Competing interests - our constant companion

If there's ever a given in any organization, it's that there will be competing interests at all levels.  Your priorities will rarely sync with others' and theirs with yours, so how do we manage to stay on point as a team and as an organization when everyone has competing interests?

Clear missions and objectives are the best way to get everybody on the same page - not in daily tasks, duties, roles, responsibilities, etc., they will always vary widely, but in priorities.  When the end result is unequivocal, then all efforts toward that goal are easier to sync regardless of role and function.  Though the information flow within an organization, within groups, and within teams may be contradictory, the mission and objectives need to be in agreement. 

More often than it should, competing interests wind up being of the political type which have zero value to the team and to the organization.  Be able to discern what is political versus that which is necessary.  If it feels like someone's ego needs to be assuaged, then it's political.  There are hierarchical, process, and policy demands in which we have to comply and follow that will be quasi-political activities, but they are mainly cultural versus personal.  A true political roadblock needs intervention by up line stakeholders to avoid the obligatory warfare and fallout that will ensue.  There is no way to avoid politics, but we can mute it by involving dispassionate moderators.  It is far better to swallow your pride and ask for assistance than to have a critical endeavor blow up in your face because of political chicanery. 

Day to day priorities are very common competing interests that are just the result of differing roles and responsibilities.  A branch manager who is responsible for customer service and branch profitability may not have the warmest regard for an IT audit.  These types of competing interests are, at once, the easiest and the most difficult to manage.  It's very easy to understand the common goals and objectives and want to cooperate to that end, but on the other hand, the time constraints caused by business as usual activities impinge upon the appetite to collaborate on unrelated endeavors.  There needs to be a structural change to accommodate this balancing act.

The way that the organization is structured will weigh heavily on how well its groups and teams manage competing interests.  To use a military analogy, the organization needs to be structured for war, but be able to quickly adapt to peace.  An organization must reflect its missions and objectives within its structure so that each down line group and team has the same focus as one another regardless of function.  The best structure will be malleable to meet current missions.  This is difficult to achieve within a mature organization, especially one that is very large with thousands of employees and many products and services sold worldwide.  That said, individual managers can structure their teams around the current mission, create and maintain cross skill sets that can be ported to any part of the team or organization, and task organize around specific situations and objectives.  By doing so, a manager can build a nimble instrument from which to respond and adapt to competing interests while managing the day to day business as usual.