CONFLICT BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS MANAGERS' OPINIONS
| Date | 01 September 1988 |
| Pages | 11-13 |
| Published date | 01 September 1988 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb057520 |
| Author | Brian Bloch |
| Subject Matter | Economics,Information & knowledge management,Management science & operations |
CONFLICT BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS
MANAGERS' OPINIONS
by
Brian
Bloch
University of
Canterbury,
New Zealand
Introduction
Intraorganisational conflict is a well-publicised source of inefficiency and sub-optimal performance. On the
other
hand,
interdepartmental conflict is an often underrated, although vital subset of such conflict. This article
presents the findings of part of a major research project on interdepartmental conflict in large manufacturing
enterprises. Amongst other
things,
managers were asked to comment generally on the issue of interdepartmental
conflict. Respondents were requested to base their comments on the department with which they have the
most dealings or are the most dependent
on.
The research project emphasised the causes of interdepartmental
conflict, rather than the solutions.
A total of 900 questionnaires was sent by mail to
manufacturing managers throughout New Zealand. Of
these,
225 each were sent to production, marketing,
finance and personnel managers. The questionnaire
comprised a number of closed-ended (multiple-choice)
questions as well as an optional open question in which
respondents were invited to make "any comments or
suggestions" relating to the subject of interdepartmental
conflict. Of the 282 usable questionnaires received,
many managers took advantage of the open question
to convey their experience, sentiments and perceptions.
By integrating these responses logically under
subheadings, a unique picture of interdepartmental
conflict emerges.
Each comment is from a different manager; thus the
views of approximately 40 managers are given. The
managers are from any sector of manufacturing, but only
from enterprises with over 300 employees. What follows
is a summary of particularly cogent remarks, which have
been grouped in four categories. Firstly, there are
comments which refer to the nature of management;
specifically the personality of managers. Secondly, many
managers feel that communication is the essential
problem.
Thirdly, there are comments referring to
objectives and, fourthly, the problem of differing
interdepartmental priorities and perspectives. These
issues are presented in
turn.
The Personality of Managers
Many respondents stress the importance of human
elements within the manager him/herself. In the words
of a personnel manager: "Character/background of
departmental heads can have an extremely
positive/negative effect on relations within a department
and between departments." One personnel manager
emphasised the fact that conflict can be productive if
the managers react appropriately:
Interdepartmental conflict can be healthy if it takes place
in a non-destructive environment. It can lead to the
stimulation of new ideas and often a healthy management
team.
Where it is destructive is when one of the parties
conducts himself in an unprofessional manner. This often
arises because of a lack of ability, lack of confidence or
allowing personality characteristics to influence his
perception.
An amazing number of managers
fail
to
see
their
broader role in the running of
a
company and can only see
their role in a specialised
field.
A plant manager makes an equally cogent point
regarding the effect of managerial attitudes on
subordinates: "If the departmental heads co-operate,
then the two departments co-operate." Similarly, one
manager refers to the production-finance interaction as
follows: "In our working relationship, it has become
apparent that subordinates adopt the attitude displayed
by the departmental manager. If there is a good
relationship between the respective managers, it is often
the case with subordinates."
In contrast, a financial manager explains that the
example set by management is not always followed by
subordinates:
I find that at the highest levels in the two departments
(finance and personnel) we deal with matters properly and
in the company's best interests. At lower
levels,
there seems
to
be less
concern about the consequences of
one's
actions.
Another manager (of a production department)
expresses similar sentiments:
It is important to see things in perspective and follow a
moderate approach during meetings. One has to admit his
faults and be open minded to the best, cheapest solution
to a problem. The company must benefit, not the person
making the argument.
Other managers draw attention to the factors of stress
and the organisational aspect of interdepartmental
relations. In the words of a production manager:
It is of the utmost importance to understand that heads of
departments are usually highly motivated, work at high
pressure and under considerable stress. This results in
emotional responses to criticism or even to requests for
information, co-operation, etc.
It is interesting to note the similar point made by one
personnel manager. He draws attention to the economic
situation in the country, saying that the resultant
pressures worsen any inherent or existing tendencies for
interdepartmental conflict to occur:
IMDS
September/October
1988
11
To continue reading
Request your trial