American Management Association • www.amanet.orgHas this.docx

American Management Association • www.amanet.org
H
as this ever happened to you? You are embroiled in an argument
about a matter that is important to you and also to an employ-
ee. After several back-and-forth exchanges, you finally say,
“Okay, then, we’ll do it your way.” You do what you can to
give that
employee exactly what he is asking for, only to find out later
that he is
still ticked off. You are left wondering, “What is his problem?
Isn’t he
ever satisfied?”
On the other hand, you may have had another experience as
well. An
employee storms into your office, upset about a policy that, as
far as she
is concerned, just isn’t working. You listen. She continues
talking; you
continue to listen. In the back of your mind, though, you are
thinking, “I
don’t know what we can do to fix that. It is what it is … nobody
else has
complained.” She keeps talking and you keep listening. Finally
she looks
at you with relief and says, “Thanks for listening. I feel better.
I’ll talk to
you later.” You didn’t do anything, and somehow the situation
is now
okay. You are left wondering what happened.

Usually in a conflict or disagreement, as we look for an
acceptable
solution, we focus on the substance of the outcome. Everyone
wants
39
What We Need:The
Satisfaction Triangle
C H A P T E R 3
www.amanet.org
40 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT
something. The conventional wisdom tells us that getting that
something
means that the conflict is dissolved. Did you get what you asked
for?
If so, then you are happy. If you did not get what you wanted,
then
you are not happy. In the first scenario, your expectation is that,
when
you finally decide on a solution, the employee will be satisfied.
In the
second scenario, you do not expect the employee to leave your
office
satisfied unless you take some action that is acceptable to her.
But the
reality is often more complex than that. Just as important—
sometimes

more important—are the other two sides of the satisfaction
triangle,
shown in Figure 3-1: process satisfaction and emotional
satisfaction.
Understanding all three sides of the satisfaction triangle can
provide
managers with a more extensive set of tools for resolving
conflicts.
Figure 3-1. Satisfaction triangle.
The head of the Finance Office sent an urgent e-mail to therest
of the members of the executive leadership team. With
only three months left in the fiscal year, the agency was facing
a
serious budget crisis, a $9 million shortfall. First, the team
need-
ed to understand where the money had gone; then, they would
have to make hard decisions about how to reallocate funds to
cover critical needs. For three weeks, they were in and out of
meetings, gathering numbers, analyzing reports, looking for
solu-
tions. The meetings were long and the tensions ran high as each
person protected his or her own department’s priorities and
looked for ways to cut back on expenditures. Keeping the goals
of
the agency paramount, and relying on the goodwill the team had
www.amanet.org
developed, they were able to craft a new budget that satisfied
the
basic needs of each department.
This example illustrates how all three sides of that triangle can

con-
tribute to satisfaction in a conflict. The final decisions that the
group
reached on budget allocations provided satisfaction on
substance, though
at the end of the process no one got all of what he or she
wanted. Those
long meetings they labored through, preparing charts and
scrutinizing
data, and sometimes arguing over specifics, answered their need
for
process satisfaction. Each person on the team understood how
the deci-
sions had been made, and where the final decisions came from.
The
respect for each other that they demonstrated in the midst of
their dis-
agreements and their willingness to listen to one another
provided them
with emotional satisfaction as well—each of them knew that he
or she
had been heard and had been treated with respect throughout the
dis-
cussions, even as the meetings ground on and the outcome was
elusive.
Substance Satisfaction
Satisfaction on substance is fairly easy to gauge. What are the
answers?
What are the solutions? What decisions are made? To
adequately meet
people’s needs for substantive satisfaction, try the following:
> Move beyond initial demands and positions. Why does each of
us take these positions? What are our interests, objectives, or
concerns?

> Manage expectations. Identify what people expect, clarify
realistic and unrealistic expectations, lower expectations that
are unreasonable.
> Establish joint goals and common purpose. How does the
question or disagreement relate to the work of the organization?
Be clear that decisions ultimately are made to support the
organization’s work, not for any other agenda.
When a problem is solved, when a solution is found that meets
the
needs and interests of those involved, this is a satisfying
moment,
WHAT WE NEED: THE SATISFACTION TRIANGLE 41
www.amanet.org
indeed. In the experience of the executive team responding to
the budg-
et crisis, each member reported that the solution developed by
the team
was satisfactory—that is, it met enough of their needs and
interests to
be acceptable to all.
Several years ago, a client showed me an article citing research
con-
ducted in the early nineties through the University of
Minnesota, involv-
ing interviews of people who had appealed their court decisions.
Of the

people who go to court and lose, a relatively small number
decide to
appeal the decisions. The researchers asked randomly selected
individu-
als why they decided to go through the appeals process. After
all, appeal-
ing a court decision is costly, time-consuming, and emotionally
draining.
The findings showed that, among the people the researchers
inter-
viewed, far more than half did not really expect a different
decision at
the next higher level. Puzzled, the researchers asked, “Why,
then, did
you choose to appeal?” Their responses were about process
satisfaction
and emotional satisfaction. Some felt that the process as
originally
described to them was not what actually happened in court.
Others said
that the appeal itself was part of their right to due process. For
still oth-
ers, emotional satisfaction was more important: They did not
feel that
they had been heard at the lower court level or else they felt
that they
had been treated disrespectfully during the trial.
Process Satisfaction
Process satisfaction involves clarity about how decisions are
made, know-
ing where you can have input, believing that the decisions are
fair and
consistent, and accepting that the standards for decision making
apply

to others the same way as they apply to you.
Consider two employees from different organizations, each
interest-
ed in a promotion. In Organization A, an
opening is posted and several people apply;
three are internal, four are external. The cri-
teria for the position are clearly described,
application procedures are carefully delin-
eated, and notice is circulated about the
position several weeks before the deadline. Candidates are
interviewed.
When Jim is not selected, he is sent a letter thanking him for his
appli-
If you can't describe
what you are doing as
a process, you don't
know what you're doing.
—W. EDWARDS DEMING
www.amanet.org
cation and providing some reasoning for the selection that was
made.
Jim is disappointed at not being selected, but satisfied that the
process

was fair and transparent. He recovers relatively quickly from
the disap-
pointment and refocuses on the job at hand.
In Organization B, no notice is given that there is a vacancy.
The
manager brings the new hire down the hall to introduce her to
the rest
of the staff. Jane is surprised: “How did she get that job? I have
been
working here for fifteen years. I know the computer system and
our pro-
cedures, I know the history and all of the people we deal with. I
will have
to train her to do the job that I should have gotten. And I never
knew
about it!” Not only is Jane disappointed about not getting the
promotion,
but she is ticked off about the process itself. This employee
expends con-
siderable energy complaining to others about the new hire.
To provide process satisfaction, then:
> Be clear about how the decisions will be made, and who will
make them.
> Have policies and procedures for decision making, and follow
them. There are many organizations that have created volumes
of
policies and procedures that are not followed or, worse, that are
only applied occasionally. This approach opens managers up to
accusations of favoritism.
> Be consistent in decision making across departments and
among

employees. This can be challenging in a large organization.
Employees talk to other employees working in other divisions.
When one supervisor allows his or her employees to have
flexible schedules or alternate work schedules, word passes
throughout the building faster than the flu. Other employees
want the same advantages and opportunities. They expect
fairness and consistency when these policies are interpreted for
them. Establishing clear criteria for these decisions provides a
transparent policy.
> Provide opportunities for input into decisions, and let people
know when and how that information will be used.
Further exploring the importance of process satisfaction in the
work-
place, Chan Kim and Renee Mauborgne identified three
principles (the
three Es) of fair process for employees:1
www.amanet.org
1. Engagement. When conflicts or problems arise, encourage
input, allow others to question ideas, suggest their own
remedies, or
challenge proposals.
One manager I worked with recently was notorious among
herstaff for making pronouncements of her decisions. When
they approached her with suggestions from their own
experience,
her response was, “This is the way we will do it. I’ve already

decid-
ed.” They did not think that they had any opportunity for input
into decisions that directly affected their work, and so their
frus-
tration was palpable and employee morale sank.
2. Explanation. Yes, it is the manager’s responsibility and
authori-
ty to make decisions. When you have made a decision, close the
loop.
Clarify for employees the thought behind the decisions.
Acknowledge
their ability to understand by keeping them informed about your
deci-
sions. This acknowledgment demonstrates your respect for their
efforts
and expertise. It also allows them to let it go. Sometimes this is
a step in
process satisfaction that is too easy for a manager to overlook.
When employees requested funding to attend a conference,the
boss was unclear about how the training budget could
be spent. He took the question to the human resources depart-
ment. The answer was no—not for this particular conference. In
his mind, everything was settled. The employees, though, were
left
wondering what the decision was, and how and where it was
made.
When they saw other employees’ funding approved for a
different
conference, they were confused and indignant. Had the boss
com-
municated with employees the answer to their question and how
he arrived at it, they could have let go of the question as well.
3. Expectation clarity. Be clear with employees about what is

expected of them, what the “rules” are, what their areas of
responsibili-
ty are, and the performance standards and penalties for failure.
Giving
www.amanet.org
people notice and fair warning is essential to maintaining
process
satisfaction. With clearly identified job expectations, you can
then hold
employees accountable for their work. And that accountability
is seen as
fair. Additionally, the wise supervisor is clear with an employee
in
assigning a project: an unambiguous description of what is
expected, a
due date or deadline, (sometimes) designated milestones to be
met along
the way, and criteria for acceptable project completion. She
then asks
the employee to describe back to her what the assignment is so
that she
can ascertain that the assignment is understood and clarify any
confu-
sion that may have occurred in their communication.
When you become aware of the importance of process
satisfaction
to the resolution of disputes, you will see opportunities for
process sat-

isfaction in many situations. During the budget crisis described
above
(the $9 million shortfall), team members met for long hours
poring over
tables and data. At the end of each meeting, they identified data
gaps
and other areas for analysis. At the next meeting, they returned
with
more information. One reason they reached an acceptable
solution was
that each understood and participated in the decision-making
process.
In the end, each knew where the decisions came from because
they had
participated in creating them.
On the other hand, process dissatisfaction can take a toll on
employ-
ee morale—and productivity. Recently an employee explained
to me his
frustration with his supervisor. He had put in extra hours while
his boss
was on leave. The supervisor’s boss assured him, “Oh, yes, you
can get
overtime for this,” which he did. When the supervisor returned
and gave
him a similar assignment, she said, “You will get comp time for
this, not
overtime.” The employee’s perception was that the decisions
made by his
boss were arbitrary and capricious, that he couldn’t count on
policies, or
more importantly, on how the policies would be interpreted.
When I met
this employee, he was demoralized. “I’ll work eight hours a
day, but I am

leaving at 5:00. I am tired of being jerked around.”
Consider This
] Identify a conflict you have been a part of when a lack of
clarity about the process contributed to the conflict.
] In this situation, what would have provided process clarity?
www.amanet.org
] Identify a policy or procedure within your organization that
does provide process satisfaction when the outcome itself
may not satisfy.
Emotional Satisfaction
Emotional satisfaction really comes down to, “Was I heard?”
and “Was I
treated with respect?” Everyone needs to feel listened to,
respected, and
safe. If, in the process of looking at a problem, people feel
threatened or
discounted, they are far less likely to accept any decisions that
are made.
If we go back to the budget-crisis example, note that members
of the
executive team respected one another. When one spoke, others
leaned
forward and listened. They did not always agree. In fact, on
some points

there was strong disagreement. But they maintained their
commitment
to each other to respect their differences of opinion and to listen
to one
another. To put it another way, emotional satisfaction was an
integral part
of their problem-solving approach.
At the beginning of this chapter I cited the example of a woman
who
came into your office worked up about a policy issue. From
your per-
spective, “All I did was listen.” From her perspective, you
respected her
and her opinions enough to give her your time, to listen to her.
That is
just what she needed. To provide that emotional satisfaction,
you need
to:
> Create a safe place for difficult discussions. Some simple
ground
rules or guidelines can help: avoid personal attacks, keep an
open
mind, respect others’ opinions, speak for yourself.
> Listen. Put aside your own thoughts and opinions. Turn away
from the computer screen or the text message and give the
person
your undivided attention.
> Respect confidentiality. If you tell people that you will keep a
con-
versation confidential, you must keep your word. If you
determine
that the information really must be shared with someone else, be

clear at the outset that you cannot maintain that
confidentiality—
and talk about whom you will be speaking with, what
information
you will pass along.
> Of course, people have emotions, even at work. Provide safe
ways
for them to be expressed and heard.
www.amanet.org
Many times I have listened to a simple complaint that has taken
on
a life of its own within an office. “My supervisor doesn’t even
say hello
to me. When we pass each other in the hall, she doesn’t
acknowledge
that I exist.” That manager may be caught up in her own
thoughts. More
often, the manager may not realize how important a nod, a
smile, or hello
can be to a subordinate. The employee carries those experiences
of
recognition and acknowledgment into times of conflict and
disagree-
ment.
Consider This
] Identify an experience you have had during which someone

listened to you. What effect did that have on you? What
effect did it have on the conflict?
] When someone disagrees with you, are you able to put
aside your own thoughts and hear what the person is
saying?
Understanding the satisfaction triangle can give you a powerful
tool
as a manager, especially when you cannot give your employees
substance
satisfaction. What they are asking for simply cannot be done.
The
resources are not available. A request may have to be denied
because of
policy. To maintain the supervisor’s authority, the performance
evalua-
tion cannot be changed.
However, many times you can provide process satisfaction. You
can
develop clear processes and procedures for how decisions will
be made,
you can inform people of those processes, and then you can
follow them.
You can allow time for the employees to have input. When a
decision is
made, you must remember to close the loop: communicate what
the
decision is and explain what will be expected of them.
Virtually all the time, you can provide emotional satisfaction.
The
first step is to treat employees with respect—always. And when
differ-
ences and disagreements arise, listen to what they have to say,

and
always treat them respectfully, even when you disagree.
Note
1. W. Chan Kim and Renee Mauborgne, “Fair Process:
Managing in the Knowledge
Economy,” HBR on Point (Boston, Harvard Business School,
2003).
www.amanet.org

American Management Association • www.amanet.orgHas this.docx

More Related Content

Similar to American Management Association • www.amanet.orgHas this.docx (11)

More from ADDY50 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

American Management Association • www.amanet.orgHas this.docx