Workplace Tar-Babies:
The Clusters of Disunity
by Alan Scheffer
Most of us are familiar with Joel Chandler Harris' wonderful story of Brer rabbit and the Tar-Baby. That story tells of a wily fox's (Brer Fox) plot to capture and eat an elusive rabbit (Brer Rabbit). Brer Fox's clever plan was to create a small person-like creature made out of tar -- the Tar-Baby -- and place it in the middle of the path down which Brer Rabbit would soon be passing. It was anticipated that the rabbit would get stuck in the tar and be captured at last.
Indeed it works out just that way. As the story unfolds, Brer Rabbit, out for a morning walk, encounters the Tar-Baby in his path. Attempting to be polite and mannerly, as Brer Fox knew he would, Brer Rabbit expresses a good morning, comments about the weather, and tries to engage in pleasant conversation. The Tar-Baby of course says nothing. Brer rabbit perseveres with good spirits in his attempt to engage the Tar-Baby in pleasant and polite conversation. Still the Tar-Baby persists in what Brer Rabbit regards as stubborn silence.
In growing agitation Brer rabbit suggests that if the Tar-Baby is deaf, he can holler louder, and attempts to do that. When the Tar-Baby stills fails to respond, Brer Rabbit begins to take offense, feeling that the Tar-Baby is big headed and arrogant He determines that he will teach the Tar-Baby some obviously long overdue lessons in manners. As the story picks up in the dialect in which it was originally told:
"Brer Rabbit keep on axin' 'im, en de Tar-Baby, she keep on sayin' nothin', twel present'y Brer Rabbit draw back wid his fis', he did, en blip he tuck 'er side er de head. Right dar's whar he broke his merlasses jug. His fis' stuck, en he can't pull loose. De tar hilt 'im. But Tar-Baby, she stay still, en Brer Fox, he lay low.
"`Ef you don't lemme loose, I'll knock you agin,' sez Brer Rabbit, sezee, en wid dat he fotch 'er a wipe wid de udder han', en dat stuck. Tar-Baby, she ain'y sayin' nuthin', en Brer Fox, he lay low.
"`Tu'n me loose, fo' I kick de natal stuffin' outen you,' sez Brer Rabbit, sezee, but de Tar-Baby, she ain't sayin' nuthin'. She des hilt on, en de Brer Rabbit lose de use er his feet in de same way. Brer Fox, he lay low. Den Brer Rabbit squall out dat ef de Tar-Baby don't tu'n 'im loose he butt 'er cranksided. En den he butted, en his head got stuck. Den Brer Fox, he sa'ntered fort', lookin' dez ez innercent ez wunner yo' mammy's mockin'-birds.
"`Howdy, Brer Rabbit,' sez Brer Fox, sezee. `You look sorter stuck up dis mawnin',' sezee, en den he rolled on de groun', en laft en laft twel he couldn't laff no mo'. `I speck you'll take dinner wid me dis time, Brer Rabbit. I done laid in some calamus root, en I ain't gwineter take no skuse,' sez Brer Fox, sezee."
It's a great story, at least for the reader, if not for the rabbit.. One of the core components of the story, and what makes it so compelling and interesting to us over the years, I think, is that we all recognize the dynamics that lie beneath the story's plot and surface details. Like Brer Rabbit, none of us has ever seen a real Tar-Baby, but we completely understand the point and the analogy that it draws to conditions in our own lives. We all have faced circumstances in our lives that appeared commonplace and ordinary, like the Tar-Baby, in which we unwittingly got involved and stuck.
The story also challenges us because, at some level, we clearly realize that the rabbit got into the predicament all by himself. Although the fox may have planned the trap and designed the Tar-Baby, the Tar-Baby was completely inanimate, had no volition, made no choices, and was totally passive. The entire dilemma in which the rabbit found himself sprang completely from his own understanding of the situation and, based on that understanding, on the choices he himself then made. How many of us have not faced similar, home-made predicaments.
Perhaps Brer Rabbit's biggest error, and one from which we can learn, is that he did not see the Tar-Baby for what it really was. He did not know tar-babies even existed. So, when he encountered one, he mistook it for something else, something that was normal, innocent, and non-dangerous. He perceived it to be another person and did not understand what he was dealing with: tar. Based on that misperception and misunderstanding, Brer Rabbit not only approached the Tar-Baby totally inappropriately but also ineffectively, with the resulting catastrophic consequences.
The purpose of this article is to make clear that it is not just Brer Rabbit who wrestles fruitlessly with tar-babies. Our own lives are filled with tar-babies in which we are continually getting stuck. Some of them, in particular, thrive in workplace settings. It is important that we understand that these tar-babies exist. And, once recognizing their existence, we can begin to identify them for what they are, and avoid the error that Brer Rabbit made.
Workplace Tar-BabiesThe tar-babies in the workplace are those common and recurrent clusters of disunity that, like tar-babies, exist, draw us in, and ensnare us. These clusters of disunity are the dysfunctional organizational dynamics into which we get drawn and become stuck.. These clusters are the identifiable constellations of counter-productive behaviors that can be found in most workplaces.
These predictable and recurrent patterns of behaviors, these clusters of disunity, are the tar-babies of the workplace because, when we get involved in them, we, like Brer Rabbit, become emotionally engaged, completely enmeshed, and unable to disentangle ourselves. We get caught. We become unwittingly prisoners of forces that we do not understand, and from which we cannot extricate ourselves.
Unfortunately, most of the time we do not identify these clusters of disunity as problematic, let alone as dangerous tar babies. Conditions of disunity are accepted in most organizations as "normal". Disunity at every organizational level, and in every type of business or industry, is so pervasive and prevalent that we have collectively adopted the belief that these dynamics are simply a manifestation of human nature with nothing to be done about them. The clusters of disunity are so common that they are rarely even surfaced as organizational problems, demanding management attention and solution. These workplace tar-babies are allowed to stay in our path, unidentified, where we, like Brer Rabbit, get stuck.
If organizations are to tap their full potential, we must understand 1) that clusters of disunity exist in the workplace, 2) that these clusters are dysfunctional tar babies, and, 3) that they can be avoided - three key things Brer Rabbit did not understand.
Clusters of DisunityLet us take closer look at some of the common expressions of disunity that look so normal and that we take so for granted. Listed below are some of the more common clusters of disunity. I have used names and labels that, for the most part, are widespread and well understood by people within organizations. That we have named them should help us understand how common and pervasive they are. It is not my aim, nor is it important at this point, to be rigorous in our definitions.
Conflict - The most pervasive cluster of disunity is conflict. Conflict is a cluster all by itself and it is also a core component of most of the other clusters. Conflict, whether in its pure form or in one of its many disguises, exists almost everywhere there are groups of any size. And conflict is always dysfunctional, even destructive. Interpersonal conflict, in one form or another, is the workplace's largest Tar-Baby.
Please understand, when talking about conflict, I do not mean the clashing of differing ideas and opinions. Those differences are good, and their animated exploration is extremely beneficial. Organizations, business units, teams need to actively encourage the exploration of vastly differing points of view. Surfacing and blending differing opinions is one of the reasons for, and strengths of, great teams. This clashing of ideas is not what I mean by conflict.
When I refer to conflict, I am talking about the clashing of differing personalities and egos. When I refer to the dynamics of conflict, I am referring to the motives, strategies, and activities designed to be triumphant, not over a problem, but over other people. In conflict, people's focus is not on discovering the best solution to mutual problems, exploring truth, uncovering facts. In conflict, people, no matter how subtly, are engaged in trying. to control, to diminish, to dominate, to win.
We must understand that conflict is not mysterious. In our society, conflict is a familiar companion. Its dynamics are understood, its progress is predictable, its consequences are foreseeable. If there is one thing that research has clarified beyond the shadow of a doubt, it is that conflict begets conflict. Once begun, conflict escalates. It gets worse. It spirals downward. It draws us in. Take it to the bank: conflict is a Tar-Baby.
And conflict is the animating force behind all of the clusters of workplace disunity.
Competition - Competition is the most subtle, and therefore commonplace and destructive, of the clusters of disunity.
Competition, to one degree or another, seems to permeate almost every aspect of organizational life. We not only learned to compete at the earliest stages of our lives, we learned how to compete well, and in very socially acceptable ways, so the destructive impact of competition goes all but unnoticed. At its very heart, competition is nothing less than low-grade conflict. The fact that we call conflict, when disguised and expressed in commonplace and seemingly acceptable behaviors, competition, must not fool us. It is still conflict; and to that extent, it has the same disastrous impact on the unity and cohesiveness of an organization.
Every bit of research conducted regarding competition between people at work indicates that, far from contributing to the success of the business, it saps the energies, deflects the focus, diminishes the creativity, and reduces the objectivity of those involved. It is a workplace Tar-Baby. Because of its wide-spread and surprisingly destructive nature, competition is one of the most important clusters for us to clearly understand, identify, and eliminate from the workplace.
Organizational Politics - This cluster of disunity refers to the egocentric quest for gaining and/or maintaining internal power and control that shapes behaviors and drive decisions. Politics refers to the posturing and strategic maneuvers designed to gain advantage over internal "competitors". Politics are a dynamic that often takes place in the higher levels of the organization between people who already have considerable power and influence and are simply vying to consolidate their positions and gain more influence, but it can occur at any level.
As with all the clusters of disunity, once people get enmeshed in the Tar-Baby of politics, they become stuck and remain stuck until someone wins and someone loses.
Sadly, this particular cluster of disunity is well understood in organizational life. Organizational politics are a "secret" that everybody knows. People are acutely aware of the internal power struggles that drain time and productivity from the organization. And, although organizational politics are, to all except those involved, disheartening and confusing, people do not discuss it. Or at least they do not discuss it in public, where it can be effectively surfaced, addressed, and resolved. It is perceived as particularly unsafe to bring up and challenge the strident politics that often consume the energies and attention at executive levels, especially because it is the upper level managers and executives who are the ones enmeshed in a Tar-Baby those dysfunctional dynamics.
Boundaries between departments - Organizational departments, working independently from each other, tend to become isolated, and dysfunctional boundaries between them emerge.
Boundaries between departments are usually not the result of conscious attempts to divide, exclude, or to separate people. They typically emerge when people, organized in an formal structure of departments and work units, do not have a sufficiently comprehensive whole-system view. Too often people's concerns in these structures are narrow and not inclusive of the total organization. Too often their views are bounded by a short sighted focus on their own department, profession, or shift, leading quickly to the delineation of boundaries between departments.
Boundaries between departments are included in the list of clusters of disunity because it is often over these boundaries, no matter how innocently they emerged, that communication channels break down; different and often conflicting goals, objectives, and agendas are pursued; scarce resources become a point of contention; interpersonal misunderstanding and stereotyping begin; and genuine inter-departmental competition and conflict erupt. In other words, once boundaries within an organization become clearly established points of identification in people's minds, patterns of certain predictable and counterproductive dynamics easily emerge and escalate. And, as with all the tar-babies, we get entangled in those dynamics.
Silos - This is a commonly used label given to various sub-systems existing within an organization when they become the primary focus of peoples attention and effort. Although we hear silos more often used to refer to staff functions and administrative areas, in many ways they are a lot like the cluster of boundaries between departments. They are included here because people commonly use the term silos to refer to what they see as an identifiable cluster of disunity.
Generally, silos are understood to reach from the top of the organization to the bottom. Silos tend to emerge when the politics between people at the top of the organization are combined with boundaries between departments for which they are responsible. Again, like the boundaries between departments, the existence of silos undercuts a healthy whole-system view and operation that organizations need
Turf protection -I wanted to include turf protection in the list of the tar-babies because it, again, is a commonly used term to describe a well understood cluster of disunity. Its dynamics overlap with several those listed above. It does, however, highlight the issue that, from time to time, people see that they have something within the organization that is not, nor they believe, should it be, collectively held or shared - an area, a responsibility, a location, a body of expertise, a "turf," that is theirs alone.
And once people see something as uniquely and rightfully theirs, and theirs alone, they fight to "protect it." The struggle for power and control of that turf becomes the prize over which people become divided and fight. It draws lines and rigidifies positions around issues of ownership, control, and rights. This is mine, and that is yours. Turf issues seem to spring from an extension of the we/ they, us/them mentality, now expanded beyond people and groups to include things.
Historically adversarial relationships -- In some organizations there are relationships that have been adversarial for so long that the people within that organization can no longer conceive of any other possibility. "It's just the way things are." To that extent, these relationships are historical tar-babies in which people have already become enmeshed and stuck.
Some of those adversarial relationships may be unique to a given organization, others are typically found in most organizations. One example of a typical, traditional, and historically ingrained adversarial relationship is the one frequently found between management and labor. The political and silo dynamics between sales and manufacturing frequently operating in many organizations would be another example.
Organizational classes -- When attempting to identify evidence of organizational disunity, we cannot overlook the existence of subtle organizational class structures. We may not call them classes (we like to think that classes only exist in the England of Dickens' time, or in India) but on close examination a very real, and at times degrading, class system thrives in many modern organizations. Some of these class divisions are blue-collar vs. white collar, professional vs. non-professional, office vs. factory, exempt vs. non-exempt, hourly vs. salary, etc..
Class distinction is one of the most insidious forms of organizational discrimination. People are routinely perceived as having, and are accorded, varying amounts value and worth as human beings depending upon the class in which they are perceived to be a member.
This class discrimination is the root of tremendous amounts of organizational disunity, and again, it truly deserves the Tar-Baby label because we all become enmeshed in the subtle dynamics of workplace prejudice.
Influential cultural issues - We live in a society and a world in which major lines are drawn between people - racism, sexism, nationalism, etc. - and it is over these lines that we judge people, value or diminish people, and over which countless lives have been sacrificed. Because they are such a pervasive part of our world, these lines have not escaped being dragged into the workplace, finding clear and active expressions within modern organizations.
A core challenge to us all is that often these major lines of prejudice have become institutionalized, embedded in policies, pay systems, promotional patterns, etc.. Once discrimination becomes systemic, the organization itself perpetuates it. Its devastating impact permeates organizational life at subtle levels. Even if it is not expressed, or even felt, in active, personal ways, discrimination and prejudice are inadvertently supported and sustained by very well-meaning people.
These are some of the clusters of disunity, the tar-babies of the workplace. They exist.
People, whether as individuals, departments, shifts, professions, etc., are constantly drawn into these dynamics of disunity. It doesn't making a difference who the people are or what work they are in. The compelling dynamics and habitual behaviors surrounding these clusters are so ingrained that people often fall into them without thought, without intent, and perhaps most importantly, without malice.
But please recognize, I'm not just talking about other people getting sucked in and stuck. I'm talking about the trouble I get into, and I'm talking about the trouble you get into. We all get entangled in these workplace tar-babies, every one of us.
As I've talked with people who were personally involved in various clusters of disunity, it was clear from their comments that they had no idea they themselves were caught up in dysfunctional patterns of behavior. They did not see that they were personally enmeshed in extremely predictable dynamics associated with conflict. They perceived without question that all the issues, the problems, and the difficulties that confronted them were entirely caused by "the other people". They were convinced, as was Brer Rabbit, that the troubles in which they found themselves entangled had nothing to do with them.
The Choice PointThis tendency to perceive things in this one-sided manner, however, is universal. When any of us become enmeshed in the dynamics of disunity, we can see clearly the other people's disfunctionality, but not our own. When we become personally involved in disunity, you and I do not see ourselves as having have fallen victim to re-current patterns of dysfunctional behaviors. Rather, we see ourselves as trying, as best we can, to deal with other people who are behaving badly, being selfish, controlling, overly ambitious, rigid, etc.. We see ourselves as just doing what has to be done in the face of "them" and their behaviors. We all quickly adopt the "They made me do it. I had no choice" mentality. But that mind set is inaccurate and misleading.
Even in the face of strident conflict, let alone some of its more low-grade expressions found in the clusters of disunity, we always have choice.
As pervasive as these tar-babies are, as common as these re-current patterns of conflict appear, and as normal as the clusters of disunity seem, they are avoidable. They do not have to exist. We can, and, for the good of our organizations and the people within them, we must collectively commit ourselves to avoiding and eliminating them.
To do so, we must keep in mind that we are not the victims of the disunity we experience; we are its co-creators. That we become caught in the tar-babies of disunity is a result of our own choices, like Brer Rabbit's, and no one else's. The cards of disunity may be dealt by someone else, but we know the game, and we gladly and skillfully play the hand. After choosing disunity and conflict once and getting stuck, we, in an effort to extricate ourselves, like Brer Rabbit, choose it a second time, and a third time, until we, and the other people involved, are embroiled and stuck in dynamics that have taken on a life of their own.
To break this pattern we are challenged to understand that there are, in fact, tar-babies in the workplace. We are challenged to identify and recognize those dysfunctional clusters of disunity when they emerge. And we are challenged then to choose to avoid, reject, and eliminate them.
Can we do it? Yes.
Will we do it? I don't know.
As Joel Chandler Harris ended his story:
"Did the fox eat the rabbit?" asked the little boy to whom the story had been told.
"Dat's all de fur de tale goes," replied the old man. "He mout, an den agin he moutent. Some say Judge B'ar come 'long en loosed 'im - some say he didn't. I hear Miss Sally callin'. You better run 'long."
Will we get eaten? The story isn't over yet. The choice is ours to make.
Back to publications page
© Copyright 1999 Management Associates. All rights reserved.
Most of us are familiar with Joel Chandler Harris' wonderful story of Brer rabbit and the Tar-Baby. That story tells of a wily fox's (Brer Fox) plot to capture and eat an elusive rabbit (Brer Rabbit). Brer Fox's clever plan was to create a small person-like creature made out of tar -- the Tar-Baby -- and place it in the middle of the path down which Brer Rabbit would soon be passing. It was anticipated that the rabbit would get stuck in the tar and be captured at last.
Indeed it works out just that way. As the story unfolds, Brer Rabbit, out for a morning walk, encounters the Tar-Baby in his path. Attempting to be polite and mannerly, as Brer Fox knew he would, Brer Rabbit expresses a good morning, comments about the weather, and tries to engage in pleasant conversation. The Tar-Baby of course says nothing. Brer rabbit perseveres with good spirits in his attempt to engage the Tar-Baby in pleasant and polite conversation. Still the Tar-Baby persists in what Brer Rabbit regards as stubborn silence.
In growing agitation Brer rabbit suggests that if the Tar-Baby is deaf, he can holler louder, and attempts to do that. When the Tar-Baby stills fails to respond, Brer Rabbit begins to take offense, feeling that the Tar-Baby is big headed and arrogant He determines that he will teach the Tar-Baby some obviously long overdue lessons in manners. As the story picks up in the dialect in which it was originally told:
"Brer Rabbit keep on axin' 'im, en de Tar-Baby, she keep on sayin' nothin', twel present'y Brer Rabbit draw back wid his fis', he did, en blip he tuck 'er side er de head. Right dar's whar he broke his merlasses jug. His fis' stuck, en he can't pull loose. De tar hilt 'im. But Tar-Baby, she stay still, en Brer Fox, he lay low.
"`Ef you don't lemme loose, I'll knock you agin,' sez Brer Rabbit, sezee, en wid dat he fotch 'er a wipe wid de udder han', en dat stuck. Tar-Baby, she ain'y sayin' nuthin', en Brer Fox, he lay low.
"`Tu'n me loose, fo' I kick de natal stuffin' outen you,' sez Brer Rabbit, sezee, but de Tar-Baby, she ain't sayin' nuthin'. She des hilt on, en de Brer Rabbit lose de use er his feet in de same way. Brer Fox, he lay low. Den Brer Rabbit squall out dat ef de Tar-Baby don't tu'n 'im loose he butt 'er cranksided. En den he butted, en his head got stuck. Den Brer Fox, he sa'ntered fort', lookin' dez ez innercent ez wunner yo' mammy's mockin'-birds.
"`Howdy, Brer Rabbit,' sez Brer Fox, sezee. `You look sorter stuck up dis mawnin',' sezee, en den he rolled on de groun', en laft en laft twel he couldn't laff no mo'. `I speck you'll take dinner wid me dis time, Brer Rabbit. I done laid in some calamus root, en I ain't gwineter take no skuse,' sez Brer Fox, sezee."
It's a great story, at least for the reader, if not for the rabbit.. One of the core components of the story, and what makes it so compelling and interesting to us over the years, I think, is that we all recognize the dynamics that lie beneath the story's plot and surface details. Like Brer Rabbit, none of us has ever seen a real Tar-Baby, but we completely understand the point and the analogy that it draws to conditions in our own lives. We all have faced circumstances in our lives that appeared commonplace and ordinary, like the Tar-Baby, in which we unwittingly got involved and stuck.
The story also challenges us because, at some level, we clearly realize that the rabbit got into the predicament all by himself. Although the fox may have planned the trap and designed the Tar-Baby, the Tar-Baby was completely inanimate, had no volition, made no choices, and was totally passive. The entire dilemma in which the rabbit found himself sprang completely from his own understanding of the situation and, based on that understanding, on the choices he himself then made. How many of us have not faced similar, home-made predicaments.
Perhaps Brer Rabbit's biggest error, and one from which we can learn, is that he did not see the Tar-Baby for what it really was. He did not know tar-babies even existed. So, when he encountered one, he mistook it for something else, something that was normal, innocent, and non-dangerous. He perceived it to be another person and did not understand what he was dealing with: tar. Based on that misperception and misunderstanding, Brer Rabbit not only approached the Tar-Baby totally inappropriately but also ineffectively, with the resulting catastrophic consequences.
The purpose of this article is to make clear that it is not just Brer Rabbit who wrestles fruitlessly with tar-babies. Our own lives are filled with tar-babies in which we are continually getting stuck. Some of them, in particular, thrive in workplace settings. It is important that we understand that these tar-babies exist. And, once recognizing their existence, we can begin to identify them for what they are, and avoid the error that Brer Rabbit made.
Workplace Tar-BabiesThe tar-babies in the workplace are those common and recurrent clusters of disunity that, like tar-babies, exist, draw us in, and ensnare us. These clusters of disunity are the dysfunctional organizational dynamics into which we get drawn and become stuck.. These clusters are the identifiable constellations of counter-productive behaviors that can be found in most workplaces.
These predictable and recurrent patterns of behaviors, these clusters of disunity, are the tar-babies of the workplace because, when we get involved in them, we, like Brer Rabbit, become emotionally engaged, completely enmeshed, and unable to disentangle ourselves. We get caught. We become unwittingly prisoners of forces that we do not understand, and from which we cannot extricate ourselves.
Unfortunately, most of the time we do not identify these clusters of disunity as problematic, let alone as dangerous tar babies. Conditions of disunity are accepted in most organizations as "normal". Disunity at every organizational level, and in every type of business or industry, is so pervasive and prevalent that we have collectively adopted the belief that these dynamics are simply a manifestation of human nature with nothing to be done about them. The clusters of disunity are so common that they are rarely even surfaced as organizational problems, demanding management attention and solution. These workplace tar-babies are allowed to stay in our path, unidentified, where we, like Brer Rabbit, get stuck.
If organizations are to tap their full potential, we must understand 1) that clusters of disunity exist in the workplace, 2) that these clusters are dysfunctional tar babies, and, 3) that they can be avoided - three key things Brer Rabbit did not understand.
Clusters of DisunityLet us take closer look at some of the common expressions of disunity that look so normal and that we take so for granted. Listed below are some of the more common clusters of disunity. I have used names and labels that, for the most part, are widespread and well understood by people within organizations. That we have named them should help us understand how common and pervasive they are. It is not my aim, nor is it important at this point, to be rigorous in our definitions.
Conflict - The most pervasive cluster of disunity is conflict. Conflict is a cluster all by itself and it is also a core component of most of the other clusters. Conflict, whether in its pure form or in one of its many disguises, exists almost everywhere there are groups of any size. And conflict is always dysfunctional, even destructive. Interpersonal conflict, in one form or another, is the workplace's largest Tar-Baby.
Please understand, when talking about conflict, I do not mean the clashing of differing ideas and opinions. Those differences are good, and their animated exploration is extremely beneficial. Organizations, business units, teams need to actively encourage the exploration of vastly differing points of view. Surfacing and blending differing opinions is one of the reasons for, and strengths of, great teams. This clashing of ideas is not what I mean by conflict.
When I refer to conflict, I am talking about the clashing of differing personalities and egos. When I refer to the dynamics of conflict, I am referring to the motives, strategies, and activities designed to be triumphant, not over a problem, but over other people. In conflict, people's focus is not on discovering the best solution to mutual problems, exploring truth, uncovering facts. In conflict, people, no matter how subtly, are engaged in trying. to control, to diminish, to dominate, to win.
We must understand that conflict is not mysterious. In our society, conflict is a familiar companion. Its dynamics are understood, its progress is predictable, its consequences are foreseeable. If there is one thing that research has clarified beyond the shadow of a doubt, it is that conflict begets conflict. Once begun, conflict escalates. It gets worse. It spirals downward. It draws us in. Take it to the bank: conflict is a Tar-Baby.
And conflict is the animating force behind all of the clusters of workplace disunity.
Competition - Competition is the most subtle, and therefore commonplace and destructive, of the clusters of disunity.
Competition, to one degree or another, seems to permeate almost every aspect of organizational life. We not only learned to compete at the earliest stages of our lives, we learned how to compete well, and in very socially acceptable ways, so the destructive impact of competition goes all but unnoticed. At its very heart, competition is nothing less than low-grade conflict. The fact that we call conflict, when disguised and expressed in commonplace and seemingly acceptable behaviors, competition, must not fool us. It is still conflict; and to that extent, it has the same disastrous impact on the unity and cohesiveness of an organization.
Every bit of research conducted regarding competition between people at work indicates that, far from contributing to the success of the business, it saps the energies, deflects the focus, diminishes the creativity, and reduces the objectivity of those involved. It is a workplace Tar-Baby. Because of its wide-spread and surprisingly destructive nature, competition is one of the most important clusters for us to clearly understand, identify, and eliminate from the workplace.
Organizational Politics - This cluster of disunity refers to the egocentric quest for gaining and/or maintaining internal power and control that shapes behaviors and drive decisions. Politics refers to the posturing and strategic maneuvers designed to gain advantage over internal "competitors". Politics are a dynamic that often takes place in the higher levels of the organization between people who already have considerable power and influence and are simply vying to consolidate their positions and gain more influence, but it can occur at any level.
As with all the clusters of disunity, once people get enmeshed in the Tar-Baby of politics, they become stuck and remain stuck until someone wins and someone loses.
Sadly, this particular cluster of disunity is well understood in organizational life. Organizational politics are a "secret" that everybody knows. People are acutely aware of the internal power struggles that drain time and productivity from the organization. And, although organizational politics are, to all except those involved, disheartening and confusing, people do not discuss it. Or at least they do not discuss it in public, where it can be effectively surfaced, addressed, and resolved. It is perceived as particularly unsafe to bring up and challenge the strident politics that often consume the energies and attention at executive levels, especially because it is the upper level managers and executives who are the ones enmeshed in a Tar-Baby those dysfunctional dynamics.
Boundaries between departments - Organizational departments, working independently from each other, tend to become isolated, and dysfunctional boundaries between them emerge.
Boundaries between departments are usually not the result of conscious attempts to divide, exclude, or to separate people. They typically emerge when people, organized in an formal structure of departments and work units, do not have a sufficiently comprehensive whole-system view. Too often people's concerns in these structures are narrow and not inclusive of the total organization. Too often their views are bounded by a short sighted focus on their own department, profession, or shift, leading quickly to the delineation of boundaries between departments.
Boundaries between departments are included in the list of clusters of disunity because it is often over these boundaries, no matter how innocently they emerged, that communication channels break down; different and often conflicting goals, objectives, and agendas are pursued; scarce resources become a point of contention; interpersonal misunderstanding and stereotyping begin; and genuine inter-departmental competition and conflict erupt. In other words, once boundaries within an organization become clearly established points of identification in people's minds, patterns of certain predictable and counterproductive dynamics easily emerge and escalate. And, as with all the tar-babies, we get entangled in those dynamics.
Silos - This is a commonly used label given to various sub-systems existing within an organization when they become the primary focus of peoples attention and effort. Although we hear silos more often used to refer to staff functions and administrative areas, in many ways they are a lot like the cluster of boundaries between departments. They are included here because people commonly use the term silos to refer to what they see as an identifiable cluster of disunity.
Generally, silos are understood to reach from the top of the organization to the bottom. Silos tend to emerge when the politics between people at the top of the organization are combined with boundaries between departments for which they are responsible. Again, like the boundaries between departments, the existence of silos undercuts a healthy whole-system view and operation that organizations need
Turf protection -I wanted to include turf protection in the list of the tar-babies because it, again, is a commonly used term to describe a well understood cluster of disunity. Its dynamics overlap with several those listed above. It does, however, highlight the issue that, from time to time, people see that they have something within the organization that is not, nor they believe, should it be, collectively held or shared - an area, a responsibility, a location, a body of expertise, a "turf," that is theirs alone.
And once people see something as uniquely and rightfully theirs, and theirs alone, they fight to "protect it." The struggle for power and control of that turf becomes the prize over which people become divided and fight. It draws lines and rigidifies positions around issues of ownership, control, and rights. This is mine, and that is yours. Turf issues seem to spring from an extension of the we/ they, us/them mentality, now expanded beyond people and groups to include things.
Historically adversarial relationships -- In some organizations there are relationships that have been adversarial for so long that the people within that organization can no longer conceive of any other possibility. "It's just the way things are." To that extent, these relationships are historical tar-babies in which people have already become enmeshed and stuck.
Some of those adversarial relationships may be unique to a given organization, others are typically found in most organizations. One example of a typical, traditional, and historically ingrained adversarial relationship is the one frequently found between management and labor. The political and silo dynamics between sales and manufacturing frequently operating in many organizations would be another example.
Organizational classes -- When attempting to identify evidence of organizational disunity, we cannot overlook the existence of subtle organizational class structures. We may not call them classes (we like to think that classes only exist in the England of Dickens' time, or in India) but on close examination a very real, and at times degrading, class system thrives in many modern organizations. Some of these class divisions are blue-collar vs. white collar, professional vs. non-professional, office vs. factory, exempt vs. non-exempt, hourly vs. salary, etc..
Class distinction is one of the most insidious forms of organizational discrimination. People are routinely perceived as having, and are accorded, varying amounts value and worth as human beings depending upon the class in which they are perceived to be a member.
This class discrimination is the root of tremendous amounts of organizational disunity, and again, it truly deserves the Tar-Baby label because we all become enmeshed in the subtle dynamics of workplace prejudice.
Influential cultural issues - We live in a society and a world in which major lines are drawn between people - racism, sexism, nationalism, etc. - and it is over these lines that we judge people, value or diminish people, and over which countless lives have been sacrificed. Because they are such a pervasive part of our world, these lines have not escaped being dragged into the workplace, finding clear and active expressions within modern organizations.
A core challenge to us all is that often these major lines of prejudice have become institutionalized, embedded in policies, pay systems, promotional patterns, etc.. Once discrimination becomes systemic, the organization itself perpetuates it. Its devastating impact permeates organizational life at subtle levels. Even if it is not expressed, or even felt, in active, personal ways, discrimination and prejudice are inadvertently supported and sustained by very well-meaning people.
These are some of the clusters of disunity, the tar-babies of the workplace. They exist.
People, whether as individuals, departments, shifts, professions, etc., are constantly drawn into these dynamics of disunity. It doesn't making a difference who the people are or what work they are in. The compelling dynamics and habitual behaviors surrounding these clusters are so ingrained that people often fall into them without thought, without intent, and perhaps most importantly, without malice.
But please recognize, I'm not just talking about other people getting sucked in and stuck. I'm talking about the trouble I get into, and I'm talking about the trouble you get into. We all get entangled in these workplace tar-babies, every one of us.
As I've talked with people who were personally involved in various clusters of disunity, it was clear from their comments that they had no idea they themselves were caught up in dysfunctional patterns of behavior. They did not see that they were personally enmeshed in extremely predictable dynamics associated with conflict. They perceived without question that all the issues, the problems, and the difficulties that confronted them were entirely caused by "the other people". They were convinced, as was Brer Rabbit, that the troubles in which they found themselves entangled had nothing to do with them.
The Choice PointThis tendency to perceive things in this one-sided manner, however, is universal. When any of us become enmeshed in the dynamics of disunity, we can see clearly the other people's disfunctionality, but not our own. When we become personally involved in disunity, you and I do not see ourselves as having have fallen victim to re-current patterns of dysfunctional behaviors. Rather, we see ourselves as trying, as best we can, to deal with other people who are behaving badly, being selfish, controlling, overly ambitious, rigid, etc.. We see ourselves as just doing what has to be done in the face of "them" and their behaviors. We all quickly adopt the "They made me do it. I had no choice" mentality. But that mind set is inaccurate and misleading.
Even in the face of strident conflict, let alone some of its more low-grade expressions found in the clusters of disunity, we always have choice.
As pervasive as these tar-babies are, as common as these re-current patterns of conflict appear, and as normal as the clusters of disunity seem, they are avoidable. They do not have to exist. We can, and, for the good of our organizations and the people within them, we must collectively commit ourselves to avoiding and eliminating them.
To do so, we must keep in mind that we are not the victims of the disunity we experience; we are its co-creators. That we become caught in the tar-babies of disunity is a result of our own choices, like Brer Rabbit's, and no one else's. The cards of disunity may be dealt by someone else, but we know the game, and we gladly and skillfully play the hand. After choosing disunity and conflict once and getting stuck, we, in an effort to extricate ourselves, like Brer Rabbit, choose it a second time, and a third time, until we, and the other people involved, are embroiled and stuck in dynamics that have taken on a life of their own.
To break this pattern we are challenged to understand that there are, in fact, tar-babies in the workplace. We are challenged to identify and recognize those dysfunctional clusters of disunity when they emerge. And we are challenged then to choose to avoid, reject, and eliminate them.
Can we do it? Yes.
Will we do it? I don't know.
As Joel Chandler Harris ended his story:
"Did the fox eat the rabbit?" asked the little boy to whom the story had been told.
"Dat's all de fur de tale goes," replied the old man. "He mout, an den agin he moutent. Some say Judge B'ar come 'long en loosed 'im - some say he didn't. I hear Miss Sally callin'. You better run 'long."
Will we get eaten? The story isn't over yet. The choice is ours to make.
Back to publications page
© Copyright 1999 Management Associates. All rights reserved.