Framework for interpersonal process and strategy

¶ … interpersonal Process & Strategy

Framework for Interpersonal Process and Strategy

The contemporaneous era brought about an increased role of the individual employee within the business environment. Conflicts arising between employees therefore must be properly approached and resolved, for the fruitful collaboration in the workplace. In this order of ideas then, various economists and sociologists have dedicated significant amounts of time to explaining and dealing with organizational behavior. Relevant work in the field was conducted by William Schutz and W.R. Bion, which have identified twelve steps in which individuals interact and deal with the presence or challenges raised by other individuals. The twelve frameworks are organized into four categories, each with three adjacent subcategories, as follows:

Control

Pre-emptive (controlling) - Interdependence - Dependence (submissive / complaint)

Affection

Love - Empathy - Apathy

Aggression

Aggression towards the other - Confrontation - Self-flagellation

Flight

Escape - Humour - Withdrawal

In a given situation, an individual will experience various feelings and will therefore become included in various frameworks. However, since the twelve steps are often situated at opposite poles, it is rather impossible for an individual to experience all twelve feelings in a single conflict, or aroused situation. But even so, one can go through all steps, but at different times. To best understand how the framework applies, one should take the example of a real life situation, occurred within an organizational environment.

Say for instance that an employee (a) is frustrated because he has not yet received his promised raise. He has not discussed this with the employer, but his morale is low and his performances continue to decrease. His friend and colleague (B) encourages him to ask for the raise in an aggressive manner. Finally, the third party to the situation is the manager (M), who is often too busy to notice the dissatisfaction of his staff members. The twelve steps of the Framework for Interpersonal Process and Strategy could be presented as follows:

1. Control

Pre-emptive (controlling): In the given scenario, the pre-emptive role is played by the manager, which hands out tasks that must be performed by the employees, both a and B. He does not demand them in an imperative manner, but it is implied that his subalterns do not have a choice and must obey.

Interdependence: Interdependent relationships occur between the two colleagues a and B, who have similar statuses within the organization and which are hierarchically equals. The two employees are polite to one another, which is yet another feature of the interdependent behavior. Say for instance that the manager asks them to issue a report on a customer file, they will work together to complete the task.

Dependence (submissive / complaint): The dependent feature is less obvious in the given scenario. However, it could be stated that the manager depends on employees a and B. To successfully complete their tasks, as this increases the organization's chances for corporate success. Also, the employees depend on the manager to be objective and able to critically evaluate their work when the wages are negotiated.

2. Affection

Love: Love sometimes occurs in the workplace, but it is not present in the given situation.

Empathy: This is often present in the relationships between employees a and B, who sympathise with one another. For instance, B understands the frustration a feels for not getting the promised raised. Empathy is sometimes revealed by the behavior of the manager, who has the skills of relating to the individuals. For instance, when a needed to resolve personal issues, the manager understood him and supported him by allowing flexible schedules and even reduced amounts of work when possible.

Apathy: Apathy is situated at the opposite pole from love, but they are somehow similar in the meaning that they are seldom found in the workplace. The modern working environment tries to resolve such issues and find solutions to remove such strong feelings. In the given situation, it could be said that the friend of the dissatisfied employee manifested apathy towards the management. These feelings were however of short duration, based on the impulse of supporting a and also on previous negative experiences with the manager.

3. Aggression

Aggression towards the other: In the current scenario, most of the aggressive behavior was revealed by the supporting friend B. However he did not become involved in direct disputes, he would reveal flashes of anger directed at the manager, during which he would badmouth him.

Confrontation: A direct confrontation was avoided by all three parties. A was frustrated and felt that he deserved the raise. Having to ask for it made him feel unappreciated and humiliated. Therefore, he avoided a direct discussion with the manager on the topic. B was not directly involved in the dispute, therefore he did not feel it was his battle and consequently, he did not see the need to directly address the manager (this would however been preferred to the badmouthing behind his back). The manager was troubled with organizational matters and he did not realize the gravity of the situation; therefore, he did not see the need for a confrontation.

Self-flagellation: Self-flagellation occurred when employee a renounced the hope of receiving a raise. B encouraged him to talk to the management, but he refused and preferred to consider himself victimized. Foremost, he did not begin to look for similar positions within other organizations; he just registered low morale, low performances, increased absenteeism and procrastination.