When a sales dispute is resolved by a senior Matrix manager, the word enters the management chain in the form of an action element: make an offer with that particular mix of products and services at those prices. The only thing to do is to bring the sales team together, make a proposal and get back to the customer as quickly as possible. The problem is solved, at least for now. But sellers – unless they have been able to be divine from the patterns of decisions that have been made over time – have little advice on how to solve similar problems in the future. You may be right to ask yourself: how was the decision made? Based on what assumptions? With what compromises? How could the argument change if the situation were different? Some people deal with conflict by criticizing the other person and making them responsible. They see the admission of any weakness on their part as a weakening of their credibility, avoid them at all costs and even try to embarrass them with being “guilty”. At Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, the strategic decision to rely more and more on alliances with other organizations has greatly increased the potential for disagreement within an organization that has long been accustomed to developing skills in its own home. Decisions about the creation, direct purchase or access to new skills through alliances are natural hot spots for conflicts between internal groups. The health insurance fund could have tried to minimize these conflicts by a structural solution by giving a particular group the power to decide, for example, whether it can develop a new claims processing system internally, do so in collaboration with an alliance partner or conceded, or acquire an existing system from a third party. Instead, the company has defined a number of criteria that should help different groups within the organization . B for example, the group of companies, information technology and marketing – to make these decisions together. The abuses you can – and should – take from a colleague are limited.
These tactics act to prevent or break the pirates of the conflict, thus limiting these abuses. But they also go further, because they divert the conversation from emotions to interests – which provokes emotions – and thus open the door to solving the problem. In our hypothetical Matrix Corporation, senior managers who oversee interconsquent sales teams often urge these teams to “do what is right for the customer.” Unfortunately, this exhortation is not much help in case of conflict. Given Matrix`s ability to offer many combinations of products and services, business leaders – each with different training and experience and access to different information, not to mention different unit priorities – have, unsurprisingly, different opinions on how best to meet customer needs.