Interesting post!
The head chemist was hired for a reason. She is the specialist in her own right. Her decision to take over the matter immediately shows her initiative and effort to ensure that products are safe for use. From the scenario above, it would seem that the company sometimes bend its rules to adapt to customer needs, sometimes even compromising on critical aspects of safety. In light of such a pressing matter - that the laboratory manager was not around, and that she was pressured by other managers - it would be best to consult the head of her department or someone of higher authority. Knowing that she is right for following protocol will allow her to hold firm her ground.
However, sometimes being too idealistic about things may result in bad consequences. We do not live in a perfect world. Not all companies practice good Corporate Social Responsibility. Not all companies have good leaders and managers.
The way I see it, she had only two options.
After weighing the potential risks and hazards, she could:
1. Hold firm her ground on ethical grounds if the potential impact is severe.
2. Accept what the managers asked her to do, but still comply with the safety standards even if it meant not meeting the target, unless there was proper remuneration. When brought up to the authority, one could cite the lack of manpower.
Thus, depending on how important the safety check is, she could opt for (1) out of moral obligation to society, or (2) to do her job as per normal.
Post a Comment