Two groups, commanded to share resources, turned quickly into two groups rowing in opposite directions. A perplexed director observing the disaster of a ship ripping apart at the seams asks - "what is going on?" I'm sure he believes, all you need to do is start rowing in the same direction. If only it were that simple. Many organizations are trying to save money by encouraging departments to share resources such as support staff. Theoretically increasing access to resources, the real life story is very different. Mandated change without tending to the personal feelings around that change sets up internal struggles, increased opportunities to say "not my job" or "I've already got too much to do." In this case a government agency was headed by a director who implemented the new structure with a magic wand, "you shall now share resources." This picture tells the story of what happened. The two women in
charge of the departments were already adversaries. Thus, a personality conflict was given the opportunity to flourish into full-blown warfare. The day of our dialogue session, both women suddenly had emergency meetings elsewhere in the country. God forbid they come sit together in the same room for a day. Both had given their staff subtle but unmistakable messages that
cooperating with the "other department" was not only low on their list of priorities but might be considered treasonous. Never an overt message, the raising of an eyebrow and "you will just have to work on that later, we need this done today" let staff know that cooperation wouldn't win them any gold stars.
Officially they talked the talk but "implementationally" they made it
impossible. "Sharing resources" in this way creates false shortages. Both groups hoarded what(who) they had from each other and both "did without" in many situations. Only a deep dialogue revealed the hidden assumptions that kept them from collaborating. In the end it was good their managers boycotted the meeting. They decided to go "underground" and cooperate on the sly - whatever it takes.

The turning point in this meeting came after hours of griping and groaning about "you never do this," and "I can't take care of x, y AND z without help" and "why should we help them when they don't call until the day before" Tempers were high, frustration was high but one guy sat silently listening. He turned his face to pay attention to every one who spoke. Finally he indicated that he had something to say, and because he had listened so carefully to everyone else, they all turned respectfully to listen to him. "I don't want to be disrespectful. But you know I'm just out of the army and I spent quite some time in the Gulf War. Because of that I have a different perspectiveÉ.see, as long as I'm not drinking powdered milk, I'm sleeping in my own bed, and I get to kiss my wife and my kids goodnight, - . this is not that bad." The silence that followed was the sound of an entire group of people having one big moment of enlightenment. A little perspective can go a long way.

By Anonymous on Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 08:40 am:

I wonder about the poor guy falling off the end. That's how I feel sometimes. What am I supposed to do when I'm trying to help and I get shoved over the side?

By Anonymous on Sunday, September 07, 2003 - 02:20 am:

A scenario such as described above could be the result of a lack of communication between the two parties leading to a fight for resources between them. As there is no clear discussion on the role of each and why the need for shared resources, this could have led to increasing mistrust amongst the group members. Regular dialogue is required to bring out the sentiments of the group.