Confrontation meeting

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The confrontation meeting is an instrument within organizational development for the efficient identification of organizational problems. Solutions and implementation plans are to be developed at the same time. The members of all management levels come together for a maximum of one day in order to first analyze the company situation and to develop joint and cross-functional solutions for identified problems and conflicts. These solutions should then be implemented promptly.

Origin and Concept

The concept of the confrontation meeting was developed by Richard Beckhard in 1967. The statements in this article essentially follow its presentation. The starting point for Beckhard's considerations was the realization that, after major change processes, negative effects on productivity and general work ethic within an organization often had to be found. Beckhard therefore asked the question of how the current status of an organization can be reliably determined and how it can be improved in the short term but permanently. On the basis of studies in various companies, he subsequently developed the confrontation meeting.

“I have recently been experimenting with a measure that allows a complete management group from all levels of the company to quickly review the company's status and - within hours - draw up action plans to improve it. I call it a confrontation meeting. "

- Beckhard

The term “ confrontation ” initially indicates that a conflict between different teams or between members within a team is necessary in order to carry out the meeting, which is to be resolved by confronting the participants. However, this does not necessarily have to be the case. Rather, Beckhard's original concept is about confronting the participants with obstacles that stand in the way of efficient and smooth workflows. These obstacles can be problems in organizational processes as well as conflicts between functional areas, teams or people.

application

In general, the time between identifying problems and taking appropriate solutions should not be long. This is particularly true in organizational development, as very complex problems often arise here after major change processes, which can also have specific economic effects. According to Beckhard, a complete confrontation meeting can be held within one day. It is always suitable as a measure if the entire management group consists of a large number of people and / or it is difficult to remove the entire management from the company for a longer period of time. In addition, Beckhard names other requirements for a meaningful use of the confrontation meeting:

"Experience shows that it [the confrontation meeting] is appropriate when:

  • There is a need on the part of management as a whole to examine their own work.
  • Relatively little time is available for the investigation.
  • The top management strives for a quick improvement of the conditions.
  • Sufficient cohesion exists within top management to ensure that concrete follow-up measures are carried out.
  • The top management is expressly committed to problem solving.
  • The company is or was in a major process of change. "
- Beckhard

In principle, the use of the confrontation meeting should also promote cooperation at all levels of the company. It should avoid that the lower management levels adopt a wait-and-see and passive attitude in the change process or even try to work against it. By explicitly including all levels in the change process, the identification of all participants with the organization is to be strengthened.

procedure

The ideal course of the confrontation meeting comprises seven phases. The first six phases can be carried out either on one day in a row or on two consecutive days. If the confrontation meeting is to take place on two days, phases 1 to 3 take place in the afternoon of the first day and phases 4 to 6 in the morning of the second day. The seventh phase takes place four to six weeks after the original meeting.

Phase 1 - Introduction (Climate Setting)

Duration: 45–60 minutes

The objectives of the confrontation meeting are communicated to the entire management group. In addition, it must be made clear that free and open discussions are desired and no punishments for open confrontations are made. It can also be helpful to carry out a general information phase that deals with the company and specific problems.

Phase 2 - Information Collecting

Duration: 60 minutes

The participants are divided into small heterogeneous units of seven to eight people. The top management team forms its own unit. The other participants are divided into units in such a way that it is ensured that no superior comes into contact with his immediate subordinates. In addition, employees from different functional areas should be represented in each unit. Each unit is given the following task: “Think of yourself as an individual with needs and goals. Also think as a person who cares about the good of the entire company. What are the obstacles, demotivators, and bad procedures or rules or attitudes that currently exist. Under what conditions would the organization become more effective and life in the organization more pleasant? ”Each unit also elects a speaker who will present the results in the following phase.

Phase 3 - Information sharing

Duration: 60 minutes

Each speaker presents the results of his unit. The leader of the meeting now suggests some main categories to which the results of the units can be assigned. The event is now interrupted - the participants either take their lunch break or the meeting does not continue until the next morning. During this interruption, the collected results are recorded in writing and made available to every participant.

Phase 4 - Priority Setting and Group Action Planning

Duration: 75 minutes

All participants come together again for about 15 minutes. The results of the second phase are now assigned to the proposed main categories. Now the participants are divided according to their affiliation to the functional units of the company. These sub-groups are led by the responsible manager. Each group now has the following tasks to do: “1. Discuss the problems and issues affecting your functional unit. Prioritize and develop initial responses that your group can commit to. 2. Identify the issues and issues that you think the top management team should address as a priority. 3. Decide how you will pass on the results of the meeting to your subordinate employees. "

Phase 5 - Organization Action Planning

Duration: 60–120 minutes

The entire management team comes together. Each functional unit presents its self-commitments and plans and reports which tasks top management should tackle with which priority. The top managers react to these statements and make the first decisions. In addition, each unit briefly presents its plans for how it will pass on the results of the meeting to the subordinate employees.

Phase 6 - Debriefing of the top team (Immediate Follow-up by Top Team)

Duration: 60–180 minutes

The meeting ends. In a subsequent meeting, top management makes the first direct decisions that result from the results of the confrontation meeting. These decisions should be communicated within a few days.

Phase 7 - Progress Review

Duration: 120 minutes

All participants come together again within four to six weeks and discuss the results of the confrontation meeting and the effects of the decisions made as a result of the meeting.

criticism

The people taking part primarily decide on the success of a confrontation meeting. In doing so, conflicts can arise or break out that impair the success of the measure. For example, hierarchies within the teams should be completely postponed for the duration of the meeting. This equality of rights for all participants is necessary but may be difficult to practice in practice. If team leaders or superiors simply do not accept suggestions from their team members, especially in the fourth phase, the results can be poor. Furthermore, the role of top management can be questioned. Ultimately, it is this small group that initiates and leads the meeting and ultimately decides on specific measures. This is certainly necessary, but there must be a serious will to recognize and implement the proposed results. Misuse of the instrument to temporarily "calm down" employees and lower management levels during or after organizational change processes can have the opposite effect. Backhard speaks of a "boomerang effect" in this context.

Problems can also arise in the course of the meeting itself. Especially when it comes to the self-commitments of the teams, the question arises whether the self-set goals are realistic. Setting goals that are too low or free rider behavior to the detriment of other teams or departments can have a negative impact on the results and the relationships between those affected. On the other hand, goals that are set too high can lead to a loss of motivation during implementation. After all, setting priorities is also problematic. The problems perceived as important do not necessarily have to be those that are most urgent for the organization . Here the priorities must be carefully identified, otherwise the result will suffer.

Finally, it must also be noted that, apart from Beckhard's own studies, there are very few follow-up studies that empirically investigate the success and suitability of this instrument. The original concept from 1967 is therefore largely unchanged to this day and recognized as an instrument of organizational development.

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Richard Beckhard: The Confrontation Meeting , Harvard Business Review, March - April, 1967, pp. 149
  2. ↑ Donald Anderson: Organization Development: The Process of Leading Organizational Change , SAGE Publications, 2010, p. 232
  3. ^ Richard Beckhard: The Confrontation Meeting , Harvard Business Review, March - April, 1967, pp. 150
  4. ^ Richard Beckhard: The Confrontation Meeting. Harvard Business Review, March / April 1967, pp. 154.
  5. ^ Richard Beckhard: The Confrontation Meeting , Harvard Business Review, March - April, 1967, pp. 153

literature

  • Richard Beckhard : The Confrontation Meeting , Harvard Business Review , March-April 1967
  • Donald Anderson: Organization Development: The Process of Leading Organizational Change , SAGE Publications, 2010