CAPÍTULO II: PROTECCIÓN JURÍDICA DE LOS DERECHOS INHERENTES A LA
2.3 Protección en el Código de la Niñez y la Juventud
Participants reflected extensively about these important conflicting relationships
during interviews and in diaries, providing information about how these developed
through time. One participant had a conflicting relationship with his boss provoked by
a visible factor, which he realised as soon as he got the position. Three other
participants had conflicting relationships provoked by cognitive factors which were
not visible from the start. This led to two supervisor conflicting relationship’s dynamic
a) Visible conflict model: Visible factors are easily observed by individuals and
hence can provoke prejudices in the starting off of the relationship, beginning a
conflicting relationship. Data suggest that this can be detrimental for both parties
but as the participant learnt about some of the supervisor’s invisible
characteristics, prejudices can disappear or decrease and the relationship
improved.
Phase 1: Identifying the problem
Participant 4 realised even before starting the new role that his boss was much
younger and with fewer years of professional experience. At the same time, he
knew his boss wanted someone more junior for the position but finally he was
assigned to the role. This was the start of a conflicting relationship.
“I told the Human Resources guy ‘I don’t know how the day to day is
going to be, I don’t know how to say it without sounding arrogant, but I
have seven or eight years more of experience than her, I am four or five
years older, I even have more academic credentials... I don’t know how
this situation will go…’.” (Participant 4, Follow-up interview)
Phase 2: Reacting to the problem
As Participant 4 soon realised his boss’ characteristics, he felt an immediate
conflict in the relationship and he took an integrating strategy by talking about it
with her right away, although with a confrontational tone.
“The first meeting I had with her before the meeting with the people
from Chile was testing expectations. I told her ‘look, I don’t know what
you are looking for or what you have in mind. But if you really want an
had at the beginning, and in Chile they did not want that, they wanted a
person with more seniority and a more commercial profile rather than
marketing. So we talked and I told her ‘look, if this is what you are
looking for, I may not be the most appropriate person…” (Participant 4,
Follow-up interview)
Phase 3: Getting to know each other
After an initial rough time, they got to know each other. This smoothed the
relationship, as the participant identified characteristics of his boss that were
invisible at the beginning, which were positive. The following quotes show how
his boss’ initiatives had a positive effect on the participant as he recognised her
effort to be a good supervisor and that they had similar working styles.
Recognising her good will:
“On June 15th I had a meeting with my boss that gave me more
tranquillity. The goal of the meeting was to set expectations for the
current position in the organisation and talk about future expectations.
It was her initiative and I thought it was very interesting. She proposed
to me and the team that we could have this talk with her so that she
could be aware of our vision and be the facilitator of our goal. On the
other hand, it gave me the opportunity to tell her more about my
expertise and share some visions on the problems of the category. It
was interesting, I think we were able to get to know each other better
and understand where each one wanted to go to.” (Participant 4, Diary)
“On June 26th we had a team meeting in which we did an exercise that
helped us get to know each other. It was one of those exercises in
which each one has to give a value to one of four options. Then all the
points are summed up and that gives a result and each column has a
colour associated. I thought it was interesting for two reasons: on the
one hand, getting to know my peers in the category and on the other
hand my boss had guessed the results for each one of us but did not get
mine right. She thought my result would be in a totally opposite way to
what I actually got. The truth is that my profile is very similar to hers, I
mean; we are quite alike in many aspects. It was useful because it
contributed to continue getting to know each other. My relationship
with my boss keeps smoothing and we understand each other better.”
(Participant 4, Diary)
Phase 4: Managing a minor conflictual relationship
Although the participant expected that his boss would recognise that he was more
senior than she was, which she had not done so far, he is managing the relationship
carefully, trying to make it work.
Expecting recognition:
“If I had to work with someone whom I have to lead, but I know
internally that this person is older than me, has more years of
experience and more credentials, I would have a talk with this person
and tell him ‘look, these are the rules of the game today, great, you are
with the team, I will try to learn things from you and contribute…’.
Compromising:
“And well, this is where we have some differences with my boss. She
thinks we are going in one way and I think more in another way… But
well, we try to get a consensus and not fight; we have to work together
every day. Anyway, maybe I think it is everything ok, but it took some
time to get to understand each other, but she is really nice…”
(Participant 4, Follow-up interview)
b) Delayed-recognition model: This model of the dynamic of the relationship took
place when the factors provoking the conflict were not visible. This resulted in
participants taking more time to identify the problem than in the previous model.
So, the relationship started smoother than in the visible model and got worse with
time. By the end, the result could be the same as in the visible model or more
negative as the conflicting factors were very important and irremediable.
Phase 1: Receiving signs
Participants who had this type of relationship conflict with the supervisor received
signs of potential conflict but did not recognise it right away. For example,
Participant 11 knew that the newly assigned regional supervisor could provoke
conflict because she foresaw he would have contradictory interests with her local
boss. However, at the start it was just a fear.
“I have the feeling that this is going to bring me conflict with my actual
boss. He is a person who values loyalty from his employees a lot, and
who doesn’t like the region to meddle in his affairs and who does not
imposed by the region. Maybe these are only my hunches but I’ll see
how things develop.” (Participant 11, Diary)
Another example, Participant 6, was receiving little feedback and help from her
boss but she was attributing this behaviour to him also being new to the
organisation and hence being overwhelmed.
“If I bump into my poor boss twice a week, that’s a lot. He is all the
time running from one place to another, if there is something urgent I
ask him, if not, I move forward. I don’t have anyone to teach me how
to do things.” (Participant 6, First interview)
Phase 2: Recognising the problem
After some time, participants understood the situation better and realised that they
were having a conflicting relationship with the supervisor which they needed to
manage. For example, Participant 11 started having actual conflicts between the
interests of her two supervisors.
“Just as I had imagined I am starting to have conflicts between what
my regional boss asks for and what my local boss wants from me.”
(Participant 11, Diary)
Similarly, after some months, Participant 6 realised that the reason her boss did not
provide feedback was not that he was overwhelmed but that he did not consider it
part of his role. She started feeling frustrated. The following are extracts from her
diary on three different days.
“I am frustrated because I cannot get my boss to give me feedback on
“On the 14th of July there was a big event that turned out very well,
luckily. Actually it was not luck, it was because of my work and my
boss got there for the picture. I am angry because I like what I do but I
don’t feel valued or respected.” (Participant 6, Diary)
“Since my boss’ supervisor came back, he hasn’t stopped pushing me
and telling me things in a bad way.” (Participant 6, Diary)
Phase 3: Reacting to the problem
After realising the problem, some more rapidly than others and some with more
patience, participants started consciously designing strategies and implementing
them to manage the relationship. For example, Participant 11 discussed with her
colleagues how to handle the situation. Her regional boss was asking her to tell
him when her local boss took actions which were not aligned with the regional
guidelines. She discussed this request with other people in the organisation who
had similar jobs to hers.
“And I talked to others in my position in other countries and I asked
them and they said he was crazy; it is suicide to do something like
that.” (Participant 11, Follow-up interview)
Phase 4: Managing the relationship with little conflict or wanting to leave
Some participants, after feeling more in control of the situation as they had already
understood and reacted to the problem, were still managing a conflicting
relationship with their supervisors, but were less stressed about it. For example,
regarding his boss’ requests to change his behaviour in certain circumstances,
“When the time comes, if something comes up, I will, but it is not
something that worries me.” (Participant 13, Follow-up interview)
In a different situation, Participant 6 had reacted to the conflict and although she
perceived some good results of her reaction, the conflict was too negative for her
and she was trying to hold on but also thinking of leaving.
“I am extremely responsible and I get really upset… No, no, no, it
doesn’t make sense to me. I cannot hold it. Well, I am trying to hold…
[…] So, the truth is that I am enduring. Yes, the idea is to get
something else, and as something else comes up… Because of a health
issue, I mean, I cannot take it any longer.” (Participant 6, Follow-up
interview)
7.3 Conclusion
This chapter introduced how conflicting relationships at the new role affected
participants’ adjustment and identity development. Both colleagues and supervisors
could be a source of conflict to which participants had to react. They managed these
relationships by applying simultaneously several of the conflict management strategies
identified in previous research and also two other strategies which emerged in this
study: ‘protecting themselves’ and ‘realising it is not personal’. These conflicting
relationships, especially the ones with supervisors, had negative effects on participants
in terms of emotions, learning and career plans. The unique data provided by a
combination of the first interview, diary, relationships diagrams and follow-up
interviews, allowed the study to observe the dynamic of how these relationships
developed over time. In the case of colleagues the relationship followed three phases:
discovering the problem, feeling negatively, and managing the relationship. In the case
depending on whether the source of conflict was visible or not. The visible conflict
model has four phases: identifying the problem, reacting to the problem, getting to
know each other, and managing a minor conflictual relationship. The delayed
recognition model has the following four phases: receiving signs, recognising the
problem, reacting to the problem, and managing the relationship with little conflict or
wanting to leave. After observing the impact and development of the social dimension
on experienced business newcomers following a career transition, the next chapter