ifcFOSR 69-04 57TB

Stnd4«s ot
T»-^ 9ol* of thiH PArtiM in
Ceof llct tarolveloti «ad Control

Special Technical Report #1

00 INTERPELSONAL PEACEMAKING:

I ^ OtMPMHTATlOIIS AMD THIRD PARTY INTERVEHIIOHS

00
Richard E. Walton

§ Sponsored b-

Advaoced Reseerch ProjecCs Agency

. AätPA Order Ho. 834. AMndMnt #3
THE PRESIDETT AID FELLOWS OP
UAR VARD G0LLI6I
P4A6-20-69-C0040^n-- '

Graduate School of •ueinaaa Adainistration

Henrard University
Deceaber,9 1968

M * \

1
f A «IN., HO US,
'
 BEST
AVAILABLE COPY
Studies of
The Role of Third Parties In
Conflict Resolution and Control

Special Technical Report #1

INTERPERSONAL PEACEMAKING:

CONFRONTATIONS AND THIRD PARTY INTERVKNTIONS

Richard E. Walton

Sponsored by

Advanced Research Projects Agency

ARPA Order No. 834, Amendment #3
THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF
HARVARD COLLEGE
F446-20-69-C0040

Graduate School of Business Administration

Harvard University
December, 1968

1. This document hns keen approved for public

release arid sale ; its distribution is unlimited«

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTERPERSONAL PEACEMAKING:

CONFRONTATIONS AND THIRD PARTY INTERVENTIONS

Page
Number

Chapter I introduction

A. Interperaonai Conflict In Organization«

B. Third Party Role In Interperaonai Conflict
C. The Concept of Conflict Management
D. A Preliminary Comment on the Three Case Histories
E. The Learning Strategy—Coupling the Roles of
Reaearcher and Practitioner
F. On the Generality of the Theory
G. Plan of the Report

Chapter 71 Bill-Lloyd: Negotiating a

Relationship 13

A. Background to the Confrontation Between Bill and Lloyd

B. The Confrontation Meeting

1. Familiarization
2. The Opening Chargea
3. The Counterpoints
4. Digging Deeper: From the Intewgroup to the
Interpersonal Level

C. Post-Confrontation Reactions *nd Developments

D. Conclusion

Chapter III Mack-Sy: Confronting a

Deeply Felt Conflict 23

A. Background to the Confrontation Between Sy and Mack

1. Organizational Setting
2. Immediate Background to the Conflict
(Table of Contents continued) Page
Number

3. Interview with Mack

4. Interview with Sy
5. Arranging for the Principals to Meet

B. Meeting After Work: Trying to Get the Issues Joined

C. Staff Meeting: The Confrontation

1. Precipitating Events
2. Sy's Outburst and the Interchanges which Followed

D. Rest and Recuperation and Repair of the Third Party's

Relationship to Mack
B. Touching Bases Before Departure
F. Further Developments: Eventually an Improvement

1. Reconciliation
2. The Outcome and Conclusion

Chapter IV Fred-Charles: Searching for an

Accommodation 43

A. Background to the Confrontation Between Charles and

Fred

1. Sources of Stress on the Principals

2. Job Interdependence
3. Fred's Views ot the Developing Conflict
4. Charles' Views
5. The Principals' Relationships with other
Staff Members
6. An Illustrative Conflict
7. Decision to Work on the Charles-Fred
Conflict

B. Confrontation: Differentiation Phase

1. Getting the Issue on the Table

2. Identifying Stylistic Differences
3. Escalation of Personal Attacks

C. Continuing the Dialogue for New Insights

1. Gaining Understanding of the On-Going Process

li

i
(Table of Concents continued) Page
Number

2. Making It Difficult for One to Dismiss

Another's Perceptions
3. Achieving a Differentiated View of a Person
4. Converging the Parties' Expectations
5. Identifying Similarities Between the
"Adversaries"
6. Underscoring Common Co&ls

D. Outcomes from the Confrontation

Chapter V Diagnostic Model of

Interpersonal Conflict .... 64

A. Cyclical and Dynamic Nature of Interpersonal Conflict

B. Interpersonal Conflict: Substantive and Emotional Issues

1. Concepts and Illustrative Diagnoses

2. Implications

C. Triggering Events - Penetrating Barriers to Action

1. Concepts and Illustrative Diagnoses

2. Implications

D. Conflict Tactics, Resolution Overtures and their Consequences

1. Concepts and Illustrative Diagnoses

2. Implications

E. Proliferation Tendencies

1. Umbrellas - Issues that Legitimate the Conflict

2. Facslmllies - For More cautious but Relevant Work
3. Bundling Boards - Issues that Guarantee Separateness
4. Seizing the High Ground to Ensure Tactical Advantage
5. The Provocative Potential of Civil Defense
6. Implications

P. Implication of the Model of Conflict Management

1. Preventing Ignition of Conflict Interchange

2. Constraining the Form of Manifest Conflict
3. Coping Differently with the Consequences of Conflict
4. Eliminating the Conflict Issues

ill
(Table of Contents continued) Page
Number

Chapter VI Confrontations and Strategic

Third Party Functions 54

A. Interpersonal Confrontation
B. Ensuring Mutual Motivation
C. Achieving Balance In Sltuatlonal Power
D. Synchronizing Confrontation Efforts
E. Pacing the Differentiation and Integration Phases of
the Dialogue
F. Promoting Norms and Adding Reassurance and Skills that Favor Openness

1. Normative Support for Openness

2. Reassurance and Acceptance Available
3. Process Skills Available

C. Enhancing the Reliability of Communicative Signs

H. Maintaining a Productive Level of Tension
I. Summary

Chapter VII Third Party Interventions and

Tactical Choices 103

A. Preliminary Interviewing
B. Structuring the Context for the Confrontation

1. Neutrality of the Turf

2. Formality of the Setting
3. Tlmeboundedness of the Encounter
4. Composition of the Meeting

C. Interventions that Facilitate the Dialogue Process

1. Refereeing the Interaction Process

2. Initiating Agenda
3. Restating the Issues and Ptincipals' Views
4. Eliciting Reactions and Offering Observations
5. Diagnosing the Conflict
6. Prescribing Discussion Methods
7. Diagnosing Conditions Causing Poor Dialogue
8. Other Counseling Interventions

D. Planning for Future Dialogue

E. Summary

Iv
(Table of Contents continued)
Page
Number

Chapter VIII Third Party Attributes .... 115

A. Establishing and Maintaining the Appropriate Role

1. Establishing Professional Expertise and

Personal Qualities
2. Establishing Appropriate Power and Knowledge
3. Establishing Neutrality
4. Improving a Deteriorated Relationship
5. Internal Consultants, Organizational Peers and
Superiors as Third Parties

B. Being Oneself

Chapter IX Summary and Conclusions .... 125

A. Aspects of Interpersonal Conflict and

their Implications
B. Confrontations and Strategic Third Party Functions
C. Third Party Interventions - The Tactical Opportunities
D. Third Party Attributes

*
 INTERPERSONAL PEACEMAKING:

CONFRONTATIONS AND THIRD PARTY INTERVENTIONS*

Richard E. Walton

CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION

This book Is about the theory and practice of third parties

who would help two members of an organization manage their Inter-
personal conflict. It presents a model for diagnosing recurrent conflict
between two persons. Then on the basis of our understanding of the
dynamics of Interpersonal conflict episodes, we derive a number of
strategic functions which a third party can perform to facilitate a
constructive confrontation of the conflict. Having specified the
potential third party functions, we analyze the many tactical opportu-
nities available to third parties and the tactical choices which must
be made In performing third party functions. Finally, In view of
the functions he must perform and the tactical interventions he must
execute, we postulate the optimum personal and positional attributes
for the third party. The Interpersonal peacemakers we contemplate
Include behavioral science consultants but definitely are not confined
to this class of professionals.

This volume Includes three detailed case studies from which

are Induced many of the concepts, models and propositions about Inter-
personal conflict and third party functions, and from which are
drawn Illustrative third party Interventions. However, other propositions
about the functions of third parties are deduced from the literature on
psychological processes and Interpersonal conflict.

Interpersonal Conflict ir. Organizations

Although we propose that the theory and practice spelled out here
has more general applicability, the book is directly focused on "inter-
personal conflict in organizational contexts", such as differences between
fellow members of a governing committee, heads of interrelated departments,
a manager and his boss. Interpersonal conflict is defined broadly to Include

*
This research was supported by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of
the Department of Defense and was monitored by the Air Force Office of
Scientific Research under Contract No. F4A620 - 69 - c - 0040.
both (a) Interpersonal disagreements over substantive Issues, such is
differences over organizational structures, policies, and practice», and
(b) Interpersonal antagonisms, that is, the more personal and emotional
differences which arise between Interdependent human beings.

Interdependence takes a variety of forms In organizations. One

manager depends upon another for a technical service, for Information or
advice, for timely advancement of material in the work flow process. One's
behavior la controlled by the actions of another person or group just as
one's performance Is measured and evaluated by another. Substantial propor-
tions of one's organizational life are spent in the presence of particular
other persons.

The innumerable interdependencles Inherent in organizations make

interpersonal conflicts inevitable. Even if it were thought to be desirable,
it would not be possible to create organizations free from Interpersonal
conflicts. But one can develop capacities within or available to organiza-
tions that make it possible "o resolve more of these Interpersonal conflicts
and better limit the costs or those which cannot readily be resolved. That
is what this book is all about.

In order to Improve the capacities of organizations to deal with

conflict, one must take into account several personal and organizational
tendencies which typically operate to limit relatively direct approaches to
managing conflict.

Inhibitions are a factor. To express anger, resentment, or envy

toward another member of a work organization is typically considered bad
manners or Immature. We usually are taught to be ashamed of those feelings
and In any event, not to express them. In my consulting and research
experience, members of organizations nevertheless have these feelings toward
colleagues and rivals; if they don't express then directly, they will do it
indi.-ectly, often In ways that create still new conflict issues or incur

In focusing on this area, the book contributes another dimension to a

limited but significant existing literature on third parties. For example,
the activities of the labor mediator have been reported by Ann Douglas in
Induatrial Peacemaking. Nuv York: Columbia University Press, 1962. The
processes of international mediation have been analyzed and Illustrated by
Oran Young in The Intermedialies; Third Parties in International Crises.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967. The processes of conjoint
family therapy have been a-, cicuiated by Virginia Satir in Conjoint Family
Therapy. Palo Alto: Science and Behavior Books, Incorporated, 1964.
other substantl/»! costs. An example of whet Is meant by an indirect mode
of pursuing a conflict is for Mnnager A to oppose an expansion plan sponsored
by A ostensibly because of inadequate ojcumentation of the proposal, but in
reality because B has ignored A on some important occasions in the past.

The immediate emotional energy requl—wents are a second factor

influencing how conflict is typically managed. It tikes emotioral energy
to totally suppress the conflict and it may take even more emotional energy
to confront it. Therefore, conflicts often get played out in some indirect
mode, which usually takes the least energy—in the short run. Indirect
conflicts, however, have the longest life expectancy, and have the most
c<
>sts that cannot be charged back against the original conflict. In fact,
that is one of the main points of indirect conflict—one does not have to
own up to his feelings.

A third factor is consideration of risks associated with organisa-

tional conflict. Many important differences over policy and procedure are
not surfaced because one or both of the principals' fear that the conflict
might get out of hand, a residue of interpersonal antagonisms might remain,
and they might hurt their careers. These are often realistic fears, but refer
to risks that can be reduced by greater understanding of the Ingredients for
more effective confrontation and dialogue, and greater skill in supplying
these ingredients.

Third Party Role in Interpersonal Conflict

Third party roles in the organizational setting have not been

institutionalized as they have been in some other social settings, such
as labor mediation and conciliation services, the UN Secretariate and its
peace-keeping units, marital counseling, and conjoint family therapy.
Therefore, third party functions also are less systematically performed in
connection with conflicts in organizations than in these other settings.

Hopefully, one effect of this book will be to accelerate the

emergence and development of more systematic third party roles available as
a part of organizational development programs. Also, the insight gslned by
analyzing the constructive iifluences of third parties can be used by direct
participants to a conflict who want to take steps to break out of the conflict
pattern. By understanding the ingredients which third parties may bring to a
conflict and the functions they may perform, a participant may in effect
simulate a third party, performing the same functions. More than intellectual
understanding will be required, however. The effective use of the knowledge
contained in this book depends upon the presence of a capacity on the part
of human beings co be open and confronting in their encounters with others
when the situation calls for it. This is a quality that our child rearing
and other socialization practices [Link] promoted in some, but not most, people.
Many organizational development programs in business, government, and education,
r

however, are currently operatlnR to develop the Interpersonal skills and to

create an organizational climate conducive to the type of conflict resolu-
tion tr .hodology treated here.

Managers of complex organizations show an Increasing appreciation

for thi potential value of persons with a specialized expertise—the
scientist In government, the psychologist in business, the economist In
labor unions, and the operations researcher In hospitals are all Illustrative.
Similarly, the systematic use of third party specialists by any of these
types of organizations is Increasingly feasible.

The third party roles and activities that are described in

this book belong to several families of professional roles. Two deserve
mention: First, because of the methodology employed, the third party
activities can be regarded as a particular form of "process consulta-
tion" which Professor Schein defines as "a set of activities on the part
of the consultant which helps the client to perceive, understand and act . .
upon process events which occur in the client's Interpersonal environment." —
Second, because of the purpose for which third party efforts are intended.
It also is a branch of what we shall refer to as "soclotherapy" that is,
the science or art of treating pathologies or dysfunctions in social
[Link]. Of particular Interest here are such Interpersonal patterns
as persistent disagreement and emotional antagonisms that detract from
the productivity of the relationship and/or the organization.

The Concept of Conflict Management

The premise of this volume is not that interpersonal conflict in

organizations is necessarily bad or destructive, and that third parties
must inevitably try to eliminate it or reduce it. In many instances, inter-
personal differences, competition, rivalry and other forms of conflict have a
positive value for the participants and make a positive contribution to
the effectiveness of the social system in which they occur. Thus, a moderate
level of interpersonal conflict may have the following constructive
consequences: First, it may Increase the motivation and energy available
to do tasks required by the social system. Second, conflict may increase
the Innovativeness of individuals and the system because of the greater
diversity of the viewpoints and a heightened sense of necessity. Third,
each person may develop increased understanding of his own position, because
the conflict forces him to articulate his views and bring forth all supporting
arguments. Fourth, each party may achieve greater awareness of his own
Identity. Fifth, interpersonal conflict may be a means for managing the
participants' own internal conflicts.

On the other hand, conflict can be debilitating for the participants,

can rigldify the social svstem in which it occurs, and can lead to gross
distortions of reality. Both the nature of the Interdependence between
Che parties and the level of conflict will determine the nature of the

Edgar H. Schein, Process Consultation in Organizational Development,

Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Uesley Company, Incorporated, 1969,
P.
consequences for the parties. In the cases analyzed here there was evidence
that the conflict could profitably be better controlled or resolved. We
are Interested In attempts to facilitate more effective management of
the conflict.

One can distinguish between resolution and control as different

goals of conflict management. The principals themselves or a third party
may attempt to gain resolution, such that the original differences or
feelings of opposition no longer exist. Or he may attempt to merely
control conflict, whereby the negative consequences of the conflict are
decreased, even though the opposing preferences and antagonisms persist.

We contemplate a variety of constructive outcomes of inter-

personal conflicts, depending upon the basis of the conflict and other
circumstances, briefly illustrated as follows:*

1. A recurrent conflict between two managers was based on a

misunderstanding regarding motives. Confrontation enabled the parties
to discover the discrepancy and to establish understanding. In this
case, one person had persistently misinterpreted the intentions of the
second whom he had seen as trying to get his job,

2. The current and oersistent feelings of conflict between

two committee members had originated from conflicting Interests and
pressure conditions which no longer obtained. The cycle of reciprocal
distrust and antagonism was finally interrupted by an outside intervention,
which facilitated the development of new attitudes more consistent with
the current administrative and oolitical realities.

3. Two organizational members had personal styles and mutually

contradictory role definitions which produced relatively destructive
interpersonal conflict. The parties were brought into dialogue to explore
their differences in an effort to find some basis for better accomodatlon.
The outcome: although they did not change their respective personal
styles of relating, they did modlfv and Integrate their resnective role
definitions, and eliminated their emotional conflict.

4. Two managers who were in direct competition with each other

for a promotion pursued their goals by actions which went beyond competitive
striving and Involved mutually destructive tactics. With some assistance,
the parties reached an accord outlawing the destructive conflict tactics.

5. Two bureaucrats were in basic disagreement with each other

regarding an important substantive issue of the agency and the conflict
was escalating into personal emotional antagonism. A candid dialogue
between them increased their ability to keep separate the substantive
conflict and their personal relations.

These do not refer to the cases analyzed in detail in Chapters 11-IV of

this report.
 Each of the above mentioned conflict episodes Involved an
interpersonal confrontation as Instrumental to better conflict control
or resolution. By confrontation we mean the parties directly engage each
other and focus on the conflict between them. We can suggest the various
purposes of such an Interpersonal confrontation: to Increase authenticity
in the relationship and to allow the principals to experience a sense
of increased personal integrity: to Increase their mutual commitment to
Improve the relationship: to actually diagnose the conflict; to increase
the principals' sense of control over the quality of their relationship;
to discover and experiment with ways of deescalating the conflict.

A Pr^liminary Comment on the Three Cos«, Histories

The general strategy of this book will be to relate three case

histories involving two party conflict and third party assistance, which
will then provide illustrative material and a point of departure for the
more abstract and broader analysis of the role of third parties in inter-
personal peacemaking.

These three cases are not offered as representative of the full

range of interpersonal situations to which our third party analysis is
applicable. While the cases later will be differentiated in many important
respects, two conditions common to these three cases deserve preliminary
comment.

First, in all three cases the third party was a behavioral science
consultant to the organization of which the conflict principals were
members. He was an external consultant who was generally identified
with an approach to interpersonal relations involving openness and confrontation.
Interpersonal openness and confrontation have historically been used in
workshops for purposes of human relations training and in that context
are a part of a methodology referred to as "sensitivity training" or "T-
Group Laboratories."

The third party in the three cases studied here is a member of

an emerging profession of consultants to organizations (and other social
systems) whose approach includes, but is not confined to, adaptation of
the methods, principles and concepts of sensitivity training. The approach
of the particular third party consultant studied here also included some
adaptation of the methods, principles and concepts of labor-management
mediation. However, the main point here is that the same third party
consultant is involved in all three cases and that his general professional
Identity was perceived in a broadly similar way by all three pairs of
conflict principals—he was associated in their minds with the method of
sensitivity training. Although the nature of this exposure varied from
person to person, a typical experience was participation in a one week
management development program, usually called a "sensitivity training
laboratory." The programs involve low-structured groups (T-Groups) in
which members help each other learn how each person is perceived by
others. In these groups, special attention Is usually given to Identifi-
cation of what »spects of an Individual's Interpersonal style are self-
defeating, e.g., tend to drive others away from himself, and what aspects
of his Interpersonal pattern are effective, e.g., Induce trust. These
experiences had provided the conflict principals Important oractlce In
being open about one's Interpersonal reactions and In engaging In
Interpersonal confrontation.

While the majority of the conflict principals studied here were

not inclined—on their own—to continue to practice openness and confronta-
tion after they returned to their respective organizations, their prior
experience made them more responsive to the third party's initiatives
involving these elements. We acknowledge that in combination these two
conditions—the professional identity of the third party and the prior
experiences of the two principals—enhanced the effectiveness of the
third patty's interventions documented here. This, in itself, has Important
implications for the practice of organizational development and third
party theory. At the same time, we resist any conclusion that the specifics
of these cases constitute necessary preconditions to the effectiveness
of the third party's Interventions. For example. Chapter VIII analyzes
the particular personal and role relationships of the third party which
Influence his effectiveness in performing each of a variety of third party
functions. That analysis suggests that certain types of organizational
superiors, peers, as well as Internal organization consultants can play
third party roles in managing interpersonal conflict. The analysis also
Indicates the types of third party efforts that can be used to prepare the
principals for an interpersonal confrontation when they have not had
prior exposure to the general methods which are utilized by the consultant
in the confrontation.

The Learning Strategy - Coupling the Roles of Practitioner and Researcher

I was both the actor in the third party roles in the three
cases reported here and the observer of the third party's behavior. This
duality as practitioner and researcher-theorist has several implications
discussed below.

As background to that discussion, it should be noted that

during the episodes under consideration, many of the third party inter-
ventions were either reflexive or intuitive. They took on purposive
definition only as I subsequently tried to first describe and then explain
the interaction behavior, including my own.

Moreover, I did not know I was going to attempt to write up a

case until after the confrontation. Of the approximately twelve cases
in which I played third party roles during a period of a year and a half,
the particular three cases included in this book were • • tten up in
detail for two principal reasons: they happened to occur at times when
I found that I could devote the entire week following the confrontation
to reconstructing events and analyzing the process; and I intuitively felt
each of these three experiences somehow was very instructive.
 The first implication of the dual action-research role was its
meaning for me personally. Writing this book on the basis of my own involvement
in these interpersonal conflict provided a great deal of gratification. I
derived both the personal satisfaction of making more conceptual and operational
sense out of this type of sociotherapv, and the satisfaction of experiencing
increased competence in an area of professional activity. Who could ask for
anything more!

Second, there are Implications for the resulting research output.

Behavioral scientists often insist that responsibility for the research
and action aspects of a behavioral science change project be assigned to
different persons. Thus, research and action would occur simultaneously
in time and place, but involve two sets of behavioral scientists. The
arguments advanced are that this separation allows for more objectivity
of the research, and for the integrity and singlemlndedness of the action
program itself. The approach of the present project was the opposite in
the sense that the research and action involved the same behavioral
scientist, but the functions were in large part performed at different
times and places. Only after a confrontation reported here did the research
opportunity either occur to me or the researcher role become a salient one
for me. Thus, I would argue that the same person often can manage both
action and research responsibilities, and with some important advantages
as well as disadvantages.

One advantage for this particular research strategy is that by

coupling the third party participant and observer roles, I eliminated
the effect of the social science observer, an effect which is always
difficult to discount. Because an observer does not take actions toward
others, others have no occasion to act toward him in ways which reveal
their feelings about him and what he is doing. Thus, typically, as
researcher I had only to understand what was occurring in a system of
three persons, all of whom were active and performing functions of immediate
consequence in the interaction setting, rather than a system that Included
a fourth person in a strictly observer role.

I believe that the research strategy of coupling the third party

participant and observer roles, in contrast to separating them, has the
following effects on the quality of observations and interpretation:

(a) The third party participant-observer has a better basis for

inferring the intentions which underlay the actions of the
third party.

(b) The participant-observer is a better device for identifyine

the specific set of the total numbers of cues in the situation
to which the third party is responding, as well as how the
third party configured these cues into a diagnosis.

(c) The participant-observer is better able to recapture alternative

behaviors or actions that were considered but discarded by the
third party.
 (d) However, the third party participant-observer makes less
reliable inferences about the many oossible effects of the
third party's actions. He tends to be more selective in what
is observed; because of his responsibility in the situation,
he will have hopes and fears that can result in either over-
or underestimation of desired effects; also, he may tend to be
less attuned to unexpected results.

(e) The participant-observer generally is somewhat less reliable in

describing precisely what he did in terms of manifest behavior.

I would conclude that for the type of objectives of the research

reported here, the above advantages of coupling ehe participant and observer
roles outweighed the disadvantages. Given that this research effort was
intended to develop theoretical ideas and give them operational meaning
rather than test the relative strength of particular cause and effect
relationships, it was somewhat more important to have a basis for inferring
intention, reconstructing a diagnostic process, and identifying alternatives
than it was to have strict obiectivity in recording or inferring effects
and an accurate objective description of manifest behavior.

Notwithstanding the above general conclusion, there was a brief but

important period in one of the three cases reported here for which, as
observer, I was not able to reconstruct the events. Including my participant
behavior. The pericJ was the emotionally-charged struggle between Mack
and Sy at the staff meeting reported in Chapter III. Every one of my
faculties was attended to the here-and-now process. I behaved intuitively
and relied almost exclusively upon my own emotional sixth sense. The
support, reassurance, acceptance, challenge, etc. which I felt I had
provided each principal, the two of them as a pair, and the total group
were communicated in subtle non-verbal cues or in telegraphic comments that
I was not able to isolate for description or analysis later. Thus, it must
be acknowledged that beyond some level of stress in the situation^ if the
stress is shared by the third party, the quality of the documentation of
the process will deteriorate when the participant-observer roles are
coupled.

Third, in my opinion, the combination of practitioner and researcher

improved the former's practices. Both the discipline of developing a
relatively complete record of the behavior of the principals and the third
party, and the discovery of patterns and meaning in the third party's actions
helped me evolve more sophisticated diagnostic concepts, or at least impressed
upon me the critical importance of certain issues. For example, the
importance of the symmetry-asymmetry between two conflicting parties
increasingly demanded my attention as a theoretical issue (a topic explored
in Chapter VI) and in turn more of my actions as a third party became
attuned to this dimension of the situation. This interaction between behavioral
science theory and practice is encouraging, even if thus far I have only
suggested the relationship within one person.

Fourth, as a more general proposition than the one just made,

this strategy of practloner-researcher has the effect of Increasing the
 10

likelihood that theories art: developed with high relevance to the world of
action, which Is nn Important consideration In view of what I would regard
as the modest yield from the fairly massive behavioral science research
over the past two decades.

Fifth, there Is a matter of efficiency. It Is efficient to perform

both action and research roles with respect to the same project.

On the General1ty of the Theory

Clearly, the general theory and tactics described here are consistent
with the practice of at least one soclotheraplst, namely that of the author.
But circulation of the whole or parts of the manuscript to other nrofessionals
who are doing similar work within organizations confixv that the theory and
practice in general are not idlosvncratlc to the author, but also apply to
the other persons' work in third party roles. The question of how many
other readers will find that it explicates the third party functions with
which they are familiar simply cannot be answered here.

While the immediate focus of the present analysis is on interventions

into systems of interpersonal conflict, an assumption underlying this book
is that many of the basic third party functions and tactics identified
here are applicable in other social conflicts.* Therefore, wherever possible,
the third party functions and Intervention tactics will be stated abstractly
in this book so that it is easier to visualize their potential relevance to
two party conflicts in other settings.

I do have some limited action experience that bears on the

question of the generality of the approach described here. I have used
the fjame methodology, the same concepts and techniques^in marital peacemaking,
and 1 have used them in labor-management relations, e.g., facilitating a
dialogue between a personnel director and local union president where the
interpersonal and interinstitutional relationships had both soured over
the previous year.

It is important to note that in the latter case of labor-management

relations, I have been especially cautious about the extent of the relevance
of the theory and techniques spelled out here. My caution will be understood
better if we consider the distinctions among three broad mechanisms for
settling disputes: power bargaining, legal-justice and social science
intervention.

Parallel research efforts of mine deal with actual and potential third party
interventions to control or resolve respectively: racial conflict; conflict among
Federal agencies in the foreign affairs community, such as State, AID, and
Department of Defense: conflict between national factions, in particular the
Greek and Turkish Cypriots. Ultimately, I will endeavor to identify similarities
and contrasts regarding third party roles in these widely differing settings.
 11

If we assume a dispute between two meabers of an established

social unit, the two parties as well as a neutral third party
have several contrasting approaches which they may take In
settling the dispute. First, Invoking a legal-justice mechanism,
they would ask: What are the rules of this social unit? Applying
them to the facts in this dispute, what is the fairest settlement?
Second, within a power-bargaining approach, they would ask: Who is
in the more powerful position in this situation? Who could actually
force a decision in his favor or at least make it most costly
for the other to persist in his position? What settlement is most
consistent with the underlying power realities? The third approach,
social science analysis and Intervention,would take into account
many additional facets of the social system and would attempt to
find a resolution to the dispute consistent with the objective
of preserving or changing the social system (or certain of its
characteristics). 2/

The sociotherapy approach to the third party role treated here is primarily
(but not exclusively) an instance of the third mechanism, social science
Intervention.

While the three mechanisms are alternatives for many conflicts that
are handled between two persons, there is a limit to this type of latitude. The
nature of the conflict issues, as well as the personal predispositions cf
the participants, appropriately influence the nature of the conflict resolution
mechanism employed. Therefore, in the labor-management setting, I have been
especially alert to the possibility that the Issues that divided the representatives
of these two Institutions were either genuine interest conflicts which
ultimately would be resolved by power-bargaining or genuine substantive issues
of rights which would ultimately be pursued by legal-justice processes.
These other conflict resolution processes «re most appropriate for certain
types of conflict for which the methods of sociotherapist—for example, those
that promote openness about one's feelings—must be used in a way generally
more circumscribed than Illustrated in the cases presented in this book.

Plan of the Report

Chapters II-IV present the three case histories of interpersonal

conflict which provide empirical material for the book. These will be developed
generally in a way consistent with how the third party gained understanding of
the conflict, its history and ramifications. The cases do not follow a common
format. Each enables us to Illustrate somewhat different aspects of conflict
dynamics and third party functions. Chapter V postulates a cyclical model of
Interpersonal conflict and argues Its value as a diagnostic tool. Chapter VI
suggests that well-conceived confrontations can play an important role in the
resolution and control of Interpersonal conflict and then postulates the
strategic functions which third parties can perform. Chapter VII identifies
the tactical interventions of third parties. Finally, Chapter VIII treats

2/
- Richard E. Walton, "Legal-Justice, Power-Bargaining, and Social Science
Intervention: Mechanisms for Settling Disputes", Institute Paper #194,
Institute for Research in the Behavioral, Economic and Management Sciences,
Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, March, 1968, p. 2.
 12

the problem of establishing and maintaining the appropriate third party role.
The general ideas in Chapters V-VIII are illustrated by drawing upon and
further analyzing the experiences of the third party in the orecedinR
case studies. Chapter IX is a summary.
 CHAPTER II - BILL-LLOYD:

NEGOTIATING A RELATIONSHIP *

This chapter reports a conflict between two program directors In

a government agency, and the role played by a third party consultant. The
confrontation between the principals manifests many of the characteristics
of an interpersonal and Intergroup negotiation. The conflict resolution
functions performed by the third party appear to be basic ones deriving
from his role attributes as much as from his active Interventions.

Background to the Confrontation between Bill and Lloyd

The two principals. Bill and Lloyd, were program directors In the
administrative services component of a large government agency. The third
party to this episode, Dave, was a member of the external consulting staff
of the agency's organizational development program. The organization
development program emphasized openness of feelings in interpersonal rela-
tions and utilized sensitivity training and team-building experiences.
The recently established program had had limited impact on the organization
as a whole, but had worked more intensively with the administrative services
component, a fact which influenced the nature and outcome of this episode.

One of the principals. Bill, was responsible for the development

of a new organization system (OSP) to be considered for adoption by the line
organization. He had been director of the Information Networks Program
for about five months before the confrontation reported here which occur red
In January. (See Figure II-l). During that period he had learned to cope
with many frustrating conditions. There was uncertainty whether the system
would ever be adopted and when that decision would be made. Moreover, he had
to rely upon several layers of superiors above him to represent his interests
with the high level official who could make this decision. Communication
downward from the top was equally unsettling; there was a continuous stream
of reports reaching him and his group which were Interpreted as alternately
encouraging and discouraging signs relative to the adoption of the system
they were developing. The uncertainty of the program in turn resulted in
a high turnover of the better members of his fitaff. Finally, he had to rely
upon another group also within the administrative services component, namely
the Systems Research Program Staff, to supply much of the professional talent
required by the project. For several months these factors depressed morale
within the professional staff and Increased tensions between Bill and George,
the section head of the Systems Research Program who was responsible for that
group's efforts on OSP.

*Thls chapter is based on a case study by the same author, reported in

"Interpersonal Confrontation and Basic Third Party Functions: A Case
Study", Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. Volume A, No. 3, 1968,
pp. 327-350.

13
 Figure II-l

Head, Administrative
Services Component

Organization Planning
Manager

Systems Information
1
Organizacion
Research Program Networks Program Development Program
Director: Lloyd Director: Bill internal staff and
external consultants,
including Dave

Section Head until

January: George

14
 15

In October, four months before the episode described here, the

combined staffs working on the OSP project, including both Bill and George,
had met two days in an offsite location to "build a team" and accomplish
some program task work. Several internal and external consultants on the
organization development staff, including the third party consultant in this
case, participated in the meeting to facilitate the teambuilding process. The
meeting helped increase the familiarity, respect, and trust among members of
the total group; improve the integration of the two sub-groups; and increase
staff members' feelings that they were being utilized. Especially important
for Bill was an increased if not perfect understanding between himself and
George regarding their roles and personal styles. Also, Bill and the total
group somehow resolved to prevent the uncertainties of the OSP program
from continuing to interfere with their ability to work on the tasks at hand.

The operating style for the group which emerged from the October
meeting and stabilized over the next three months involved low structure,
i.e., roles were loosely defined and changed according to the changing task
demands, and considerable mutual influence, for example, professionals had
more opportunity to influence how their own resources would be used. In
part because the fluid task structure and the mutual influence process
required it, there was somewhat more time spent in group sessions. The
meetings themselves moved in the direction of mixture of direct task work
and group maintenance work. Also, more social-emotional support was available
for members who needed it both in the group and in interpersonal relationships.
Apparently, this group pattern was more appropriate to the triple problem
of coping with the environmental stress factors, meeting the needs of a
majority of the particular persons involved, and performing the task at
hand, because internal operations improved through November and December.

The other principal, Lloyd, became the Systems Research liaison to

the OSP effort early in January when George was transferred. During the
previous year, Lloyd, too, had been coping with problems of uncertainty
about the future of the whole program of !iis group. He was actually avare of
the need to clarify and improve the group's status and functions in the
agency. He had not become personally involved in the work on OSP. He had
allowed his subordinate, George, considerable autonomy in handling their
personnel working on the project. However, Lloyd had heard from two members
of his group that the OSP project still did not have the direction and rigor
which they desired, and that too much time was devoted to analysis of group
process. When Lloyd assumed direct liaison responsibility early in January,
he wanted to review the entire OSP project, including the role of his staff
and his own role.

One event in particular played a part in precipitating the conflict

reported here. The setting was a large meeting which included the combined
staffs working on OSP and certain other persons. Lloyd made some statements
apparently in an outspoken manner, which were very disconcerting to Bill.

Early in January, a casual meeting occurred involving Bill, his

immediate superior, and Dave. The responsibility of Bill's superior included
both Bill's and Lloyd's programs, as well as the organization development
 16

projects as needs and opportunities were Identified. Bill mentioned his

concern about Lloyd's participation In the combined staff meeting In parti-
cular, and about their relationship In general. Bill was urged to confront
Lloyd with his own concerns, to try and learn what prompted Lloyd to do what
he did In the earlier meeting, and to try and establish a better working
relationship. Bill decided to do this and expressed a desire to have a
consultant present. Dave offered to participate.

The following day. Bill first called Lloyd and set up a meeting in
his office for later that morning, and then called Dave asking whether he
could attend. Dave agreed to attend, asking Bill to be responsible for
explaining live's presence to Lloyd, w'io had never met Dave, and for getting
Lloyd's concurrence for Dave to be present. Dave further said Bill and Lloyd
would have tc determine how Dave could be helpful.

Thus, these two persons found that there were important issues
between their Lloyd was dissatisfied with the role of his staff in OSP,
with his role relationship to Bill, and with the operating style of the
larger OSP project group. Bill obviously had been satisfied with these
factors. Lloyd's approach was to create an incentive for Bill to review
these conditions. The disturbance he caused for Bill in the first combined
group meeting he attended had the effect of creating an incentive for Bill
to work on their relationship, and perhaps, if necessary, to renegotiate
it. Bill acted quickly partly in order to avail himself of Dave's presence
on the scene. In any event, by the time they met in Bill's office, both had
decided it was in their respective interests to discuss their relationship;
and both were prepared for some form of interpersonal confrontation.

The Confrontation Meeting

Familiarization

Lloyd and Bill were present in Bill's office when Dave arrived. Bill
introduced Dave as a consultant to the organization whom he had asked to attend,
explaining that this was part of a larger pattern of the OSP program which
involved using behavioral science consultants whenever possible. He asked
Lloyd if he approved; Lloyd said he was glad to have Dave present. Dave asked
Lloyd if he had attended one of the many sensitivity training workshops which
had been sponsored by the organizational development group. Lloyd indicated
that he had; and Dave in turn identified himself as a member of the outside
consulting organization which had been staffing the agency's sensitivity
training labs. Under the circumstances of this case, this brief interchange
tended to go a long way in establishing Dave's identity in a way appropriate
for his third party role. We will analyze this point later.

Bill busied himself on other matters for several minutes, allowing

Dave and Lloyd to get somewhat acquainted. During this time, Lloyd did almost
all of the talking and Dave, the listening. Lloyd discussed education, including
his current problem of having a constructive Influence en his children's choice
in educational institutions. Dave's occasional participation on the to ic was
 17

directed to the difficulties in the relationship between parents and children

in their teens, rather than the relative merits of different educational
institutions. As a result of this brief conversation, Dave mentally registered
two tentative observations: First, Lloyd can be overpowering in his inter-
personal style, with a result that the other person may experience frustration
and withdraw or attack. Second, Lloyd may generally tend to resist discussing
the more personal aspects of issues, as he did with the question of his
children's preference for colleges. Only the first hypothecs tended to be
borne out by subsequent developments.

Bill concluded his discussion with his secretary and the three
moved to sit opposite each other in three comfortable chairs. The first
topic of discussion was not topically pertinent to the relationship, and
Dave excused himself to leave the room for a few minutes feeling that the
break might help them get down to work when he returned. He also wanted
to allow Lloyd a greater opportunity to express to Bill any concerns he
might have about his (Dave's) involvement. After Dave returned, they
finally turned to what they both knew they had met to do; namely, discuss
their relationship and especially Lloyd's role in the OS? program.

The Opening Charges

Lloyd led off with a set of statements which asserted that he was
a different person from George, with whom Bill had been dealing, and that he
had different views and preferences. Also, in the prelude to his other
remarks, Lloyd indicated that he saw some "real gaps in the OS? design"
thus far, and was anxious to remedy these if he were involved. His remarks
also included the following points:

First, Lloyd charged that his own staff had not been allowed to
contribute to the "strategic architectual, broad design level" of the
project; rather, that they had been delegated merely the lower level,
"technical-computer work". Then Lloyd said, "Moreover, if this is the type
of resource talent you need for the OS? project, perhaps my staff should
not be in the business of supplying this type of manpower."

Second, Lloyd observed that the role of his staff had been defined
as strictly advisory to Bill's group. Continuing,he said that he did not know
whether it was a viable arrangement for his staff to make important contribu-
tions of resources without a role in decision-making.

Third, he objected to Bill's supervisory pattern, complaining, for

example, that the manner in which professionals from the two groups were being
assigned tasks allowed him little or no leadership role with respect to his
own professionals who were involved in the project.

Thus, he was charging that his unit's resources were being used
below their capacity on the OS? project; that his unit had too little
decision influence; and that his leadership position was undermined by the
operating style encouraged by Bill. He was concluding the status quo was
 18

unacceptable Co him. Then he went on to offer an alternative: to "break off"

the members of his professional staff utilized by OSP and permanently reassign
then to Bill's group. This alternative, Lloyd noted, should be attractive to
Bill; it also had the advantage of "freeing up (his program) to do something
else, getting new customers."

This latter proposal sounded to Dave more like a bargaining tactic

than a seriously proposed solution. It was as if Lloyd had chosen to continue
to build pressure on Bill during the confrontation in order to create bargaining
leverage and to convince Bill that he could not be taken for granted. Threatening
to break off the relationship could be seen as a means of inducing Bill to take
a more flexible attitude.

The Counterpoints

After several unsuccessful attempts to break into Lloyd's long

presentation of his views. Bill dropped his tack of trying to respond to
Lloyd's points. Instead, he challenged Lloyd directly for not allowing him
any opportunity to respond. Lloyd stopped abruptly, acknowledged the
appropriateness of Bill's challenge and made a resolution to listen.

Bill then recalled that he "had real trouble" with Lloyd's partici-
pation in the large meeting referred to earlier. He said he had not under-
stood what Lloyd was trying to do. "In fact," he said, "I'm having some of
the same reactions to what you have just been saying."

Bill's subsequent statements could be arranged as responses to

Lloyd's assertions as follows:

First, Bill said he disagreed with Lloyd's view that computor-

technical-mechanical contributions were of a "lower level" than the strategic-
architectual-conceptual. Moreover, in his view, Lloyd's staff had been
allowed to contribute to the latter.

Second, Bill described his view of the client-consultant roles of

the two groups: "Systems Research staff should make resources and advice
available to the Information Networks staff who then have final decisions
on design and the responsibility for working with the line organization."
Thus, he acknowledged the conflict with Lloyd on this point.

Third, Bill defended his working style, claiming that the pattern
had not detracted from the leadership role of Lloyd's predecessor, George.
Also, he denied that he had given work assignments to personnel in the other
group except as a result of working it out with George. Bill assured Lloyd
that he would respond to any concerns of this kind when they arise.

After both parties had had an opportunity to express themselves and

make rebuttals, Bill turned to Dave and asked him for his observations. Before
Dave could respond, Lloyd explained that first he wanted to make another
statement. He asked Bill directly whether he would want several members of
 r
19

Lloyd's staff if their positions could be transferred. Dill objected that such
a transfer would never be approved and therefore saw no reason to give it
further thought. Besides, his need for the talent in question was temporary,
which argued against any transfer.

Digging Deeper; From the Intergroup to the Interpersonal Level

When Dave did participate, he suggested that the interchange could

be characterized as a negotiation, with Lloyd in effect saying "here are my
needs or requests which must be given due consideration if my staff is going
to continue to contribute to OSP." Dave sharpened the three issues which
Lloyd had put on the agenda, first citing Lloyd's view and then describing
what he heard as Bill's answer in much the same terms as contained in the
report above. After some further discussion of these points, they identified
other areas of concern which were probably more basic to the conflict.

Lloyd did not feel comfortable with the operating style of the
total OSP group under Bill's leadership: it was too loose, too unstructured,
and too "groupy". He preferred more "[Link]" and more structure. In
contrast. Bill was quite pleased with the group's method of operating, which
he thought had been working well and which he found personally satisfying.
Bill didn't want Lloyd to try to change how the group operated. He did not
respond to Lloyd's preferences. Therefore, Lloyd indicated with increasing
emphasis that he had preferences different from those of his predecessor and
that Bill was going to have to take these into account. In effect, Lloyd
wanted the operating methods reconsidered to take into account his own
stylistic preferences.

In addition, Lloyd had some general ideas on the OSP, but he had
not yet been given enough information about the status of the project in order
to test his ideas. Therefore, he wanted to get together soon for a review.
Later in the discussion, he acknowledged that one of his underlying concerns
was in "getting connected" with the project and also in being recognized
as an experienced and competent person on the project team. This need to be
seen as competent was underscored in a side conversation with Dave when Bill
was receiving one of several telephone calls which interrupted the meeting.
Lloyd enumerated for Dave many experiences in the past in which he had had
full responsibility for developing such systems in other organizations. He
noted, in contrast, that members of Bill's group did not have any real practical
experience.

Bill, for his part, failed to communicate a direct interest in what

Lloyd could contribute, nor did he seem to become fully aware of Lloyd's needs
to be recognized in this respect. On the other hand, he felt somewhat attacked
by Lloyd's criticism of the group's efforts to date. It appeared to Dave
that Bill's non-attention to Lloyd's need for recognition might be related
to the letter's attacks on the performance of Bill's group and vice versa.
Dave tried to alert the two parties to these more subtle interpersonal issues
which could serve to keep them apart.
 20

The action outcome of the session was to schedule a meeting of

both groups to review the work and to further explore how they could and
should work together on OSP. As the session concluded. Bill expressed satis-
faction with the meeting, indicating that he felt there was more understanding.
Dave asked to meet with each person to discuss the meeting and to determine
whether he could be of any further help. Both agreed that this was desirable.

The two principals had styles and skills that increased the likelihood
of a successful confrontation. Although Lloyd was often dominating in inter-
personal discussion and although he sometimes resisted more personal inter-
pretations of his own behavior, he had a directness and strength that was
consistent with direct interpersonal confrontation. For Bill's part, his
general skill at understanding interpersonal process not only made him better
able to hear Lloyd out, but also to challenge the letter's occasional
dominating manner.

The third party performed a diagnostic function during and after the
confrontation. He listened to each discuss his views and feelings, and
sharpened what he understood to be an issue, to which the participants
responded in ways which tended to confirm or disconfirm that this was the
mere underlying issue. An effort was made to state these issues in ways which
made each person's positic understandable, legitimate, and acceptable. One
apparent effect of this understanding, legitimating and sharpening of issues
was to encourage Lloyd then to identify the more personal concerns he had
about not being involved and not being recognized as a competent person with
experience relevant to OSP.

The third party chose to play what he regarded as a minor role in

regulating the process. Essentially, he let the parties run on their own.
For example, he waited for Bill to deal first with the way Lloyd was
dominating the discussion. Thus, he believed that the two parties had an
opportunity to reveal or develop their own interaction equilibrium. Nevertheless,
Lloyd attributed an active role to Dave. After reading this report, he said:

I believe the report understates Dave's effect as a

third party and casts him more outside the process than I experienced
him. Both his presence and his active, constructive participation
influenced the process. For example, he turned me off once when I
was getting long winded, reminding me of the need to listen.
When you hear something from a third party who doesn't have an
investment in the issues at stake, you are more likely to respond
to that advice, especially if it is given to you In a timely way on
the spot...In sum, for me, he was not only a catalytic agent, but
also an ingredient in the situation.

Post-Confrontation Reactions and Developments

Late that afternoon. Bill told Dave in convincing terms that the
session with Lloyd had been productive. He believed that as a result of the
confrontation, they understood each other better and could maintain a dialogue
on the outstanding issues between them. In his opinion, the presence of the
 21

consultant had made a great difference In encouraging a genuine confrontation;

for example, he stated that If Dave had not been there, he probably would not
have challenged Lloyd "at the process level" on the way the latter was dominating
the discussion.

Several days later, Dave telephoned Lloyd to learn his reactions

to the confrontation meeting, to inquire about subsequent developments, and to
offer his further assistance if it should be desired. The review meeting
between the two groups had occurred in the meantime. From Lloyd's report,
it was clear that some of the differences between Bill and himself remained,
but also that the two men had a better basis for managing these differences.

Lloyd's remarks indicated continued but reduced concerns about whether

the resources of his staff were being used productively, and whether his group
was "too far in or too far out" of OSP. He showed increased understandIng of
the operating &tyle of the combined groups by commenting on how this had been
Influenced by the great uncertainty under which this development work was
being conducted. He continued to be critical of some aspects of the OSP as
it stood currently and of the "cold hard fact that Bill doesn't have anyone
on his staff that has been through this." He added, however, that he didn't
think his own group "could make it in toto, either."

He also now had reason not to press for an Immediate resolution

of certain intergroup issues Involving the respective roles of the two groups.
Apparently, in talking with his superior, he gained a better appreciation of
the provisional nature of the composition and leadership of the development
effort. He seemed satisfied that if and when there is a decision to go ahead
on the project, a definite structure would be created at that time and tMt
the present structure would not prejudice the form that the eventual one
would take.

Lloyd commented about the effect of the confrontation on his

relationship with Bill:

I think we have made headway...I feel more relaxed

about the way things are going...! came away from the meeting with
a better understanding of Bill's position (as a matter of fact, I
stressed him a little bit to get him to be explicit)...and I
know Bill better understands my position. I know this because at
the larger group meeting Bill made a summation of the discussion
we had in his office and I was satisfied with it; he was able to
accurately state my position...we have openness going for us...

Lloyd believed that Dave had been helpful and that it would be
desirable to keep a consultant Involved "who was familiar with the developing
situation, but who can take a spectator position."

Several months later Bill read this report and added.

Against a longer time frame, the results were even better

than the report conveys. As a human being Lloyd Is accustomed to
more structure than we had in the total group. Nevertheless, within
a month we were operating very well, and he felt as much at home as
 22

anyone. Referring back to the personal needs he communicated during

that session In January, his participation In the project became
both visible and valued.

Dave also learned that Lloyd had developed high regard for Bill over
the same time period.

Conclusions

What were the potential and actual outcomes of the Bill-Lloyd confronta-
tion? Against the background of possible mounting tension. It reversed the
cycle and achieved a deescalatlon trend. The Immediate effect was to help
the parties clarify the Intergroup Issues. For example, Lloyd cited Bill's
ability to state his (Lloyd's) position as evidence that Bill understood. They
made even more rapid progress In eliminating the Interpersonal conflict: within
a couple weeks Lloyd reported feeling more relaxed and noted that he and
Bill "have openness going for us." Later Bill reported that within a month
Lloyd "felt as much at home as anyone" with Bill's operating style and that
Lloyd's participation had become "both visible and valued." The Improved
rapport between the directors enabled them to handle whatever intergroup
Issues remained more effectively.

This was a successful Interpersonal confrontation and the third party

had a constructive influence on this outcome. The third party's influence
resulted in part from his more active contributions (some regulating of the
interaction, sharpening issues, and diagnosing the relationship). More
surprising were the basic functions he performed in a passive way—by his mere
presence. His function in encouraging the confrontation in the first plar'
derived from the participants' expectations about him (supoort, process skill,
learning and insight) and from the qnmbolic meaning attributed to him as a
result of his identification with a class of persons, namely, sensitivity
trainers, with whom they had had an intensive and successful experience.
In the following two cases, active interventions into the ongoing process
and individual work with the participants were more Important aspects of the
third party role than in this case.
 CHAPTER III

MACK-SY:

CONFRONTING A DEEPLY FELT CONFLICT

The conflict reported here occurred between the controller and

assistant director of an equipment manufacturing division of a large firm.
Similar to the preceding case, the conflict has both interpersonal and inter-
departmental aspects. However, the Interpersonal and, in particular, the
emotional dimensions are relatively more salient in the conflict analyzed
in this chapter. The third party consultant played an active role in the
phases of the conflict episode which took place during two visits to the
organization over a period of four months.

The chapter provides a background description of the organization

and an account of the conflict. The account of the conflict covers first the
consultant's interviews with each party prior to their interpersonal confron-
tation; second, their dialogue at cocktails after work on Wednesday; third,
the emotional conflict in the staff meeting on Thursday morning; fourth,
the impromptu period of rest and recuperation at the Club Thursday afternoon;
fifth, the consultant's final contacts with the principals before departure;
sixth, further developments, including a reconciliation of the parties.

Background to the Confrontation Between Sy and Mack

Organizational Setting

The immediate organizational context for the conflict between

Sy (the assistant director) and Mack (the controller) was the management
staff for the Indianapolis operations of the corporation. Corporation
headquarters, as well as marketing and research functions were located in
Detroit. A particular line of consumers products was processed and manufactured
at Indianapolis. In addition, a smaller volume of industrial products were
both produced and sold by the Indianapolis organization. The general
manager's staff consisted of the persons shown on the organization chart in
Figure III-), with the exception of the industrial equipment sales manager.

The turnover of executives in these positions was quite rapid.

None of the members of the present staff had been in his present position
more than one year. Most of the persons they had replaced were promoted to
positions in other operations, or to higher management positions in Detroit.
Two who had not been promoted ha left the company. All members of the
present staff were aspiring to tu ,tier positions. However, in no case were
they assured of a future promotion; each of the managers was assumed to have
strengths and weaknesses. All were avurc of the "up or out" character of
Indianapolis assignments.

23
 Figure III - 1

Division Director

PurcHasing Assistant Contrdller Personnel

Manager Director (Sy) (Mack) Manager

Indufetrlal Industrial Consumer Products

Products Equipment Manufacturing Manager
Manager Sales Manager

24
 25

Promotions in this situation were heavily influenced by two

factors: first, it was crucial for one to have a sponsor two or more
levels above him; a typical pattern was for a manager who had been pro-
moted to continue to look out for the welfare of a former subordinate
whom he liked and regarded hiphly. Second, the director at a division
like Indianapolis was a key person. Because of the geographic separation
between Indianapolis and Detroit, the director was the primary source of
information about and evaluation of current performance of members of his
staff. Thus, to be promoted, a manager at Indianapolis usually had to have
both a sponsor in Detroit and the positive evaluation of the director,

Dave's contact with the division had begun 15 months earlier at

the initiative of the previous division director. During his consulting
visits, he observed staff meetings and led critiques 0^ t^e 8rouP process.
The primary purpose of such a review was to improve the functioning of the
group. Dave also met with staff members individually, discussing their
respective organizational or interpersonal problems or concerns, and sharing
his own reactions and perceptions of them based on the staff meeting they
had both attended.

The staff meetings tended to be fairly low-key, marked by some

humor. Much time was spent informing ear'-, other about developments in their
respective areas. A lesser amount cf time was devoted to policy or action
questions which involved deliberation, debate, decision-making or recom-
mendation making. The group tended not to engage in open disagreement with
each other, although there was a stated norm favoring openness. They occa-
sionally tried to review, analyze and react to the process of their own staff
meeting when the consultant was not present by saying "let's do what we
would if Dave were here." They reported some success in initiating and ex-
ecuting their own analysis of group functioning.

The present director had developed relatively strong and open

relationships with most members of his staff. He Initiated direct dis-
cussions with a subordinate about his relationship with that person, giving
and asking for candid reactions and evaluations. Many of his staff ex-
pressed high respect and personal warmth for him. However, this type of
openness had not developed among members of his staff, although he said he
wanted such relationships to develop.

There was a strong "management development" aspect to this type

of relationship pattern initiated by the director. That is, in addition
to trying to establish a productive relationship, he wanted feedback for
himself and others which would make each of them more effective in future
organizational relationships. This latter motivation was shared by the entire
staff. Similarly, the consultant's work was seen as having two purposes -
improving existing relationships and developing interpersonal skills.
 26

Instrumental In promoting the openness and the desire to develop

more interpersonal competence were the prior sensitivity laboratory ex-
periences of the director and many members of his staff. These were one
or two week "T-Group" workshops sponsored by a particular consulting organ-
ization. Because Dave was a member of the network of consultants used by
this organization, the Indianapolis division's personnel in this case
associated Dave with the processes involved in their laboratory experiences.

Imnediate Background to the Conflict

The consultant had not visited Indianapolis for the last six
months because he was on the West Coast on leave from the faculty of a mid-
western university. After he agreed to spend two days at the division in
connection with another trip to the Midwest, he received a phone call from
the director who discussed some of the problems among the staff. The
director emphasized that the current organizational environment included
many uncertainties. The performance of the division was below expectations,
due in part to operations at Indianapolis and in part to other factors not
within the direct control of the division staff. In addition, a power
struggle had developed within the higher management staff in Detroit to which
the director reported organizationally. Despite the fact that the director
had received favorable and approving signals from his direct superior and
his superior's boss, he was feeling some personal stress and insecurity
created by the general situation.

Still other uncertainties were generated by recent changes he had

made within the division, involving the reporting relationship of two
persona on his staff, the sales and production managers of industrial prod-
ucts both had reported directly to him and now reported to the assistant
director. (See Figure III - 1). One was removed from the director's staff,
namely the industrial equipment sales manager. Both felt that they had
suffered "set bac^s." The changes had created strains in the director's re-
lationships with the two persons involved. The man removed from the staff
had been strongly dressed down by the director for his performance.

The director commented on each member of his staff. His comnents

on Sy (assistant director) indicated high satisfaction with his development
and noted that Sy was serving as his primary sounding board and colleague.
He also conmented on Mack (controller) whom he assumed for the moment Dave
hadn't met, because Mack had been promoted to the staff position Just prior
to Dave's last visit to Indianapolis. His coraments were:

Mack is a young fellow who doesn't want to be controller.

He is aggressive and competent. He is so damned aggressive
that he often drivws people out of a discussion. That even
happens to me. I'll leave a discussion with him all frustra-
ted. But he just got back from a sensitivity training lab
and he said he got feedback from his T-group about his aggress-
iveness. We Just had a wonderful lunch together and he reported
his lab experience. He also reported that during a very diffi-
cult episode in the T-group he had waited and then come in
quietly into the discussion and to his surprise they listened
to him and took his ideas. I was pleased that he had that
lesson. However, in a recent meeting, he reverted back to
type, and became aggressive.
 27

The director also reported an epfsode in the last staff

meeting:

Yesterday Sy and Mack were having a conflict. Sy

brought it Into the open. He had put on the agenda "con-
troller responsibility." This was the first I knew about
it - when I saw it on the agenda. Mack contended his job
was to give figures upward, not downward. Sy couldn't
buy this. One of Sy's subordinates had raised the issue
in the first place and had gotten together with Sy to
put it on the agenda, in the meeting this subordinate
said that the controller area was a service area and that
his employees shouldn't have to wait. They weren't
getting service. Well, I broke in and tried to set this
fellow straight; I said, "When you vie for service, you
still have to get it through persuasion." This may have
been a little hard on him, but a few days earlier I had
said to him, "Can you take it? Do you want me to let you
know what I think?" And he had said, "Yes."

The above comment was the director's only reference to the Sy-
Mack conflict. In mentioning it and presumably in living it, the matter
quickly had given way to an interchange between himself and another person.

On the first day of the consultant's two-day visit, he maintained

a schedule of discussions with as many members of the staff as possible.
During his interviews with Mack and Sy, Dave only vaguely recalled the
director's fleeting description of their conflict at the last staff meeting.
He had no particular plans to work on this interpersonal relationship.

Interview with Mack

Much of the session with Mack centered on his recent lab experience.
The episodes he related had personal significance for him, and Dave found
it easy to listen empathically. Mack's references to his present work
situation centered on his attitude toward his current Job, and his concern
with his work relationships. The following concerns, and ideas were ex-
pressed, but not pursued, in the time available.

Mack felt there was a very bad fit between his personal style
and his current Job as controller: he tended to be "intuitive," wiereas
the Job required more compulsive behavior. Prior to becoming controller,
he had been in the production organization. He questioned that he should
ever have been given the controller assignment even though It was a pro-
motion. Apparently, he now felt like he had been pressured Into taking
the assignment. Also, he was very disappointed that a project (X-Mill
project) for which he had been responsible was taken away. After he had
pursued it as an acquisition problem, the project was given to Sy as a
start up and operational problem. Mack had wanted to continue with it and
believed he was competent to do so.
 28

He indirectly implied that he had withdrawn some energy from

his work, reporting, for example, that he put in less time outside the
regular office hours. He attributed this change in his life pattern,
which his wife applauded, to insight and perspective gained from the
T-group, but the context of his remark suggested it w;.s at least partly a
result of his disappointment about losing the X-Mill project.

On a positive note, the T-group experience had increased Ma x's

interest in working on the organizational and personal development of his
own subordinates. This newly developed interest served as an outlet for
his commitment and imagination--resources which would have been invested
in the X-Mill project.

Mack was perplexed about how much of the openness and spontaneity
he had learned in the T-group could be used in the organizational situation.
He reported that in two instances subsequent to the T-group, his oper.,
expressive behavior toward colleagues had made them quite uncomfortable.
Also, he felt an "intense conflict" with another person in the staff group,
whom he "knew" he "had to confront"; to date, he had not been ready to follow
through. He asked Dave for his advice on how to apply the T-group learning.
Dave suggested that there was an optimum time lag after a lab before under-
taking work on tough interpersonal issues:

On the one hand, you need to be back in the organization

long enough so that you can differentiate between the behavior
norms and the personal risks associated with the temporary T-
group and the realities of this permanent organization. On
the other hand, you need to act before the excitement of the T-
group experience wears off and while you are still more ready to
take personal risks.

Because of time limitations and because Mack did not offer to identify the
person with whom he was in conflict, the matter was dropped. Later, it
became apparent that he was referring to his relationship with Sy.

Interview with Sy '

Sy had also attended a sensitivity lab since Dave had last

talked with him, but it was not especially salient for Sy because it had
been four months earlier. Sy Identified several areas where he wanted to
improve his interpersonal effectiveness; he was not satisfied with his
relationships with subordinates; he had not yet established a relationship
with the new personnel manager; finally, he was "especially concerned"
about his poor relationship with Mack. The remainder of the session dealt
with Sy's conflict with Mack.
 29

Sy mentioned that he and Mack vere very different, and Dave asked
Sy to elaborate. That particular effort quickly gave way, as Sy began
describing Mack and his own reactions to Mack.

in Sy's opinion. Mack was not sufficiently Interested in the

success of the division's operations and too concerned directly about his
own career. Although it was not clear what events or patterns Sy had in
mind, it later occurred to Dave that Sy could have been referring to
several different things. First, the director (but not Sy) had mentioned
a recent incident in which Mack had complied with the preferences of the
corporate controller in Detroit who wanted him to delay making operating
performance data available to the division staff and the director's line
superior. Second, Sy himself later clarified how much he resented that
while the operations in general and he in particular needed more controller
work, Mack was worrying less about doing his immediate job than in whether
he should be in that job. Third, Sy was also personally inconvenienced and
annoyed by the fact that when he assumed responsibility for the X-Mill project.
Mack ersentially "washed his hands" of the matter, withholding any assistance.

Sy said that he resented Mack's attempt to dominate a discussion

"even when Mack is knowledgeable on the subject." Sy cited a recent dis-
cussion in which he was trying to get as much assistance as possible from
Mack. Paradoxically he, Sy, ended the discussion because of Mack's manner^
even though he knew he was dependent upon Mack for information and advice.

After Sy seemed to have exhausted his perceptions of and concerns

about Mack, Dave said:

You know, I'm sitting here considering the differences

in my reaction to Mack and your reactions. Earlier today I
had a session with Mack in which 1 reacted very positively
and felt quite friendly toward him. It's true it was just one
session and a special type at that, but 1 wonder what unique
aspects of your relationships with Mack account for your
feelings toward him.

Shortly after, Dave added, "1 wonder what you bring to that relationship."
He also shared with Sy another question he was pondering, "Given your long
list of different negative feelings about Mack, is one of these basic and
the others just reflections of the central concern? Do you have any good
hunches on this question?"

Sy joined in the discussion of this question with an exploratory

attitude. His own hypothesis seemed to center on the "trust" issue. He
related an instance where he deliberately had not consulted Mack in making
a decision to promote a man who recently had been Mack's subordinate. Sy

» J
 30

acknowledged that It would have beei natural and appropriate for him to
consult Mack on this matter. However, he did not even inform him that
he was considering the promotion, "1 guess because I didn't, trust him to
keep it to himself." Sy concluded that he was going to have to confront
Mack and have it out with him.

It was at this point that Dave began to actively consider the

idea of working with the prlr as a pair during this visit. The original
timetable had scheduled all of Dave's time. However, it was 4:45 p.m. and
perhaps plans could be changed to accommodate a get-together over drinks
after work. Without yet deciding to try to arrange for a confrontation, he
shartflthe idea with Sy. Sy responded favorable, even though he would have to
shift some important family commitments. Dave himself felt ambivalent.
He walked over to look in Mack's office and confirmed that Mack was still
there. Dave asked himself, "Is Mack ready?" "Are Sy and Mack going to
confront anyway?" "Do I want to be responsible?" "How much energy do I
have available after a strenuous day and several days before that?"

Arranging for the Principals to Meet

Dave decided to meet if Mack was available. He communicated this

decision to Sy, who immediately went to Mack's office to Invite him to
meet for drinks. Although at that point Dave did not perceive that he
had any choice in the matter, he wondered whether it would have been better
for him (rather than Sy) to have invited Mack.

Sy returned to indicate that they had agreed to meet at 5:30 p.m.

at the Club.

Dave informed Sy that the personnel manager, who expected to

meet Dave after work would probably Join them at the Cli.b. Dave informed
the personnel manager of the change in plans and explained briefly that
he hoped Sy and Mack could work on what appeared to Dave to be important
Interpersonal issues. The personnel manager offered not to come, but Dave
said he wanted him there because he thought he might be helpful; and be-
cause it would assist the personnel manager in building an internal con-
sulting role.

Meeting After Work: Trying to Get the Issues Joined

After all four persons had arrived and engaged in some chit chat,
Dave said, "My thinking about this meeting included the possibility that we
do some work on relationships."

After a pause, Sy turned to Mack, "I feel antagonistic toward

you, and find it very difficult to work with you. 1 want to understand
why and do something about it if possible."
 31

Mack reacted quickly. His response took the form of emphasizlt.g

that he and Sy are very different In their respective styles of working:
he Is Intuitive, Sy Is methodical; he tries to make money for the company
by spending money, Sy by saving money; he Implied that he had a broad view,
while Sy was a detail man. His discussion then turned to center on himself:
the bad fit between his style and his controller's job; and his recent dis-
appointment in losing the X-Mill project; etc.

Mack went on at some length. Although it is not fully apparent

from the above summary of Mack's response, at the time it appeared to
Sy, Dave, and the personnel manager that Mack was no longer responding
directly to Sy. The personnel finally interrupted Mack.

The personnel manager: You are not responding to Sy and

his feelings. (There was a scolding tone to the statement.)

Mack: What do you mean?

Dave: You seemed to be describing a constellation of

factors impinging upon yourself. Can you link that up to
your relationship with Sy?

Mack's response indicated reluctance to confront Sy, and he

suggested it was up to Sy to proceed if he liked.

Sy then repeated a theme which had occurred in his earlier dis-

cussion with Dave.

Sy: I don't know why you bug me; it is more than that
we are different.... Is it that I don't like you trying
to dominate me, or could it oe that I don't trust you?

Mack did not respond.

Dave turned to Sy, who seemed to be disappointed that Mack hadn't

responded and said:

Actually there is not much Mack can do with the question

phrased that way. Can you supply more of the perceptions
and other bakcground upon which your feelings are based?

In reply to Dave's request for him to cite instances that had

Influenced his attitude toward Mack, Sy recalled that he had not consulted
Mack regarding the promotion of a former subordinate of Mack's, "apparently
because of a lack of trust." Mack in turn, confirmed that he did indeed
resent not being informed and that he had not understood why Sy hadn't
contacted him.
 32

Later, Sy identified another type of issue. Sy stated, "We

need more controller work, more data for us in production, more reporting
relevant to expenses." Mack's response was along the lines of, "You,
Sy, do more controller's work than I do. You go over reports so thoroughly
that I count on you to catch errors. Also, it's up to you to decide what
your problems are. I've done all a controller can do."

Both this interchange and the preceding one seemed only to

scratch the surface of the issues or feelings involved. Sy tried still
another issue.

Sy: One thing I can't accept is you're response to the

X-Mill project. I need you to help me with that project.
You've got the background information and the abilities which
are needed. But when you didn't get overall responsibility
for the project, you withdrew completely. I just can't accept
you're saying, "If I'm not the man, I won't contribute."

Mack: But that's how I am. That's how I feel.

Sy's shoulders slumped and he turned upward the palms of his

hands in a gesture of futility.

Dave: (both to give Sy some support and to confront

Mack) It's hard to deal with that position.

At a later point, as if to suggest that one of the reasons he

could not contribute to the X-Mill project had to do with his feelings
toward Sy in particular. Mack said, "I must say that I'm concerned about
working for you when that happens." (Mack was referring to the highly
likely development that Sy would be promoted to division director when the
present director was promoted or transferred, probably within a year or so.)

Mack was called to a phone and the other three sat silent for a
moment. Dave asked Sy, "How do you feel? Do you feel that you and Mack i
have engaged each other this evening, or have been semi-engaged, or not at
all?" Sy responded, "Semi-engaged."

When Mack returned, Dave reported his question to Sy and Sy's

answer and then asked Mack how he felt. He, too, felt "semi-engaged" with
Sy.

Both said that this had represented the start of a necessary

dialogue and wanted to keep working on the issue when there was an oppor-
tunity. Dave later realized that it might well have been advisable to en-
courage them to agree upon a specific time to meet to resume their dialogue.
 33

The meeting was ended because Sy, Dave, and the personnel manager,
all had to leave for other engagements. During the phone call, Mack had had
his evening appointment cancelled so that he was free the rest of the evening.
Dave explained why he had to leave and also that Sy had Indicated to him
earlier that he had to leave. (Dave was concerned that Mack not feel
rejected.)

Dave was driven to his motel by Mack, who said that he felt the
confrontation was cut short. He had much stronger feelings about Sy which
had not come out yet and he had very deep concerns about what would happen
if Sy became the director and, thus, his boss. On the other hand, in re-
sponse to a direct question from Dave, he said that he did not feel that he
was taking great personal risks in the confrontation, Dave was somewhat con-
fused by Mack's last response, but there was no time to pursue it then.

Staff Meeting: The Confrontation

Precipitating Events

Thursday morning was the regularly scheduled weekly staff meeting.

The director and six members of his staff were present. Only one member
(the Consumer Products Manager) was absent. It was a typical meeting up to
the point late in the meeting when a confrontation occurred between Sy and
Mack. Several agenda items were discussed in a very business-like mannger.
However, certain events or processes appeared to be related to the Sy-
Mack relationship. First, Mack shared with the staff the contents of a
controller's "confidential" report, noting that his disclosures were con-
trary to the preferences of higher controller officials in Detroit. The act
was significant because of past charges that he was too oriented to higher
officials in Detroit, and not concerned enough with the interests of his
immediate associates in Indianapolis. Dave interpreted (to himself) the act
as a conciliatory overture to Sy and the group.

The second event was an instance where Mack was quite aggressive.
The topic being discussed was the need for a general manager for the industrial
products operations, which were showing up poorly in terms of performance
record. As pointed out above, the sales and manufacturing managers of industrial
products had both reported to the director until recently when an organizational
change resulted in their reporting to Sy, as the assistant director. There
had been a general presumption that a separate general manager position ought
to he created. The major constraint was that neither the present sales nor
manufacturing manager was deemed qualified to handle the general manager
job. Mack pressed the director, challenged his assumptions, and told him
what he ought to do, in fact, what he should have been doing. The director
showed constraint and was able to use Mack's ideas without fighting Mack
or rejecting useful ideas out of defensiveness. However, Mack's aggressive-
ness in this interchange with the director may have triggered something
within Sy which later contributed to his outburst at Mack.

.
 34

At the conclusion of the business meeting, Dave led a

critique of the group's processes. Dave compared the meeting with
earlier staff meetings he had observed when the group had a somewhat
different composition. The meeting had been relatively uneventful, and
Dave's observations sharpened only a few procedural issues or interpersonal
interchanges, including the one mentioned above between Mack and the division
director. Mack again made a powerful, repetitive, insistent, but non-
elaborated assertion to the director that the need was great because the
industrial operations were doing so badly.

Sy's Outburst and the Interchanges which Followed

Mack was still going strong when Sy Interrupted him with an al-
most violent outburst, pounding the table, turning toward Mack and slamming
his fist down on the table in front ot Mack. Sy was obviously very, very
angry at Mack.

Sy: Damn it, you keep saying that, (thuL the Industrial
operations are going badly) but when 1 try to get you to werk
on it, you don't!

Mack: Wait a minute, the last time I tried in the

meeting a week ago - it was you that didn't want to continue.'

Sy: (countering) I broke off the meeting when I

couldn't absorb any more.

Sy and Mack argued further on the same point for a brief period.
Then Mack shifted the focus and twice repeated his personal feelings about
the controller's work and his suitability for that job. Then, Dave con-
fronted Mack with the fact that he had again turned attention to his job
when his relationship with Sy was being discussed.

Dave: I have come to a new hunch about your behavior.

Are you trying to prove that you are not suited for the
controller's Job?... There are two hypotehses. First, that
you are trying to minimize the effects of the mismatch between
your style and the controller job. Second, that you are trying to
illustrate, dramatize, demonstrate and prove the mismatch.

Mack: I am trying to minimize the effects of the mismatch,

but it's true that I have started to evaluate whether this
company is the place for me. (He went on to say that it might
be wise for him to consider another firm.)
 35

Sy: I believe it's the second of Dave's hypotheses:

that you are trying to convince others of the mismatch. (Sy
elaborated on this perception.)

Dave: (to Mack) It's possible that at some level you

really are trying to make this point, whatever the consequences.

Then at another point, Dave attempted to assessthe mutuality of

their feelings of dependence on each other:

Dave: (to Mack) Do you feel dependent on Sy? He has

said he feels dependent on you, but I haven't heard you say
anything like that.

Mack: No, I don't.

Dave: To the extent that you have defined the situation

in that way, it's very difficult to work on this thing.

The staff meeting interchanges recorded above are only those

excerpts from the meeting which Dave could later recall with any degree of
clarity. It fails to communicate the extent to which this was a sustained,
highly charged, important confrontation of two human beings for whom the
other was not only an objectively important associate, but must have also
represented some psychological important set of characteristics. Dave's
attention was thoroughly occupied by what was happening among Sy and Mack
and himself; however, at one point when he quickly checked the others at
the round table, he observed that their faces reflected deep concern,
involvement and struggle. None of them ventured into the conflict during
this session.

At the end of the staff meeting Dave made the following remarks to
the pair and to the others present.

I'm not sure there is a solution. Mack, the fact that

you don't feel dependent on Sy makes it more difficult. You
are both strong and you are both open about your negative
feelings—these are the encouraging factors. One of the prob-
lems is that your personal styles may clash so much that you
generate new interpersonal issues even while you're talking and
trying to work out your existing differences. That's where
others can help.

Sy and Mack havs different things to offer this staff.

It would be a shrme for the organization to lose Mack. Mack
has certain unique strengths to offer. It's a challenge to
find a way to make it possible for Mack to work on Sy's task
problems. In part, it's up to you. Mack, to say how others
can help make it possible for you to work productively. It
is important for the two of you to keep talking...

.
 36

In concluding the staff meeting, Dave suggested that they all go

to lunch; the director suggested they «o to the Club. On the vay out
of the office building, the personnel manager said to Dave, "I was moved;
that's all I can say." All six rode to the Club together.

Before the staff meeting, no one but Sy was aware of the full
depth of his negative feelings toward Mack. The director had only mentioned
the earlier debate between Sy and Mack. The personnel manager had not
made any mention of this conflict in sharing with Dave his perceptions of
the current personal and organizational issues. Nor had Dave fully appre-
ciated the depth of Sy's feelings until the staff meeting outburst. Prior
to that, when Sy had said to Dave, "I wonder why 1 feel the way I do toward
Mack," he appeared to be purzled or perplexed, but not highly disturbed.

Sy's tension level had mounted after the evening meeting,

apparently out of the frustration in failing to engage Mack. This frus-
tration, plus Mack's further provocative behavior during the staff meeting
must have led to Sy's outburst, which in turn pushed the overall tension
level to a very high point. This intense confrontation was a climax of
the mutual antagonism, and undoubtedly set the background not only for the
quiet reflective work that afternoon, but also for the improvements which
eventually came much later.

Rest and Recuperation and Repair of Third Party's Relationship to Mack

After they had arrived, ordereddrinks and handled some miscell-

aneous business items, the director asked Dave what the group should talk
about.

Dave deliberately tried to avoid further work on the Sy-Mack rela-

tionship during that luncheon period. Therefore, he raised a question about
the pattern of his future work with the staff, suggesting two or three alterna-
tive patterns. As a part of the discussion which followed, they explored a
misunderstanding. Apparently, the personnel manager had misinterpreted the
staff's interest in getting Dave to come several weeks earlier. One person
questioned the personnel manager, asking whether he was on board with the
idea of having Dave work with the staff. The personnel manager said he
definitely was in agreement. Dave himself expressed some irritation with
how the personnel manager had handled the visit and chided him for being
a "hard-nosed negotiator." (In this interpersonal i .terchange, Dave was
a principal. That fact may have facilitated what followed.)

Mack commented that he believed last night had been "rigged."

At first, Dave was taken aback by the comment. Addressing himself to
Mack, Dave reconstructed his own thinking and his discussions with Sy and
the personnel manager which had led to the evening meeting. Dave confirmed
that the dialogue had been planned for, but did not accept that it had
been "rigged." Nevertheless, Mack added, "I'll never trust you again."
 37

As the group moved from the cocktail lounge to the luncheon table,
Dave commented in a half-humorous way to the group, including Mack, "I
thought it was clear that I had a white hat. Now I learn that Mack saw me
as wearing a black hat."

Mack then reflected ambivalence about the episode by saying,

"This type of candid reaction to me and my style of operating is precisely
what I wanted from my sensitivity training group, but didn't get."

There were long lapses of conversation during the drawn out

cocktails and lunch that lasted to middle afternoon. People were reflecting
upon the morning confrontation, its meaning for them, and generally resting
by engaging in light conversation. The additional discussion directly
relevant to the Sy-Mack episode dealt with Mack's ambivalence about the con-
frontation and his feelings about Dave's role in it.

Dave: (to Mack) I'm concerned about the trust issue.

That hits me in the most crucial aspect of my role with this
group. I'd like to hear more about what you're thinking or
feeling.

Mack: It's not really trust. I just don't know. I've

taken some big risks. My own career's on the line, At least
my future with this company.

Dave: What is the risk? How is it likely to effect

your future with the company?

Mack: Sy will remember this. He can't help but take

it into account. It's bound to work back against me.

Dave: I see what you mean.... Only the future will

tell. There just is no way for us to know now. Asking Sy still
wouldn't give you an answer to this...but for what it's worth, my
sense of Sy's integrity, his discipline, his notions of fairness,
these all tell me that he won't use this interchange or what you
revealed about yourself against you.... In fact, as I reflect
on it, maybe you are projecting some of your own inclinations onto
Sy. In a way, compared with you, Sy is less likely to be attending
to his career and thinking politically.

(After some time elapse.)

Dave: (to Mack) As to how you perceive my role in this

confrontation, let me add still more detail about what pre-
ceded the decision to try and get some dialogue going between
you and Sy, When I was talking with Sy yesterday afternoon
 38

and he was dtscrlblng his negative reactions to you, I

shareiwith him that I didn't have the same reaction to you.
I had felt quite positive to you on the basis of our inter-
view, therefore, I said to Sy, "I wonder how much of that is
Mack and how much is you, Sy."

Notwithstanding his anxiety about the risks he had taken in the

confrontation, Mack signaled in several ways that he wanted Dave to continue
to work with the staff, with himself, and perhaps, also, with his
subordinates.

Dave's suggestion that they go to lunch together, held the group

intact following their high emotional experience; this allowed members to
provide each other the reassurance they needed. Also, each member of
the group was given an opportunity to individually reflect on the experience
and find some meaning for himself. Fortunately, the director and other
members of the staff manifested a mature acceptance of the morning's con-
frontation. This undoubtedly went far in reducing the disapproval fan-
tasies which the participants might otherwise have entertained.

Touching Bases before Departure

When the group returned to the office, Dave dropped in on each

of them before he departed.

In Sy's offic«,Sy said, "I need to improve my ability to confront

and talk through an issue." Dave was reassuring, "you have come a long
way. The important thing is that you have courage, are open, and you want
to learn."

In Mack's office. Mack said, "What can I do? I understand my

impact, but I need techniques to change." Dave gave the following counsel:

Sy said that you go on too long and when he has had

enough, he starts getting irritated. After you've talked
a little bit, check with him. Help him stop you. Others
said 'you overpower me.' Well, after a burst of your feelings
stop and ask for others to come back at you. Ask them whether
you have come on too strong. Ask third persons to react. Give
the other guy support.

I've observed that you don't usually give a guy a handle.

A guy challenges you. You come back on him, but very often you
don't meet his point. It leaves a guy feeling helpless. Stop
and ask yourself out loud: now am I Joining the issue? Invite
him to help you answer your own question.
 39

Mack and Dave discussed these suggestions until Mack was

satisfied the understood what Dave was trying to say.

In departing, Dave said to Mack: "I like you. I like your

passion. I'm somewhat the same way. Like it's hard for me to come
to Indianapolis just to maintain a relationship, but if there's a crisis,
it's easy to do it and invest myself."

In his discussion with the personnel manager, Dave urged him to

take third party roles, cautioning him that as a member of the staff he takes
additional risks for himself.

The director indicated that he thought "the work" the third party
consultant had facilitated had been "terribly important."

Further Developments: Eventually an Improvement

Over the next six weeks following his visit to Indianapolis,

Dave received a series of long distance telephone calls from members of
the staff group. These lengthy phone conversations kept Dave informed
about developments. They were also opportunities for the callers to
ventilate, to test their perceptions of the situation against those of
Dave, to elicit Dave's reaction to some interpersonal initiatives they had
made, etc.

Dave learned from the personnel manager, the director, and

Mack that Sy and Mack were not actively working to improve their relation-
ship. Instead, Mack had concluded that his real conflict was with the
director. This latter pair was seriously working on its conflict In an
effort to reach a better understanding.

Mack mentioned several things which seemed to be related to why

he ha^n't pursued his differences with Sy. (a) He observed that the less he
talked in meetings, the more Sy talked, as if Sy was simply relieved to
have Mack withdraw, and "to have the show to himself." (b) Mack reported
being rebuffed by Sy twice, once regarding a task contribution and the
second time in a more interpersonal context. (c) Mack said he now realized
that Sy, as assistant director, was only doing what the director wanted
anyway. It was the director, not Sy, himself, who decided that Sy would
take over the X-Mill project which Mack was so disappointed to lose.
In analyzing the situation Dave made still other infererences: (d) Perhaps
Mack decided to work through to establish a relationship with the director
because it was the more crucial for his career. (e) Apparently Mack clearly
resented what he regarded as the director's close supervisory style; and the
director, in turn, had been threatened by Mack's aggressive style, (f) The
director, himself, had a tendency to try to work on his own relationships
with his subordinates, rather than their on relationships with each other.
 40

Reconciliation

The consultant made a return visit to the division about six

weeks later. He talked with both Sy and Mack individually. Sy stated
that he had not gotten together with Mack because he had been so busy
with the X-Mill project. He also conveyed that he avoided Mack because
of the discomfort he experienced in meeting with him. Nevertheless, he
indicated an interest in meeting with him and Dave during Dave's two-da>
visit.

Mack explained to Dave that as a result of the feedback he had

received first from Sy and then from the director he had tried to adjust his
style of working. He discussed with Dave the nature of these adjustments
and the associated personal costs. He wanted to meet with Sy, if the
latter was interested.

The three of them went to lunch. Initially Dave was not sure
what use Sy and Mack would want to make of this meeting. It soon became
evident that both wanted to deal with their mutual relationship and other
matters of personal significance.

Mack began talking about his internal dilemmas, how he had coped
with them, thf personal costs involved for him, his willingness to suffer
his problem, and the career choices which may be approaching - most of
which he had not shared with others on the staff.

Specifically Mack shared the following inner thoughts:

He had developed a staff concept which helped him avoid

his tendenr.v to be dominating. He was desperately trying to
live up to the model. First, he wanted to learn how to in-
crease others' alternatives, to present issues in a way which
did not prejudice them, and to [Link] imposing his own views.
This was terribly unnatural for him, but it seemed to be
what people wanted from him and it appeared to be the company
pattern. Second, he was determined not to inject himself
into situations unless someone consulted him or invited him.
He didn't believe that he was invited in very frequently.
This tended to confirm for him that others, including Sy, were
relieved to have him off their backs. He felt underappreciated
and rejected. As unsatisfactory as this was for him personnaly
he believed that this staff pattern was better for the manager
group as a whole. Third, he expressed genuine interest in the
welfare and task performance of others, and especially for
Sy's werk on the X-Mill project.
 41

Mack then described how he was currently coping with

the mismatch between others' expectations of him and his own
personal needs. In contrast with his more natural tendency
to completely and enthusiastically invest himself in a job -
probably more thoroughly than most managers - he was attempting
to make an adequate, but measured investment in the controller's
job. This also involved fighting his second tendency to com-
pletely withdraw - a matter of central significance in his re-
lationship ' ith Sy.

Mack finally talked about his personal career alternatives.

The net personal cost for him to live by the staff concept was
great and he was pursuing other job possibilities. He had come
to the conclusion that he was effective as a promoter - a one
man show. He could get along with superiors and subordinates,
but not peers. Maybe he would find a job where peer relations were
not important.

Dave had learned some of these feelings and thoughts from his
earlier discussion with Mack. Therefore, he could both encourage and
assist Mack in verbalj^ing the above. Sy was silent throughout and did not
make a verbal response when Mack had finished. Dave's own observations con-
vinced him that Sy had been listening empathically to Mack and was moved.
Mack, however, had revealed feelings, thoughts, explanations, and prospects
that were of personal significance. Colloquially, he had "spilled his guts ii
Now he appeared to be anxious about Sy's response - or the lack of a spe-
cific response.

Dave asked Sy to share his current feelings and thoughts - to

respond to Mack. Sy expressed feelings of understanding and compassion for
Mack and sincere appreciation of Mack's concern for Sy's welfare, in
particular Sy's development in the X-M1I1 project. He also recognized
Mack's interest in being directly helpful to him. He acknowledged that
Mack was accurate in his perception that he (Sy) preferred a "middle-of-the
road" type of staff pattern. Sy said he could neither cope with Mack when
the latter [Link] atfull throtcle, nor accept him when he withdrew completely.

Sy continued to talk thoughtfully. He said "I find I do prefer to

deal with (a particular subordinate of Mack's) on controller matters rather
than with you." Mack's response was, "beautiful." The exclamation was
spontaneous and vigorous, as if the authenticity of Sy's remark about his
preference to work with Mack's subordinate was necessary to make Sy's earlier
statement of compassion and understanding for Mack fully credible. Dave
was also struck by the combination of tenderness and toughness in Sy's
overall response to Mack revelations of his internal dilemmas. Mack went
on to request Sy's support for a promotion he was seeking for the subordinate
in question. The promotion to assistant controller would insure that he
would be Mack's successor.
 42

The long encounter over lunch was a very emotional experience -

a type of reconciliation between Sy and Mack. They had experienced an
emotionally moving self-disclosure, reciprocated by an expression of deeply
felt concern. This was in contrast with the basic antagonism expressed
in the earlier confrontation. They had now expressed mutual respect and
concern for one another's welfare. While their respective styles kept
them from wanting to work with each other, their negative feelings had
been replaced by a form of positive feelings. Dave's prediction was that
they might yet be able to develop a working relationship.

The third party consultant was the occasion for the dialogue in
this second explicit attempt to work on the relationship. He was relatively
less active than in the earlier confrontation encounter, but his presence
had clearly provided the impetus and the reassurance necessary for them
to meet again. The mutual interest in pursuing the relationship had
apparently remained, but had not been acted upon presumably because Sy
had not been confident that he and Mack could work on it by themselves.

The Outcome and Conclusion

Within the next few weeks Mack and the director worked through
their differences and reached a mutually satisfying and productive relation-
ship. When the consultant visited two months later. Mack had developed a
pattern of working with peers in the organization and an outlook on life
and work with which he was quite pleased. Finally, the consultant also
observed two long business appraisal and planning meetings in which Sy and
Mack worked intensively with each other - and they worked effectively.

Thus, over the four-month period covered by this case study,

the relationship between Sy and Mack improved markedly. In the beginning
it was negative on two counts: it greatly interfered with their current
work; and it was a liability in terms of future career prospects. At the
end of the period, the relationship was satisfactory (not exceptional) on
both counts. Both the persons involved and the division organization gained
from this improvement.

The series of encounters reported here, in which the third party

played a central role, were evidently instrumental in producing this
change. During the six weeks period between the confrontation and
reconciliation encounters, there were changes affecting the principals
individually, especially Mack, which also created the '-otential for a
change in their relatlonpnlp. However, in this particular case, the
principals did not reall/ work together by themselves, and certainly
did not make progress on their relationship. If anything. Mack had become
discouraged by the failure of his minor attempts to resume a dialogue
on their relationship.
 CHAPTER IV - FRED-CHARLES:

SEARCHING FOR AN ACCOMMODATION

This chapter reports an episode between the personnel manager

and the production superintendent of a division of a large medical supply
firm. A significant aspect of their confrontation involved clarifying
their differences in an effort to find more accommodating interpersonal
and staff-line relationships. The third party's interventions during
this confrontation were of a much more active variety than those in the
two preceding cases. In order to focus on these active interventions,
the format of this chapter will differ from the earlier chapters. It
will present background material and a running account of much of the con-
frontation. However, other detailed material about the episode will be
introduced within the framework of an analysis of third party interventions.

Background to the Confrontation Between Charles and Fred

Charles,,personnel manager, and Fred, production superintendent,

both reported directly to the division's general manager and were members
of his regular staff meetings. (See Figure 1V-1) Dave, who participated
in the conflict episode sj a third party, had worked as a consultant to
the general manager's staff over the past few years, one or two days
every other month.

Sources of Stress on the Principals

About six months earlier, Charles had moved to his present job
from a position of lesser responsibility in another division of the cor-
poration. Thus far, his performance had not met the expectations of the
general manager. The general manager and an official from Corporate
Personnel had discussed the matter with him. In brief, Charles was under
considerable pressure from his superiors to prove himself.

One specific criticism was that Charles was not functioning as

a human relations and organizational counselor to the general manager and
other members of the staff. The previous personnel manager had given this
function considerable attention and had done an effective job. The general
manager himself had expressed a need for more assistance of this type from
Charles; also, other interpersonal and organizational issues were causing
difficulty within the staff. Charles, for his part, considered this function
less Important than certain other personnel functions, which in his opinion,
had been neglected by his predecessor.

Secondly, Charles was criticized for his handling of union-management

relations. Specifically, the general manager believed that Charles was un-
necessarily hostile and suspicious toward the union. Division managers were

43
 Figure IV-1

General Manager

of the Division

Purcnaslng Controller (ihlef Production PersoVinel

Manager Engineer Superintendent: Manager:
Fred Charles

44
 45

proud of the accommodative relationship that they had developed with the
union president, whom they believed was reasonably responsible and trust-
worthy. Charles had not been directly responsible for labor relations in
his previous job; nevertheless, he had been in a personnel department -•'"ere
the relations with the union had been very antagonistic, an experience
which probably influenced his current attitude.

Fred had been promoted recently to the position of production

superintendent. While a few persons with whom he had worked had experienced
difficulty getting along with him, he also was highly regarded by other
associates and generally had the confidence of the general manager. The
production superintendent was assumed to be progressing well in getting on
top of his Job and coping with the constant pressure to solve new problems
and improve performance. Of the two principals in this case, Fred enjoyed
relatively more organizational support.

Job Interdependence

Their organizational relationship was an important one. Although

both were interested in improving their relationship, their sense of urgency
was not symmetrical. By far, the majority of employees serviced by the per-
sonnel department were in the production organization headed by Fred. The
nature of the personnel work to be done was such that Charles could not oper-
ate effectively if he and his department were not accepted by Fred and his
department. In fact Fred's prior close relationship with the union president
made it almost necessary for Charles to develop a satisfactory relationship
with Fred in order to develop one with the union president. In contrast,
only a fraction of the work of the production department depended upon the
personnel department's efforts--at least in the short run.

Because they were new to the general manager's staff, both princi-
pals had had relatively limited contact with Dave before the episode reported
here. They were aware that Dave had worked as a third party with other pairs
on the staff. Charles himself had been present, but not a participant. In
one case, He understood what Dave was trying to do, some of the types of
functions he performed, and presumably had developed trust in him and confi-
dence in his competence. Fred had had only brief direct exposure to Dave,
but he apparently was reassured by the fact that several close colleagues and
two superiors had placed their confidence and trust in the consultant.

One common practice of members of the staff was to phone Dave and
discuss organizational and interpersonal matters when they arose—using the
phone conversation to clarify their own thinking and get Dave's reactions.
Both Fred and Charles had taken the initiative to phone Dave and discuss
their interpersonal conflict. Thus, Dave had learned of the Intensifying
conflict two weeks before his visit to the division.
 46

Fred'a Views of the Developing Conflict

Late on a Friday afternoon Dave received a phone call from Fred

who reported the following:

I'm calling you about my relationship with Charles, espe-

cially as a result of a meeting we had today. Our relationship
is not what it's got to be. I don't know what the trouble is...
it exposes itself when we ask how we can use his service. I
think he doesn't trust me, the way I run my department. I've
tried to share this with him...he feels I've rejected his offer
of service and I can see how he might construe it that way.

Today we were talking about a fifth step grievance. It

concerned absenteeism where we in production admittedly have
done a poor job. So what he comes up with is, "Well, you know,
I've offered help five times and you haven't taken us up on it."
I said, "Crap, that's an over simplification." I acknowledged
the truth, but resented the patness of his answer. Tied in with
this is a hidden gripe, which is that I'm running the department
five men short in part because Personnel has not gotten me the men.
Therefore, I'm annoyed at getting pat answers.

The fact is that we have not placed priority on absenteeism

versus some other pressing problems. But he (Charles) sits in a
comfortable position, where he can't do anything wrong. It's
easy for him to throw darts.

I told him, "Yes, we should have invited you in, but your
hands are not so clean, you share in this; I resent the excessive
criticism." We need to sit down and work on this.

Dave asked Fred how he felt now about this Interchange with Charles,
Fred replied,

I share so much that I'm embarrassed. The meeting in-

cluded the general manager, the chief engineer, and one of
Charles' subordinates. I'm sorry about Charles' subordinates
being there. They all remained more objective than Charles
and I.

Dave asked Fred whether he and Charles had disagreed on how to

handle the grievance.

Yes, that's an issue. He was very suspicious of the union

president and wanted to hold back on something the test of us
thought was fair to do.
 47

As a matter of fact, I, too, locked horns with the union

president initially when he took over. At first he saw things
as black and white; but now he sees them as grey; and we have
developed trust in each other.

In any event, when Charles came here, I had been sharing

things with the union president. Charles said he thought that
something I'd Just done had been unwise, that it might lead to
a side agreement. Well, for Christ's sake, I blasted him, be-
cause I have better judgment than that, and I trust my subor-
dinates to have better judgment than that. As it turns out I
see Charles going through some of the same things with the union
president that I did. I just hope he works through to an under-
standing. The union president came to me and we talked about this
grievance. I related this conversation to Charles and said that
he should take the union president at his word.

Dave commented that it seemed "pretty understandable" that Charles

would resent somewhat the close relationship between Fred and the union
president. Fred answered: That's true, but if he doesn't trust me,
I'm teed off.

Also, shortly after he arrived there was a salary meeting in

which he (Charles) talked in circles. I didn't think he could
talk straight, but now I believe he can do better than he did
at that time.

The question is why doesn't he trust me? But when I put

it on the table that way, he says, "What makes you believe that?"

It bothers me, It grinds me, that he can get to me so

quickly. Not that he tries to. I don't have that kind of re-
lationships with anyone else here...I ought to be able to be
cool and philosophical. There Is no personal animosity. He's
a nice wholesome guy...a regular fellow...nothing personal in-
volved...we don't socialize outside business.

Dave asked Fred to think out loud about the ways in which his own
relationship with the union president might be a factor in Charles' attitude.
Fred responded:

As I went into the grievance meeting, I said, "I agree

with the union president." When Charles challenged my ability
to predict what the union would do, I also said, "I've got
the best relationship with the union president...I think I
can feel him out before the meeting." Charles' response was
 48

that any meeting before the 5th step might dilute the 5th
step. I answered "I've already met him." ...Yes, this could
be threatening to Charles. However, the union president
wants to develop a good relationship with the personnel
manager as well as with the production superintendent.

Charles' Views

The following Wednesday, Dave received a phone call from

Charles who reported the following:

I had an emotional meeting with Fred last Friday. It

resulted from my strong concern with absenteeism and tardi-
ness. A few months ago I had identified a mounting cost
problem. I had said to Fred, "Hey, who is worrying about
this?" Fred answered, "I'll have my two production super-
visors go to work on it." I said, "Can I help?" He said,
"No." Two weeks later I asked how it was going, and again
he reassured me. This happened 3 more times. Finally, we
had a grievance, which I think could have been avoided. A
supervisor cracked down too hard without tightening up in
advance--gradually and with warnings.

Monday morning I talked with Fred, identifying our

cnnflict. It may not be more important than a working re-
lationship. I felt the pressing need to go to work on the
absenteeism problem. I said, "I didn't want to undercut
your position by working with your men without your permission."
He said, "Go ahead and work on the problems you see." There-
fore, I believe it's at least partly resolved.

Maybe (the chief engineer) has talked with him, urging

him not to simply get the bit in his teeth and go charging
off without worrying about implications for others.

I had a warm feeling for (the chief engineer) on

Saturday morning. He said, "Let me know if I can help. I
like both of you too well to let you guys get into trouble
with each other."

I believe there is a fringe benefit of my confronta-

tion with Fred, because it took place with (the general
manager and the chief engineer) present. I hope the
general manager, especially can see me other than reserved.
This incident revealed my willingness to take some risks,
which he has been urging me to do.
 49

Immediately before the confrontation in the meeting with Dave, Charles told
Dave that at least three others had had trouble In trying to work with
Fred at one point or another, indicating that he was reassured it wasn't
simply his (Charles') problem.

The Principals' Relationships with other Staff Members

In addition to having the above background information Dave sketched

out in hip own mind the relevant sociometry of the members of the staff as
he perceived it. (See Figure IV-2) This analysis confirmed for Dave that
the chief engineer was the only staff member who had positive relations with
both principals and might serve as an internal third party.

An Illustrative Conflict

The consultant spent the first half-day of a two-day visit to

the division observing and assisting in the critique of the general manager's
staff meeting. The following interchange occurred between Fred and Charles.
The latter suggested that a management decision on hours scheduling might
involve certain labor relations risks — either a union charge of a lockout
or a vigorous attempt in the next negotiation to get a contract provision
restricting management's flexibility.

Fred: (referring to Charles' concerns) That is very

Judgmental thing. I intend to lobby to the very bitter end not
to run that premium overtime shift.

The general manager: (interjecting) I know it is a matter

of judgment and I don't know how to weigh the risk, but it should
be considered...can I hear from you and Charles on this? (The
implication was that he wanted them to get together outside of
staff meeting and then report to him.)

Fred: (continuing to pursue the matter, implying that the

decision was an instance of a more general issue) I think we
ought to make this decision by the numbers. We can't give here
and there. The point is we need to run this plant as it should
be run.

Charles: (retorting) Bear in mind that the worst thing that

could happen by running by the numbers is a lockout. There are
some potential problems from a labor relations point of view. Let
me dig into this.

The general manager: Both of you dig into this.

 Figure IV-2

Relationship of Staff Members with Fred and Charles

Purchasing

General
Manager

Charlys,

Chief
Engineer

ontroller

Key: + indicates a positive mutual trust relationship

indicates a low trust relationship

0 denotes an Indifferent or ambivalent relationship

50
 51

The boss attempted to ensure that the two meet, discuss the
matter, and report to him. Also, he achieved some neutrality vis a vis
the principals by first urging Fred to consider Charles' views and then
by prompting Charles not to go off on his own. The Interchange added
the boss1 pressure on the parties to work on their relationship and pro-
vided a tangible issue to use as a vehicle.

Decision to Work on the Charles-Fred Conflict

Dave had avoided any decision in advance of the staff meeting

about how his time would be used over the next day and a half. Several
individuci staff members had expre sed an interest in spending time with
him in some cases alone, in other cases paired with a member of the staff,
and in still other cases with one or more subordinates. Dave wanted to
resist trying to respond to more than a few of these and he wanted the choices
to be made in the staff group context. He also wanted to make it clear that
he felt they were free to replan on the basis of developments.

His own preferred method for working during this visit was to work
with relationship pairs , where both persons were staff members. He knew
that there were several Interpersonal differences among st#ff members which
were affecting current organizational performance, were psychologically
stressful for the persons involved, and could have direct implications for
their careers if the conflicts were not resolved. Moreover, even if in
these respects there were equally Important interpersonal conflicts invol-
ving persons not on the staff, Dave would have preferred to work with staff
members, because he already had background information, including his ob-
servations of them in staff meetings, and because he could better ensure
that both parties were participants to the decision to meet with the con-
sultant.

The consultant's criteria for preferring to focus on one inter-

personal staff conflict rather than another Included: Do both persons
seem relatively equally Interested in getting together with the consultant?
Which pair seems most anxious to meet? Which pair's expression of Interest
does the group as a whole seem to support most? Where does he, as a
consultant, feel he has the most understanding.

At the end of the staff meeting the staff participated in a

critique of their meeting. During the critique several interpersonal
difficulties were identified and briefly discussed. Then Dave asked group
members to consider how he should plan to use the next day and a half.
This allowed for the generation of the kind of information relevant to the
above criteria.

The general plan which emerged was for Dave to meet with others
during lunch and immediately after lunch and then get together with Charles
and Fred about 3:30 p.m. That meeting "could run over into dinner, if
 52

necessary." This open-ended arrangement was probably the most conducive to

a good dialogue and confrontation between Charles and Fred. It was also
planned for the consultant to participate in a task group's meetings on
the following day.

Of what significance to the [Link] confrontation itself

was the above manner in which it was planned? Some possibilities can be
sr^gested. Each luember of the pair was given an explicit opportunity to
express his interest or lack of interest in meeting. If he was reluctant
to meet it was possible to signal this in a variety of subtle ways, e.g.,
by holding back, by finding it difficult to agree upon a meeting time, by
sidetracking the discussion. Alsc. the discussion leading to this decision
gave this particular pair the extent to which other staff members showed
priority to the improvement of their interpersonal differences. The public
coranitment to work on the relationship may have Increased motivation to
work through their differences; or at least to manage them better.

Confrontation; Differentiation Phase

Getting the Issue on the Table

The session involving Fred, Charles, and Dave was started by

Dave suggesting that the other two continue their discussion of the dis-
agreement raised during the staff meeting earlier that day. They agreed,
and proceeded to do so. This provided the third party with an opportunity
to observe their pattern of interaction, to hear their stated positions,
and to listen for their underlying concerns before he needed to make a more
active intervention.

As the discussion proceeded, it became clear that Charles was

not necessarily opposed to the decision urged by Fred. He was asking to
"reserve judgment" until he had an opportunity to get the advice of a
lawyer and corporate personnel. The decision would be delayed a day or
two until he had the primary advice he needed in order to represent the
labor relations view. Fred, on the other hand, felt that such a posture
was unduly cautious, asserting that even a production manager like himself
could see that the decision obviously would not have the labor relations
implications Charles was alluding to. He saw no reason why the scheduling
decision couldn't be made "tentatively," and then, if Charles learned some-
thing which made him believe the decision was unwise, it could be discussed.
Inasmuch as the decision affected schedules three weeks hence, and Charles
could get his advice within a couple days, there were no urgent action
implications of the issue. Nevertheless, the disagreement appeared to be
relevant to their general Interpersonal and staff-line conflict.
 53

After some time, and just as the discussion-debate appeared to

have become repetitive, L^ve attempted to shift their attention to the
more general form of the issue. He asked:

Is this specific decision just an occasion for you to

work on your differing views about the role of the per-
sonnel manager? I see you, Charles, using this to make
the point that whenever there might be labor relations im-
plications you believe you should be consulted, and that
Fred should not rely upon his own unilateral judgment about
the importance of potential labor relations implications.
Am I right that you feel you have trouble with Personnel
bsing ignored along these lines?

Turning to Fred, Dave continued,

Fred, I see you saying that the decision is obvicjs

and that you are annoyed with Charles for making a jurisdic-
tional issue out of it. If that is correct, is it a common
pattern?

The discussion which followed confirmed that these were significant

themes in their disagreements.

Identifying Stylistic Differences

Then, somewhat later, Fred noted that he and Charles were very
different. Picking up this idea, Dave suggested that each share his views
of how their personal styles differed. During the discussion which followed,
Fred and Charles made the contrasts set forth in Figure IV-3.

After both had revealed their perceptions, Fred added another

difference: he saw himself as taking people and issues at face value,
whereas Charles was "probing, distrustful, doubtful, assuming a credibility
gap, conjuring up problems...." Fred had become more emotional as he
identified additional perceptions of Charles. From time to time, at Dave's
urging, he had shared the type of feelings he experienced as a result of
Charles' style; he felt himself "seething," "ground," "strained to the limit."
Fred also believed that Charles got "bothered" and "bent out of shape" in
reaction to him. Fred had been allowed to predominate in this discussion
because he appeared to have relatively greater need to get these types of
interpersonal perceptions out on the table.

In turning to hear more from Charles, Dave reviewed as completely

as possible all of Fred's perceptions of him. This recap was intended to
enable Charles to respond to an issue which was relatively important to
him, rather than simply the most recent one mentioned by Fred.
 Figure IV-3

: red saw himself as: Fred saw Charles as:

Direct Indirect, using hidden meanings,

meandering, hypothetical
Dealing in "black and white"
Treating everything as "grey"
Short sleeves, stevedore
Scholarly, professional, cap and
Relying upon personal gown
relationships
Insisting upon formal cr^anizational
Decisive channels

"Laying matters on the table Indecisive, hesitant, cautious

to look at them"
"Sorting things out into separate
piles"

Charles saw Fred as: Charles saw himself as:

Impulsive Looking ahead

Not thorough Thorough

Not caring who he made problems More considerate

for; not considering his
effect on others

5A
 55

Charles objected to Fred's charge that he tended to be dis-

trustful toward others, saying that Fred could never give him specific
instances. Thereupon, Fred related the 5th step grievance episode and
asserted that Charles' approach to the union reflected unduly low trust.
It developed that the two disagreed completely in their recollection of
these events essential to Fred's po^.nt.

During this discussion, the consultant noted a pattern in

Charles' behavior which appeared to irritate Fred and add to his tension.
It was also irritating to Dave. Charles had a tendency to ask a leading
question which either forced an admission of fault, or revealed incon-
sistencies. It was a prosecution or examining style. Over the next hour,
Dave made four types of interventions to call attention to this pattern
and either modify it, or nullify its adverse effects.

First, Dave called attention to the cross examination style and

tested Fred for how he was reacting to it. Fred confirmed his resentment.
Thus, Charles had more information about how others react to this pattern
of his.

Second, and in connection with the above intervention, Dave shared

what his own reaction to this style would be, if he were the person being
cross examined. He used a hostile, graphic gesture.

Third, at a later point, Dave stopped the continuing attempt to

reconstruct what had happened at the 5th step meeting (where there were
very contradictory recollections of events) and asked "What would each of
you be inclined to do with this difference?" Their responses dramatically
Illustrated one of their differences: Fred was inclined to drop it as not
being productive. Charles was inclined to get a witness, cross examine him,
and take any step required in order to determine who was correct. When
Charles reflected upon this difference, he gained some insight into his own
pattern which he acknowledged may not always be productive.

Then Charles, who had had less opportunity to state what he didn't
like about Fred, added an item.

Charles: Fred, you lack humility.

Fred: And you want to teach it to me?

Dave: Charles, do you see yourself as having humility?

Charles: Yes.

Dave: Fred, do you see Charles that way?

Fred: It's false humility.

 56

Charles then cited his earlier admission that he lacked the know-
ledge to make a judgment on the labor relations implications of the schedul-
ing issue. He indicated that this was humility. Fred disagreed with that
interpretation. He observed that this "admission of lack of knowledge"
was tactical to Charles' purposes and didn't strike him as humility.

Later, Fred sharpened one source of resentment toward Charles.

He saw Charles as doubting the judgment of the production management on
labor relations matters, and acting as if he were "saving production
people from their own transgressions," as if he were "standing at the pass."

Escalation of Personal Attacks

Still later in the discussion, one of the two principals re-

ferred to a recent interchange between them. Fred had observed that the
price of cartons of milk in the canteen had been increased from I5i to
20i. He had recal'ed that the profits from the canteen went to the re-
creation fund, which apparently had moie mcney than it could spend. There-
fore, he had mentioned his disapproval of the price increase to a member of
Personnel (either Charles or a subordinate). The two principals began
rehashing the experience and using the instance to support their respective
perceptions of each other. Their dialogue escalated in tone and included
the following comments:

Charles: My subordinatea said to me, "Boy are we in bad

shape if our production superintendent dotsn't have anything
better to do than second guess us on the price of milk!"

Fred: That's defensive. It's not clear you had a good

reason. The price of milk affects everyone. Only a few
benefit from the recreation fund.

Charles: You are being defensive. You are the only one
in the plant who has complained about the price of milk. What
does that tell you? t

Fred: Somebody has to speak up. For example, to cite

another instance, if I hadn't called your attention to the
bad trash situation people would still be stepping over it
day after day. It's funny, the cafeteria is the only thing
you have to manage. (Fred was making the point that unlike
the personnel department, production continuously has to make
decisions and take action, and therefore becomes vulnerable to
criticism. This asymmetry had been a source of discomfort to
Fred. Here in the milk incident he appeared to be trying to
achieve more symmetry in this rerpect.)

Charles: If you would like to run the cafeteria, we'd

be happy to let you take it.
1
 57

Dave cut off the discussion at this point. He indicated that if

was 6:15 p.m. and that the chief engineer who was to join them for drinks
had expected them to come by his office 15-30 minutes earlier. Although
Dave did not formulate it in his mind at the time, another reason favoring
the termination of the discussion when he did was that it had escalated
(or degenerated) into more personal attacks, which seemed designed to
hurt the other, rather than clarify basic issues.

In part in order to provide some closure on the discussion he

summarized the "essential point" of each and indicated that each had an
understandable view:

The dieicussion of the milk incident has been somewhat

repetitive. Let me try to state the points each of you are
making, as I hear them. Fred is saying, "Why should you get
upset by me bringing to your attention the idea that it doesn't
make sense to increase the price of milk when the funds aren't
all being spent now." He is saying to you, Charles, "Can't
you accept this idea on its merit?" I believe I can understand
Fred's sentiment here.

On the other hand, Charles, is saying to you Fred, "This

criticism is symbolic of your attitude toward us, of vour
tendency to get involved In our area, and we resent it. It's
as if you wanted to find fault--and it's this general attitude
that bothers us." That too, I must admit, is an understandable
view.

Am I right? That is, did I capture your essential points?

(Both agreed.)

Apparently such a summary statement by the third party increased

their respective feelings of being understood; and also avoided the question
of which of them was going to have the last word in that interchange. In
addition, Dave overlooked the more personal and more destructive attacks
and counterattacks which both had exchanged in tactical support of making
and supporting their "essential points." It might have been more helpful
for Dave to have noted these tactics and helped the parties to understand
how this type of interchange had developed or degenerated. This might
have been an excellent way for Dave to differentiate between the types of
confrontation which he believed constructive and which he was trying to
promote, and «.he type of conflict interchange which he believed was counter-
productive. This opportunity was only clear to him on hindsight.
 58

Continuing the Dialogue for New Insights

The chief engineer joined the three, and they all went to a
restaurant lounge for drinks and later to the dining room for dinner. The
group continued to work until 11:30 p.m.

The chief engineer had Joined the group at the consultant's in-
vitation and with the concurrence of Charles and Fred. Although he was
relatively Inactive, he made two important specific interventions and
performed some passive but Important functions for the confrontation.
First, he asked the group to help him think through a specific decision he
had to make concerning a surbordlnate of his, to which the group responded
and discussed this with him for about an hour. Second, when asked at one
point for his reactions to what was going on between Fred and Charles, he
gave them a common, blunt reaction, namely, "I think you guys are presently
both lecturing each other." After that comment, they both dug in and
dealt with each other more directly. Third, the more passive functions of
his presence included such things as (a) limiting any tendencies of the
principals to use "unfair" tactics; (b) providing the prospect of additional
forward continuity of the dialogue, by being available to them, either
individually or as a pair.

The following material departs from the format of providing a

running account of the conflict, but wherever possible, elements of the
interaction will be taken up in the order in which they occurred. The
discussion focuses on the consultant's interventions, first describing the
Intervention in an abstract way, and then Illustrating it.

Gaining Understanding of the On-Going Process

An interesting interchange illustrates the power of analyzing

the on'going interaction. Fred, the production superintendent, turned to
Dave after a lull in the discussions.

Fred: Dave, it's a little off the current subject, but

I want to get your reaction to an idea. I've been talking
with the union president about what you've been doing with the
management staff and he is intrigued and interested. You
know he likes to develop his own abilities...1 was wondering
what your ideas are about spending an hour or so with him?

Dave: By posing that question to me, you've created a

dilemma for me. It's an interesting idea and I do want to
respond to it, but if I do we will have created additional
problems in your relationship with Charles. Have you checked
the idea with Charles? (Fred indicated he had not). My
guess is that right now he's sitting here feeling excluded,
by-passed, and is getting riled up. This Is an instance when
you are not recognizing him as the personnel manager.

I
 59

Fred: My gosh, I see what you mean. It was uncon-

scious. It never occurred to me I was excluding or by-
passing Charles.

Making It Difficult for One to Dismiss Another's Perceptions

Dave used a person's own language or reasoning to persuade him

to take something seriously, e.g., to prevent him from discounting a piece
of threatening information which had been Introduced.

For example, early In the episode Fred reported an instance in

which Charles had been suspicious of others. He generalized from the
Instance by referring to it as just a "pebble on the path"; he was asserting
that it was merely a part of a pattern, that he could cite other examples.
Later when Fred would slightly Ignore, Invade, dispute, or depreciate the
personnel area (in trivial or accidental ways, in aid of themselves), Dave
would acknowledge that such an Instance taken by itself should not be caused
for so much reaction as it elicited from Charles, but that when it is viewed
as a par' of a pattern, "a pebble on the path," Charles' reactions became
less surp. ising.

Achieving a Differentiated View of a Person

Dave called attention to what he perceived as Important variations

in a person's behavior during the period of their discussions. Then he
would check with the second person to see whether he perceived the same
variations. In some cases, one type of behavior had been negatively reacted
to, and the other behavior had been positively received. Dave would press to
achieve as much of this type of differentiation as possible. An illustration
follows.

Recall that earlier in the dialogue Fred had said that Charlci*
was a "false humility." He had said that when Charles admits he doesn't
know something, the admission is tactical, e.g., to buy time. Later in
the day, there was an instance where Charles was "piling on," was showing
"delight" at the fact that Fred had been brought up short by one of the con-
sultant's observations. bave turned to Charles and confronted him with the
idta that he had just "piled on." Charles fully appreciated the point.
His face flushed with shame and he said, "I'm sorry..." "I regret that..."
"I don't like thit (in myself.)" However, Fred completely ignored those
statements of regret or sentiments of shame by Charles.

Dave believed there had been something very different about

Charles' expression of humility in these two Instances. Therefore, he con-
fronted Fred, and said, "I want to check something out with you. What did

.
 60

Charles just say and was It another Instance of 'false humility'?" Fred
said that he iid not feel it was false in this instance. In effect,
Dave gave maximum opportunity for Fred to reinforce Charles' behavior in
the second instance. More importantly, the intervention acknowledged to
Charles that he was perceived in one way one time and in another a second
time.

Converging the Parties' Expectations

The consultant counseled the parties to anticipate disappoint-

ments in the course of trying to build a relationship. Consider the
following interchange:

Chaises: At some point the whole thing will click. I

feel we will have an excellent relationship. (This was
said in an enthusiistic way.)

Fred: It's not that easy. I see it as a process of

being open about how we interfere with and grind each other,
and gradually being more accommodative.

Dave: I guess I see it much as Fred does. In part,

it's because guys like you, Charles, „enerally find it
easier to get along with guys like Fred than vice versa.
(Dave referred to their interpersonal patterns.)

Dave also pointed out the rejection potential for Char lee in the
foregoing. Charles acknowledged that he had felt immediate rejection. The
parties were alerted to this problem of rejection. They discussed whether it
was possible to take the sting out of future "overtures-not-reciprocated."
As a result of this interchange, in the future Charles might be more likely
to talk directly with Fred about the effect of such rejection rather counter
attack in an indirect way.

Identifying Similarities between the "Adversaries"

The consultant identified similarities between the parties;

especially as they referred to instances occurring in the interaction,
e.g., the patterns of lecturing, scolding, preaching, condescending, helping
or informing. The following illustrates the point:

Fred had effectively made a point of Charles' lecturing, pointing

out that not only did he see Charles this way, but his subordinates did too.
Fred had said, "You act like it's your job to poin^ out mistakes, how
people went wrong, but not to work to prevent problems in advance."
 61

Much later the chief engineei said, "You're both lecturing

each other." Dave agreed and pointed out to Fred that he usually pre-
ceded a lecturing bit with the words, "you see...." Dave provided
several illustrations from the past hour. Fred fully registered the
feedback and said he hadn't even realized that he was using the words,
"you see."

Underscoring Common Goals

Dave identified a future common goal where they might really

screw up if they hadn't worked things out by then: resolving management's
priorities on items in laboi negotiations. This and other third party
interventions are illustrated by the following interchange:

Fred: I want to make sure my two subordinates have a say

about the items that go forward to the corporate office.

Charles: I intend to provide thau opportunity.

Fred: (Made a very dfvisive, challenging statement

abo'it the amount of control he wanted for line versus staff.)

Charles: (Made a statement to the effect that the line

would have influence, but would not have final say.)

Fred: v^eferred to "unanimity.")

Charles: It's unrealistic to state in advance that

all of the decisions will be unanimous.

Fred: Well, perhaps this has become hypothetical.

Dave: Ye*, but why? 1 see you in this instance as

fightsy; as if you were looking for wa^ s to challenge
Personnel, especially Charles.... I'm afraid that unless
you guys have worked this through, the management dis-
cussions prior to labor negotiations are going to involve
more conflict than the negotiations themselves.... An
initial difference of opinion will become exaggerated and
polarized.

Dave: (turning to the chief engineer) I rather hope

you get involved--as a sort of neutral guy--in these pre-
liminary discussions.
 62

Charles: (chiming in) That's why _I said I vanted you

involved.

Dave: (glowering at Charles) There's a difference in

what 1 said and what you said, I saw him (the chief engineer)
as a neutral. 1 see yov as making a bid for a coalition, or
for using my statement against Fred.

The above interchange illustrates several other third party inter-

ventions. First, Dave identified the chief engineer as a third party,
legitimating his behavior in this role, and coordinating expectations for
him to play this role i.i a particular future situation. Second, Dave
disassociated himself from, and "punished" Charles for, an act which ap-
peared to have the intent of putting Fred down.

Outcomes from the Confrontation

What were the prospects for resolving the substantive and emotional
conflicts in the Fred-Charles case? Their respective role expectations did
involve substantial disagreement; however, these differences presumably
could be partly compromised and partly integrated, provided the two could
develop some positive, interpersonal rapport.

During the six months they had known each other, their encounte &
had been only moderately intensive; the resultant interpersonal resentments
were genuine but did not appear to be so streng that they could not be
worked through. Finally, while their personal styles (indirectness, im-
pulsivity) might be expected to be the basis of irritation, they did not
seem to be significant enough to prevent interpersonal accommodation.

In conclusion, the conflict appeared to be amenable to resolution

or better control. If the differences in their respective labor relations
philosophies and role definitions had been more basic, then dialogue and
process interventions of the type described here would have limited potential.
In that case, solutions would require change in personnel or organization '
structure.

If the jurisdictional issue could be worked through, there was the

prospect for a creative balance and synthesis of their respective orienta-
tions to labor relations and their styles of decision-making. The juris-
dictional issue would have decreased if the blaming pattern subsided, which
in turn would decrease if the two were able to develop mutual respect and
trust.

The confrontation which took place was without a high emotional

climax, rather was sustained at a moderate level of emotionality. There
were periods in which the discussion became repetitive and circular, but
on the whole there was a progressive movement to the interchange. For
example, greater insights into one's own or the other's interpersonal pat-
terms and personal concerns were first registered, later illustrated again
 63

by subsequent actions and still later anticipated by one or both of the

parties. Having a common understanding of these patterns and being able
to anticipate then, made it possible to joke about them and perhaps avoid
the interaction pattern. Therefore, the pattern (vhich was offensive to
the other one) did not provide "more fuel to the fire."

Ac the end of the day, each of the parties had more insigfit into
what he was doing to promote the conflict, each appeared to have some
increased confidence of the positive intentions of the other. They had
some better understanding of the underlying emotional-organizational issues
which were comaon to most of the substantive issues about which they fjund
themselves in disagreement. It was not apparent that their respect for
each other had been greatly increased. They had learned about and practiced
some ways of working on their misunderstandings that were probably more pro-
ductive than those they had used previously. They had a more similar under-
standing of the difficulty and time which would probably be involved in im-
proving their relationship; that is, Charles became less hopeful for a short
run breakthrough and Fred became more optimistic about eventually developing
an accommodative pattern. ThePe probably was higher commitment to improve
the relationship and to engage in Joint projects such as supervisory training.
There was increased awareness of the future costs of not being able to manage
their interpersonal conflict, particularly as it could affect preparation
for labor negotiations a few months hence.

Both explicitly expressed satisfaction with the process and its

results during the meeting. The next day Charles expressed feelings that they
had made headway and yet clearly manifested some continued basic distrust of
Fred. Fred, without saying Just how his attitude or perceptions of Charles
had changed, said that tue day had been one of the most significant educational
experiences in his life.

The confrontation itself increased the incentive to resolve their

differences. First, there was a tendency for each of them to want to Justify
the time and energy invested in the effort to improve the relationship; and
also to meet the expectations of other staff members. Second, the process
underscored at least one tangible area of interdependence, namely the
approaching labor negotiations.

Although the confrontation had provided a basis and start for reach-
ing sane working accoamiodation, Charles left the division and the corporation
before the full effects of their efforts to build a relationship could be
felt. The primary reason for his termination was that he had not gained a
relationship of mutual confidence with the general manager.
 CHAPTER V

DIAGNOSTIC MODEL OF INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT

Our diagnostic model of Interpersonal conflict involves four

basic elements — the conflict issues, the circumstances which precipitate
manifest conflict, the conflict relevant acts of the principals, and the
various consequences of the conflict. We shall analyze and compare these
elements across the case studies presented above; our aim will be to suggest
diagnostically useful distinctions. The analysis also asserts the cyclical
nature of interpersonal conflict as depicted in Figure V-l and identifies
variables which control whether the cycle is benevolent, malevolent, or
self-maintaining. Finally, the discussion enables us to develop and
Illustrate certain operational objectives of conflict management. Each of
four strategies of conflict management relates to a different one of the
four basic elements of the cyclical model.

Cyclical and Dynamic Nature of Interpersonal Conflict

Interpersonal conflicts are cyclical. Two persons who are opposed

are only periodically engaged in manifest conflict. At any point in time
the issues between them represent only latent conflict. Then for some rea-
son their opposition becomes salient, the parties engage in a set of conflict-
relevant behaviors, they experience the consequences of the interchange,
and once again the conflict becomes less salient and Icrs manifest for a
time. If the persons remain in interdependence, the manifest conflict will
tend to recur at some point.

Interpersonal conflicts also tend to be dynamic, that is from

one cycle to the next the issues or the form of the manifest conflict will
typically undergo change. Escalation refers to a tendency for the relation-
ship to become more conflictful. De-escalation refers to a trend toward
less conflict. For example, as we will analyze below, the number of conflict
issues of a recurrent conflict may be continually modified as a function
of the tactics and outcome of the conflict interchanges. An increase in the
number of issues constitutes one type of escalation; and conversely, a de-
crease is one form of de-escalation. The above terms refer to the direction
of change. To refer to the purposive efforts to bring about these direc-
tional changes, we introduce other concepts. If as a part of an overall
strategy of conflict management temporary escalation is desirable, we will
speak of action to de-control the conflict. Similarly, efforts to bring
about de-escalation involve either control or resolution.

64
 Ä

O M
CM

* II
I«
u
4
«
J
«
09
■H
a
u
u
u a.
>N U
U 01

a*
1
 66

Interpersonal Conflict: Substantive and Emotional Isaues

Concepta and Illustrative Diagnoses

/. major distinction is drawn between substantive and emotional

conflict. Substantive issues involve disagreements over policies and
practices, competitive bids for the same resources, and differing concep-
tions of roles and role relationships. Emotional issues involve negative
feelings between the parties, e.g., anger, distrust, scorn, resentment, fear,
rejection. This distinction and many specific types of interpersonal issues
are illustrated by our three case histories.

The cases contained several instances of "philosophical differences,"

which of course are usually manifested in conflicts over the substance of
policies and practices. For example, Sy disapproved of the controller's
relative orientation to headquarters versus the local management. Other
examples are provided by the Charles-Fred case: the personnel manager dis-
agreed with the way the superintendent handled absenteeism, disciplinary
action, and union-management relations. In turn the superintendent disagreed
with the personnel manager's approach to the union president.

Sane substantive issues centered on a type of "role invasion."

Charles perceived Fred aa usurping his role and initiative in personnel
matters. Fred countercharged that Charles had a narrow jurisdictional view
of organizational responsibilities. In another case, Lloyd was demanding
that Bill share with Lloyd's group more of the higher level professional
work and more of the control over design decisions. Bill clearly resisted
changing what he saw as his primary responsibility for and authority over
the total project.

Perhaps opposite to role invasion is "task deprivation," whereby

one party la not getting the services which he requires in order to perform
effectively. Sy and his manufactuiring group were not satisfied with the
service provided by the controller's office. Sy also claimed that he was
not getting the assistance he needed fron Mack on the new X-Mill project.
In the Fred-Charles case, the former believed that Charles as personnel
manager should have provided problem-solving assistance to manufacturing,
rather than taking an aloof, blaming stance.

Another very frequently encountered source of interpersonal conflict

in organizations is a "competit ve incentive structure." It appeared in only
one of the cases and even then our inference is speculative. Given Lloyd's
reaction to the talk with his supe rior on the future structure of the OSP
project, perhaps an unstated issue between Bill and Lloyd had been a mutually
recognized cotnpbtition for formal leidership of the OSP effort if and when
it were approved for implementation.
 67

Turning to emotional issues, one type is "personal need deprivation,"

wherein the situation is currently depriving some salient personal needs.
For example. Mack was frustrated because the controller's job required
attention to detail and a resource conservation orientation which were not
natural to him and the job denied him opportunities to be expansive and to be
a promoter which would be more gratifying for him. Also, Mack's failure to
get the X-Mill project made him envious of Sy. In the Bill-Lloyd case, Lloyd
experienced several types of need deprivation--his competence was not suffi-
ciently recognized, his uniqueness as an individual was not being confirmed,
and he was not feeling included. Bill was in a position to allow Lloyd to
better fulfill these needs without necessarily denying some of his own.
Probably Bill's denial was largely inadvertent.

In the case of "incompatible personal needc," two persons make

contradictory demands on their situation or on their relationship, demands
which are based directly on their respective interpersonal needs. For
example, in work sessions. Mack evidenced a relatively high need to control
and to be aggressive, which violated Sy's need to collaborate in a lower
charged atmosphere. Drawing upon the Bill-Lloyd conflict, we observed a
contradiction between Bill's personal preference for fluid, permissive re-
lationships, and Lloyd's preference for more structure, clarity and "crispness."

Even where it is not clear what personal needs are being blocked,
"differences and similarities in personal styles" may be threatening to the
persons involved. For example, Fred and Charles were each annoyed by the
others general personal style: Fred viewed Charles as academic, indirect,
and cautious; Charles regarded Fred as impulsive and inconsiderate of others.
Each perceived the other to lack humility and to be overly defensive. In
fact, it appears that each was most annoyed b:' certain behaviors of the other
which also typified their own [Link], e.g., lecturing and using cross-
examination style in discussions.

Both substantive and emotional issues were involved in all three

cases, although in differing degrees. In the Mack-Sy case the substantive issues
paled in comparison with the personal issues. In the other two cases there
was more of a balance of substantive and personal issues.

Implications

The distinctions between substantive and emotional issues is im-

portant because the substantive conflict requires bargaining and problem-
solving between the principals and mediation interventions by the third
party; whereas emotional conflict requires a restructuring of a person's per-
ceptions and the working through of feelings between the principals and con-
ciliation interventions by the third party. The former processes are more
cognitive; the latter processes more affective.
 68

Triggering Events-Penetrating Barriers to Action

Concepts and Illustrative Diagnoses

According to our model, the interpersonal Issues described above

can and do exist as latent conflict for periods of time. The latent-manifest
nature of interpersonal conflict is governed by the barriers to overt con-
flict actions and the circumstances which nevertheless are capable of pre-
cipitating such actions.

A variety of barriers can prevent a party from initiating or re-

turning either conflict or conflict resolution actions. A party may be
deterred from confronting an interpersonal conflict by internal forces such
as attitudes, values, needs, desires, fears, anxieties, and habitual patterns
of accommodating; and by external barriers, such as group norms against the
expression of conflict, or physical barriers to interaction. Examples of
barriers include: (a) Task requirements, e.g., time limits inhibit direct
confrontation of feelings and issues involved in a conflict. (b) Group
norms, e.g., shared feelings that managers should not express negative
feelings toward other«, (c) Personal role concepts, e.g., a boss who
feels his ability to engage in conflict with a subordinate is limited by
his supervisory role, (d) Public images, e.g., desire to maintain an image
of gentility, (e) Perception of the other's vulnerability, i.e., the
other person may be seen as too susceptible to hurt from a direct expression
of feelings, (f) Perception of one's own vulnerability to the other's con-
flict tactics, (g) Fear that a conciliatory overture won't be reciprocated,
(h) Physical barriers to interaction. Other specific examples drawn from
the three cases will be identified below.

Despite actual or potential barriers such as the ones just named,

some event or circumstance may be capable of pr ecipitating conflict cycle;
it sets off a round of hostile interactions, a vigorous disagreement, a
candid confrontation, or a problem-solving inte rchange. We refer to these
stimuli as triggering events, and propose that they can have their effect
either by increasing the magnitude or salience of the issues in the conflict
or by lowering one of the barriers to action, If the issue is strictly sub-
stantive, the parties may engage each other whe n the substantive issue be-
comes relevant to an action or when other organ izational circumstances re-
quire a decision. Or one may choose to explore ihe issue when the circum-
stances are especially favorable to the approac h he will take, whether it be
bargaining or problem-solving. Not surprisingl y, where emotional issues
are involved, the ignition of manifest conflict is explicable in less rational
terms; off-hand remarks and criticism on sensit ive points are typical trig-
gering events.

Thus, diagnosis of an interpersonal conflict involves discovering

what types of barriers are customarily operating and what triggers the con-
flict cycle. Below we diagnose these aspects of the three case studies.
 69

In the Bill-Lloyd case, the barriers to direct mutual conflict

were primarily internal to one party, namely Bill. He was inhibited and
slightly intimidated by Lloyd's strong, aggressive interpersonal style,
limiting his ability to engage in toe-to-toe exchangee in the larger group
setting, and encouraging him to procrastinate in confronting Lloyd outside
the group. This assumption about Bill is supported by his comment that
without the consultant's presence he probably would not have confronted
Lloyd "at the process level" about Lloyd's dominating behavior.

The Lloyd-Bill conflict interchanges illustrate how conflict

acts are easily triggered by a strong dose of the irritating condition, com-
bined with a tempting tactical opportunity to put stress on the other con-
flict principal. The less inhibited Lloyd made Bill's life difficult in
the joint staff meetings which contained many strong stimuli for Lloyd.
The meetings exposed him directly to Bill's nonstructured style and reminded
him that Bill's was the single leadership role differentiated within the
group. In this setting Lloyd's only way of differentiating himself within
the total group was through his own behavior. Besides, apparently Lloyd
wanted to increase the stress on Bill in order to develop the latter's in-
terest in reconsidering the status quo; the joint meetings afforded him an
excellent opportunity to do just that.

The next question to address in this type of diagnosis of the Bill-

Lloyd case is: what can occasion the mutual confrontation between partici-
pants who are managing so differently their respective sides of the conflict?
Bill joined the conflict when he did because he felt mounting internal pres-
sure and perceived new external support in the urgings of his superiors and
the availability of the consultant. During the confrontation meeting more
specific circumstances precipitated Lloyd's openness about his emotional
concerns--a development which proved important in creating a benevolent
cycling of their interchanges. These circumstances included the growing evi-
dence that Bill and Dave were listening to, accepting and responding to the
issues he had already identified.

The Mack-Sy case contains similarities, but also contrasts. Like

Bill above, Sy was inhibited by the other person's (Mack's) typically
aggressive pattern in meetings. Apparently, Sy tended to suppress his anger
and withdraw from such situations rather than show his feelings toward Mack
or pursue his side 01 a disagreement. Again like Bill, he was stimulated
to join the issues when the consultant was present. In particular, the con-
flict interchange at cocktails was precipitated by the consultant's inter-
views, which led to a face-to-face meeting, which in turn was given focus
by the consultant's suggestion that they work on their relationship. Sy's
more spontaneous outburst at staff meetings resulted from a combination of
factors: he experienced mounting frustration at not having made headway
on the dialogue; he perceived support from the presence of the consultant
and other members of the staff; he had just witnessed a gross example of
Mack's aggressiveness; and finally he had just suffered the criticism
directed at an area of his responsibility.
 70

It is significant that in this instance, despite his typically

aggressive style, Mack's barriers prevented him from really joining the con-
flict issues in these two meetings during the consultants first visit. One
barrier was fear--he feared the conflict's potential adverse consequences
for his future. Another barrier was limited emotional energy -he was already
preoccupied with his current career dilemmas. The third barrier was tactical
disadvantage--Sy had the initiative and Mack may have ielt off balance.

The Fred-Charles case illustrates a comparatively simple pattern.

There were no significant barriers except the typical organizational norms
against manifest conflict. Charles' organizational insecurity might have
operated to some extent to inhibit him in completely opening up on Fred.
However, Charles' own conflict initiatives were in part precipitated by the
presence of his boss who had been urging him to take more risks in his re-
lations with other departments, a factor which clearly nullified the tendency
to be inhibited because of his organizational insecurity. Apart from that
indirect stimulus to conflict, either party was quick to engage the other
whenever he was presented with an example of the other's behavior which he
disliked. Therefore, unlike the other two pairs of principals, Fred and
Charles engaged in shorter and more frequent cycles of mutual conflict.

Implications

The above type of case-by-case analysis of barriers and triggering

events opens up some possibilities relevant to the constructive management
of conflict.

First, an important aspect of conflict management is choosing the

right issue, time and place for joining the conflict. An understanding of
barriers and triggering events is essential to effectuating this choice.
If one wants to prevent manifest conflict - at least temporarily - one can
preserve and bolster the types of barriers which are effective in the case
at hand, and take steps to head off the types of events which trigger a con-
flict interchange. Conversely, if the situation is otherwise appropriate
for constructive dialogue and one wants to precipitate the conflict, he
knov's what types of barriers must be overcome and what types of factors are
likely to make the conflict especially salient for each principal. Because
a different set of barriers and precipitating factors usually apply to
each principal, it is important to find that subset of circumstances which
facilitates a mutual confrontation.

Second, for a particular interpersonal conflict, some events will

trigger conflict tactics which initiate a malevolent cycle and others
trigger conflict resolution efforts which have higher potential for initiat-
ing a benevolent cycle. Diagnosing a particular conflict involves disting-
uishing between these two types of circumstances.
 71

Third, an analysis of events which surround or precede a conflict

Interchange often provides clues regarding the basic issues in the recurrent
conflict.

Fourth, the frequency of conflict encounters may be systematically

controlled by operating on barriers and triggering events, a point discussed
in a later section on the operational objectives of conflict management.

Conflict Tactics. Resolution Overtures and Their Consequences

Concepts and Illustrative Diagnoses

Conflict tactics and resolution overtures manifest the conflict.

They include expression of feelings of conflict—anger, attack, avoidance,
reJection--and the feelings of conciliation--regret, empathy, warmth, support.
They also include both the competitive strategies intended to win the conflict
such as blocking, interrupting, deprecating others, forming alliances, out-
maneuvering the adversary, and one-upmanship; and the cooperative strategies
intended to end the conflict, such as unilateral or reciprocal concession
and search for integrative solutions.

The potential costs and benefits of interpersonal confl ict include

those that affect each of the participants personally (in psychol ogical and
career terms), their work, and others around them, including coll eagues,
superiors, and subordinates. These costs can accrue from merely knowing that
one is in an antagonistic relationship, from the manifest tactics of the
other and of oneself, and from the reactions of nonparticipants t o the con-
flict. Included in the costs of conflict are the missed opportun ities for
creative collaboration as well as the more tangible current conse quences.
Below we review the three cases in terms of conflict relevant act s and their
consequences.

What if Bill and Lloyd had failed to resolve or ameliorate the

issues which divided these two directors7 The case illustrates organiza-
tional consequences of tension in general and tactics of commission and
ommission in particular. The tension between them and between their re-
spective groups had the potential effect of decreasing the productivity of
the OSP effort and the morale of the professionals involved, increasing
turnover, etc. Several tactics had adverse effects on the project: Lloyd
could have been expected to mount increasing criticism about the status
of the OSP. Lloyd would have probably become increasingly difficult for
Bill to cope with in the joint sessions. Bill's pattern of ignoring the
potential contribution Lloyd could make also would have affected the quality
of the joint effort. If continued, these conflict tactics would have helped
perpetuate the conflict, whatever the original issues.
 72

One tactic of Lloyd 's--his proposal to reassign personnel--had

even more potential for escal ating the conflict. If Lloyd had fulfilled
his threat and requested that some members of his professional staff be
transferred permanently to Bi ll's group he would have brought the unre-
solved conflict to the attent ion of the superiors. This development would
have been embarrassing to one or both, and led to more [Link] man-
euvering and more antagonism, At the same time such transfers did represent
one solution to otherwise unr esolved conflict--it would have reduced the
intergroup interdependence an H separated the main antagonists, Bill and Lloyd.

In addition to the adverse effects of the conflict on the organiza-

tion described above, the case illustrates psychological costs for the parti-
cipants: for Bill, personal disappointment if the total group's process re-
verted to an earlier pattern and harrassment from a toi'sh adversary; for
Lloyd, discomfort with Bill's style and exclusion frjm an opportunity to
contribute and thereby experience enhanced self worth.

The Bill-Lloyd case also illustrates ce tain plausible gains of

conflict--both for the organization and the participants. Some level of
rivalry and tension between the two directors and between the two groups
of professionals might enhance motivation, ensure a productive level of
criticism, and increase the available number of alternative solutions to
technical problems. Apparently, this productive level of tension would per-
sist even if the major conflict issues between Bill and Lloyd were resolved.
Psychologically, there were also potential gains; e.g., Lloyd appeared to the
consultant to rather enjoy aspects of the interpersonal conflict, as if he
personally was energized by it.

In the Mack-Sy case, the psychological cost which resulted from

their interpersonal conflict was a dominant consideration. Sy had singled
out his relationship with Mack as the one about which he was "especially
concerned." Similarly, Mack had referred to an "intense" conflict before
he made it apparent that the other person was Sy. Mack was anxious about
the risks to his career associated with Sy's antagonism.

The conflict between Sy and Mack had been surfaced only in the
one staff meeting, when Sy and his subordinate had placed on the agenda the
item "role of the controller." Prior to that the conflict had not come to
the attention of other staff members. Therefore, although it had affected
the work of Sy and Mack and thereby their respective areas, the conflict had
not had apparent consequences for other groups in the system.

Another potential cost of the conflict had not fully materialized.

In this organization a manifest, visible conflict between two aspiring
managers could be costly to their careers. One criteria for promotability
 73

generally recognized In the organization was that a manager be able to work

effective.y with others. This apparently was an especially Important
consideration for Sy, who felt he had to demonstrate Interpersonal compe-
tence to his superiors and to himself.

In contrast with the other two cases, there was no basis for
hypothesizing any gains to either party from the continuation of the Inter-
personal conflict.

The confrontations played a role In coordinating their efforts to

resolve and/or control their conflict. After the conflict escalated to
Sy's climatic outburst at staff meetings, the conflict was de-escalated. An
early Indication of a trend toward resolution was Mack's Initial self-
disclosures in the reconciliation session, suggesting that he had developed
confidence in Sy's integrity. A further step toward resolution was theli
expressions of mutual concern in the encounter during ehe consultant's
second visit. Evidence of partial resolution accompanied by constructive
control of any residual negative feelings between the principals was pro-
vided by their effective working together in meetings observed by the con-
sultant. While the two men were not close friends, they were abla to
manage any continuing conflict.

The Fred-Charles conflict manifested Itself In the following con-

flict tactics: (a) "Fighting or arguing in front of others Including once
during the staff meeting the consultant attended, (b) Criticizing each
other for their performance, (c) Blaming each other for problems. (d) Lec-
turing each other. (e) Questioning, challenging each other's Judgment.
(f) Attributing negative qualities to the other, positive qualities to self.
(g) Charles "piled on" or showed pleasure when Dave would confront Fred with
some aspect of his behavior about which Fred was not especially proud.
(h) Whenever he could, Charles attempted to ally himself with the consultant
or the chief engineer. (1) Charles used a cross-examination style of dis-
cussing issues with Fred.

There were certain direct adverse effects on performance. Initial

differences of opinion were exaggerated and polarized; they became difficult
to resolve without someone feeling defeated. The conflict made substantial
demands on the energy of all participants in the staff and in the inter-
departmental relations. And yet, issues like absenteeism which required
joint effort were not being handled effectively. There was the risk that
forthcoming labor negotiations might be handled badly by management if the
conflict persisted.
 74

The conflict contained career Implications for Charles. He

could not be embroiled In conflict with the manager of the major group his
department serviced and also hope to improve the general manager's confi-
dence in him. While his conflict with the superintendent was not the
principle reason for his termination and the confrontation had provided
encouragement that the conflict would be worked through, the fact is that
this peer conflict may have been an Issue between Charles and his boss.

What were the costs and gains for the participants in psychological
terms? Fred reported embarrassment about losing his objectivity and sharing
so much about his feelings toward Charles in a meeting involving several
members of management. He evidenced some guilty feelings about "laying
into" Charles in the presence of the latter's subordinates. Interestingly,
the same confrontation included a fringe benefit for Charles. He was pleased
at being able to demonstrate to the general manager a willingness to take
some risks.

Fred's reactions to Charles' interpersonal style included "seething,"

"ground," "strained to the limit." He was easily "teed off" by what he re-
garded as Charles" distrust, was annoyed at the "excessive criticism" by
Charles and the "patness" of Charles' answers, in particular the latter's
tendency to place all of the blame on Fred.

Charles, in turn, felt personally crowded and his role usurped

whenever Fred would "get the bit in his teeth and go charging off without
worrying about the Implications for others." He felt excluded from the
relationship between the superintendent and union president.

These quantitative descriptions of the principals' reactions to

each other do not indicate the magnitude of strain or stress which they ex-
perienced. The consultant involved in all three cases judged the stress to
be less than that involved in the Mack-Sy case but slightly more than that
in the Bill-Lloyd case. Moreover, both principals seemed relatively able to
tolerate conflict and characteristically may well have enjoyed a moderate
level of conflict. Nevertheless, it is doubtful that for either of them
this contest was more exhilarating than debilitating.

Most of the conflict tactics employed in the Fred-Charles case had

the effect of perpetuating the conflict--both in the limited sense of the
inmediate argument and in the longer sense of providing more fuel for future
conflict. The fighting, criticizing and blaming interchanges were especially
difficult to terminate because each wanted to have the last word. A few of
the tactics seemed to have more potential for escalating the conflict, for
example, challenges regarding the other's judgment escalated to include a
depreciating tone used by both. Recall Fred's assertion that even a pro-
duction manager like himself could see that the decision obviously would
 73

not have the labor relations implications Charles was alluding to. In
turn, Charles was depreciating in tone when he quoted his subordinate's
remark about the superintendent not having anything better to do than
second-guess the personnel department on the price of milk. These remarks
took the form of personal attacks that were designed to hurt.

What were the principals' conflict resolution behaviors in the

Fred-Charles case? They were fewer in number and frequency but included:
(a) the very acts of mutually agreeing to meet; (b) instances where they
listened to each other; (c) Charles' expression of regret for having
"piled on;" (d) Fred's acknowledgment that Charles had made an authentic
expression of regret; (e) Fred's non-defensive acknowledgement of the
fact that he had just by-passed Charles on a personnel department matter,
when it was pointed out by the consultant.

Implications

An understanding of the various species of conflict tactics is

relevant to conflict management because conflict behaviors are the most
available indicies of the existence of differences between persons, and
because the nature of the tactics largely determines the consequences of
the conflict. Perhaps the most important aspect of diagnosis associated with
constructive conflict management is an understanding of the consequences of
an Interpersonal conflict. The relevance is threefold.

First, an appreciation of the magnitude of costs is essential. Do

the costs of conflict outweigh the gains, arc they significant, and do
they justify the costs of mounting an effort to achieve a better management
of the conflict?

Second, an analysis of the particular consequences of a recurrent

conflict usually provides an understanding of why the conflict is tending
to escalate, de-escalate, or maintain itself. The analysis can indicate
the connections between the conflict or conflict management tactics which
are used and the tendency for issues to proliferate or decrease in number.

Third, an understanding of the consequences of the current conflict,

combined with an appreciation of the issues involved enables one to identify
the outcomes which are desirable and realistic and to map general strategies
for achieving the desired outcomes. Typically these involve strategies of
de-escalation, whether through conflict control or conflict resolution
approaches.

Proliferation Tendencies

Of the total number of issues identified with each of the inter-

personal conflicts analysed in this study, probably some fraction were more
basic and developed earlier in the relationship. Diagnosing the conflicts
requires determination of which issues are basic and which are merely
symptomatic, representing a proliferation of the basic issues. Issue pro-
liferation occurs for a variety of reasons.

1
 76

Umbrella8--l8sues that Legitimate the Conflict

A party may inject a second or substitute issue into the conflict

because it provides a more legitimate umbrella for the conflict. Substantive
issues are often injected into a basically emotional conflict for this reason.
For example, Sy's act of placing the "role of the controller" on the agenda
characterized the issue as primarily a substantive one and, therefore, a
relatively acceptable basis for challenging Mack. Similarly, Lloyd led
off with the substantive intergroup issues, which were more likely to be
seen as a justifiable basis for their interpersonal conflict.

Some types of substantive issues are often not stated but under-
lie other stated issues which are more legitimate grounds for disagreeing
with each other. An example of a frequent^ unstated issue is the competitive
incentive for two individuals who are considered for the same promotional
opportunities or other organizational rewards. As noted above, this may have
entered into the Bill-Lloyd case; also. Mack's negative feelings resulted in
part from losing a competition to Sy.

Facaimilies - For More Cautious but Relevant Work

Symptomatic issues are sometimes reflections of the basic issues--

in either content or form. For example, the substantive-intergroup issues
raised initially by Lloyd--an opportunity for his professionals to have more
influence and higher quality of contribution—was very similar to the emo-
tional issues which he later identified as personal concerns; namely, his
desire to be more included and recognized as a competent professional.
Although we cannot state with confidence that in this case the intergroup
issue was merely a surface issue, nevertheless, it helps illustrate the
frequently encountered pattern being discussed here. There are at least
three tendencies involved. First, the basic issue sometimes risks so much
embarrassment for one or both persons that they can save face by acting as if
their differences centered on some other issue. Second, if this be so,
it is more "expressive" and therefore more gratifying for a person to engage
another around a surface issue which, nevertheless, is similar to (rather
than different from)the underlying issue. Third, by identifying a surface
issue which resembled the basic issue, one is better able to exchange ideas
(own views perceptions of other's views) which are also relevant to the
basic issue.

Bundling Boards--Issues that Guarantee Separateness

Issues are added to further differentiate a pair in emotional con-

flict. Substantive issues may develop subconsciously from emotional conflicts,
as merely another way one person can differentiate himself from another
toward whom he feels antagonism. Unlike "umbrellas," the Introduction of
these issues is more the result of a spontaneous desire to bicker than of
 77

a cognitive, tactical attempt to legitimate the conflict. Such may have

been the nature of the spontaneous debate between Charles and Fred in the
staff meeting, in which the issue per se, was demonstrated to be of no
practical importance. The parties themselves may remain largely unaware
that their substantive disagreement derives from their mutual desire each
to differentiate himself from the other, rather than from more basic phil-
osphies or judgment. The underlying factor may be more apparent to their
associates than to themselves.

Seizing the High Ground - To Ensure Tactical Advantage

Added issues may be tactically initiated by one party in the

interest of pursuing his side of the conflict: sometimes a new substantive
issue is injected tactically into the conflict by a party who wishes to
gain the offensive or offset an opponent's offensive. This was a familiar
pattern in the Fred-Charles case. For examp'e, during his initial phone
conversation with the consultant, Fred was smarting from Charles' criticism
of the way he had neglected the absenteeism problem. By identifying the
fact that he was working short handed as a result of the failures of Charles'
department, he reflected this inclination to inject an issue allowing him
an offensive position. Charles reflected a similar propensity to insert
new issues to regain the offensive. When Fred was reiterating his earlier
criticism of the personnel department's pricing of the milk dispensed in
the plant, Charles raised a question about whether as superintendent Fred
was neglecting higher priority responsibilities by worrying himself about
the price of milk.

This phenomenon is a form of es calation, one which is likely

to invite further escalation. For one th ing. It is usually very apparent
to the other party that the first has inj ected a rew issue the purpose of
which is to put him on the defensive and inflict damage. Moreover, the
isfue is usually selected for its ability to inflict high damage on the
target with relatively little risk for th e initiator. Sometimes two
parties can quickly see where this will 1 ead, and if they both have
established their respective second-strik e capabilities they drop back to
the central issue, each with a higher sen se of the potential cost of
failing to reach some accommodation.

The Provocative Potential of Civil Defense

Additional issues sometimes result from attempts to cope with the conse-
quences of primary conflict. For examn'G, what Sy regarded as Mack's pri-
mary orientation to Detroit may have been Mack's way of coping with the
anxiety he felt about his status with Sy and the general manager. Thus,
Mack's effort to take defensive measures to cope with the conflict became a
new source of conflict as far as Sy was concerned. The result is an unex-
pected escalation or at least a perpetuation of the conflict cycle.
 78

The Generalized Proliferation Tendency and its Implications

Let us generalize the above discussion, returning to the earlier

distinction of substantive and emotional issues. On the one hand, «•nm-
tlonal conflict tends to create substantive disagreements which help th«
parties differentiate and separate themselves. Also two parties [Link]
cooperate in using substantive Issues to legitimate enRaging each othci
In conflict; or one may use a substantive issue to help him prevail over
his emotional adversary.

On the other hand, substantive conflict may create emotional

conflict, hostility and lowered trust. Two basic mechanisms are involved.
One io the need for consistency. If one dislikes the position another
takes, or If he is in competition with him, there is a psychological
tendency to develop similar attitudes toward the person. The second
mechanism Involves the tactics of competition, debate and bargaining over
substantive differences; «juch tactics contain many points of friction and
are likely to result in feelings of being attacked, in perceptions that the
other is unfair, etc.

This analysis helps explain why all three conflicts had an abun-
dance of both substantive and emotional issues. The general tendency
postulated here is the proliferation of issues. Whether the original and
basic Issue is substantive or emotional, the conflict is likely to develop
additional symptomatic issues of both types. Thus, even though these three
cases did not have long histories, by the time the parties confronted,
there existed a large number of points of conflict. These many issues were
surfaced one-by-one; the principals and the third party continuously con-
fronted choices of which issues to treat.

This tendency for one type of conflict to generate the other had
several particular consequences. When emotional conflict seduces the parties
into projecting some substantive disagreement, one or both parties may be
embarrassed to discover they are vigorously advocating positions about which
they are basically uncertain or indifferent. In fact their current position
may be inconsistent with other positions they have taken, a fact which will
not escape their colleagues. Further, by locking in on substantive issues,
they generate the possibilities for more tangible win-lose contests, which
has its own perpetuation dynamics.

When substantive conflict gives rise to emotional conflict, the

latter creates "noise" in the interpersonal interaction system upon which
the parties must rely for confronting the substantive issues. For example.
If the most basic issues in the Fred-Charles conflict were around their
differing conceptions of the staff-line relationship, the emergent patterns
of distrust and ego-bruising interchanges virtually ensured that they could
not work rationally and effectively on the more substantive staff-line Issues
 79

If two persons confront initially on the symptomatic issues,

they can sometimes, decrease the costs of conflict, and even create a
climate favorable for confrontation on the more basic issues. However,
both parties must have an appreciation that the issues being dealt with
are symptomatic and not basic; otherwise thty are likely to have unrealistic
expectations of harmony; and they are more likely to create new symptomatic
issues inadvertently.

If the parties can individually or jointly gain an appreciation

of how issues have been added on, they are better able to reconceive the
present conflict in its more essential and original terms. It becomes more
apparent that part of the total conflict which exists between them is a
result of a few essential conflict issues.

One of the purposes of dialogue between two persons in extensive

(multiple-issues) conflict with each other is to allow the parties to
develop some feel for which are the more basic issues. In particular, the
climate of acceptance in a confrontation group (two or three person group)
influences whether a person will "own up" to his feelings--the nature of
the emotions he has invested in the conflict.

Implication of the Model for Conflict Management

We have now explored each of four basic elements of a conflict

episode. We have also analyzed how and why interpersonal conflicts tend to
proliferate issues and thereby, undergo escalation. At the same time, the
increased costs of conflict tend to heighten the participants' interest in
somehow better managing the conflict.

Included in the earlier treatment of each element and of the pro-

liferation tendencies, is some discussion of their implication for conflict
management. The discussion of implications is continued here, with a parti-
cular focus on the operational objectives of conflict management.

Let us continue to assume that we are referring to conflicts that

are judged to have more dysfunctional than functional consequences for the
principals and/or others and that there exists a desire to manage the conflict
more constructively. Typically, the most general operational objective is to
interrupt a self-maintaining or escalating-malevolent cycle in one way or
another and to initiate a de-escalation-benevolent cycle. Conflict manage-
ment usually involves this objective whether the ultimate conflict manage-
ment goal has been defined as control (minimizing the costs of the conflict
without changing the basic issues in dispute), or resolution (eliminating
the negative feelings and disagreements).
 80

Each of the four elements of a conflict cycle suggests an

operational measure of escalation and de-escalation, and Identifies a
corresponding target of conflict management. Three Involve control;
one requires resolution.

Preventing Ignition of a Conflict Interchange

One possible operational objective of conflict management might

be to reduce the frequency of conflictful encounters where they have proved
destructive In the past.

To Implement this control strategy one clearly must understand

the factors which represent inhibitors or barriers to conflict actions on
the part of each principal. These can be bolstered or at least not inad-
vertently lowered. One must also have some knowledge of the potential
triggering events so that these can be avoided or blunted when they occur.
It is especially helpful to recognize "early warning signal8"--slgns that
one or both parties are experiencing mounting stress.

This can be Illustrated by the Mack-Sy case. Certain aspects of

the conflict between these persons could be controlled and/or avoided. If
each found the other's style irritating (Sy complained that Mack was dom-
inating; and Mack that Sy was compulsive and detail-oriented), he could
attempt to overlook the behaviors involved and minimize their face-to-face
contact. This essentially is what Sy was attempting to do when he would
terminate meetings with Mack after he had become too agitated to continue.
Also, Sy promoted his contacts with Mack's subordinate rather than Mack
personally wherever that served the same purpose. Because in their situation
there was a relatively steady turnover of personnel in the positions they
currently held, it might have been feasible to attempt to merely "control"
the conflict between these two men.

Generally, however, the drawback to control strategies that work

either through avoiding conflict exchanges is that the eventual results
may be less desirable than an early expression of the conflict: (a) the
conflict may tend to go underground, become less direct but more destructive,
and eventually become more difficult to confront and resolve; (b) the
participants' suppression of the Issues and their inclination to act on
their conflicting beliefs and feelings may result in an accumulation of
feelings that will make the manifest confllct--when it does occur--more
Intensely violent, and perhaps destructive.

One difficulty with the particular control strategy of preventing

ignition of manifest conflict especially via support for the barriers to
expression of the conflict, is that such barriers tend to prevent potentially
constructive confrontations as well as other tactical exchanges. For
example, a norm against expression of interpersonal antagonism does not
differentiate between those conflicts where control is the more appropriate
approach and where resolution is readily possible.
 81

Obviously, taken by Itself it is a control strategy, pure and

simple; it does nothing directly to resolve the issues in dispute. However,
it can also be utilized as a part of a more complex strategy: (a) some-
times it will help achieve a cooling off period which will allow for
other resolution initiatives or control efforts. (b) It is an appropriate
strategy for temporarily protecting the larger system from disruption,
(c) As was pointed out in the earlier discussion of triggering events and
barriers to conflict, they present an extremely important tactical possi-
bility for achieving the best timing of confronting an issue.

Constraining the Form of the Conflict

The second operational objective does not try to prevent all con-
flict interchanges, but attempts to set limits on the tactics and weapons
employed. Illustrations from other social settings are helpful here, e.g.,
the notion of a limited war and abstainance from the use of chemical or
nuclear weapons. Another example is provided by a frequent practice of
boys' camps, namely fights occur only with boxing gloves in the gym on
Saturday afternoon. Conflicts in organizations are sometimes constrained
by understandings such as the following: substantive conflicts will be
decided informally by a series of meetings between pairs in advance of the
formal meeting in order to avoid the direct conflict or protagonists in the
group. The assumptions underlying such constraints are that direct conflict
in the group would take more energy, produce a lower quality decision, and
result in more interpersonal debris as a consequence of the conflict. If
these expectations are based on past experience, the constraints may repre-
sent the best conflict management strategy currently available to this social
system; however, the thrust of this project is that other alternatives
should be considered.

Sometimes substantive conflicts must be pursued according tj the

group norm that if one criticizes the recommendation of another person, he
offers his own recommendation. The rule prescribes that if you attack you
must likewise expose yourself by "stating-your-alternative." Thus, it
achieves a certain symmetry in the offensive-defensive stances of those
who disagree.

Acts based on emotional conflicts are also sometimes the subject of

certain proscriptions and prescriptions. A social system may sanction
interpersonal conflict acts that occur in the presence of bosses or sub-
ordinates, because the latter are assumed to increase the cost of the con-
flict without serving any constructive purpose. Norms may attempt to rule
out the tactics of "interpersonal-billiards" whereby one principal attacks
the other through some third person. Similarly, the group may be sensitive
about "ganging-up" on an individual, and therefore outlaw two-on-one inter-
personal conflict situations. In some systems it develops that one of the
few permissible forms of expressing interpersonal antagonism is via humor.
r

82

because the tension raising attack Is accompanied by its own tension

release act and, therefore, usually does not result In mutual conflict
engagements which are feared or at least assumed to be counterproductive.

As a control strategy, constraining the form of the conflict can

be used in various ways: (a) to protect a social system from the disruptive
consequences of less restrained conflict; (b) to prevent a conflict from es-
calating, if it in fact rules out those tactics which are most likely to be
provocative and produce new emotional issues; (c) to achieve some de-escalation
if it eliminates some tactics which were responsible for having added on
some of the existing issues.

Coping Differently With the Consequences of Conflict

The third operational measure focuses directly on the costs of a

given set of conflict acts: these can be minimized depending upon how the
target person copes with them. One's coping techniques influence not only
the current psychological costs he experiences but also the extent to which
he creates new issues or initiates a new cycle. Let us consider three
coping techniques: First, ventilating one's feelings to a friend may not
only release one's tension, but also serve as a substitute for direct or
indirect retaliation that would add new issues to the conflict. Second,
developing or activating additional sources of emotional support and re-
assurance (colleagues or family) may raise one's tolerance for the same
level of manifest conflict with his primary principal. Third, generating
alternatives that make one's future less dependent upon the person with
whom one Is in conflict is also a way of reducing the costs of conflict
without necessarily altering its form or resolving the underlying issues.

Several of the above methods of coping with conflict are illustrated

by the way Mack and Sy each managed their end of the conflict at different
points. Mack coped with the threat to his career posed by Sy by stating his
fear and inviting reassurance which he received from Dave albeit not from
Sy, Mack's overtures to Sy during the period between the consultant's visits
were not reclprocated--and Mack felt rejected. He coped with these feelings
in part through ventilating them in phone calls wich Dave. Sy for his part,
was avoiding Mack in order to avoid the discomfort associated with dealing
with him. Mack's adjustment to Sy involved suppressing some of his natural
operating patterns in order to meet some of Sy's expectations. Also Mack
continued to consider leaving the firm—one way of coping not merely with
his conflict with Sy, but also with his failure to receive the assignments
he wanted.

Notwithstanding the appropriateness of the control tactics described

here and in the section on preventing ignition of conflict, the overall
strategy of conflict management could not be based on control alone in the
 83

Mack-Sy case. Certain considerations suggested that attempts to avoid or

control the conflict alone would not be successful! . The many reinforcing,
self-perpetuating aspects of their conflict pattern, with the further
potential of actually escalating the conflict. For example, Mack's with-
holding assistance from Sy which the latter resented, was undoubtedly re-
lated to the antagonism Sy conmunicated back to Mack.

Eliminating the Conflict Issues

The fourth operational objective of conflict management would be

measured by the number and importance of the issues between the parties.
The strategies of control above have indicated how they can have the effect
of de-escalating the conflict to the extent of eliminating some of the
symptomatic issues. However, eliminating the basic issues means resolving
them--reaching agreement where disagreement persisted, achieving trust where
distrust prevailed, etc. There is little to be said about this objective
because it is the most obvious and straight-forward, although it is often
the most difficult to achieve.
 CHAPTER VI

CONFRONTATIONS AND STRATEGIC THIRD PARTY FUNCTIONS

In this chapter we treat first the concept of interpersonal con-

frontation and then the potential strategic functions of third party partici-
pation. The following ingredients in an interpersonal setting are postu-
lated as strategic to productive confrontation: (a) mutual positive motiva-
tion, (b) balance in the situational power of the two principals, (c) synchro-
nization of their confrontation efforts, (d) appropriate pacing of the
differentiation and integration phases of a dialogue, (e) conditions favoring
openness in dialogue, (f) reliable communicative signs, (g) optimum tension
in the situation. The discussion of each of these factors in the present
chapter Includes a proposition about the relevance of the factor to the
success of a confrontation, a description of the underlying rationale or
psychological mechanisms involved, and an analysis of those aspects of the
three case studies which indicated tactical opportunities for third party
influence.

Interpersonal Confrontation

Differences between persons or groups in organizations can be

handled permanently and exclusively by the strategies of avoidance, constraint,
and improved copirg methods, discussed in Chapter V. A more direct approach
to conflict management involves confrontation, hopefully leading to resolu-
tion, but failing that, to more constructive control strategies.

Confrontation refers to the process in which the parties directly

engage each oiher and focus on the conflict between them. Interpersonal
confrontation involves clarification and exploration of the issues in con-
flict, the nature and strength of the underlying needs or forces involved,
and the types of current feelings generated by the conflict itself.

If well managed, the confrontation is a method: for achieving .

greater understanding of the nature of the basic issues and the strength of
the principals' respective interests in these issues; for achieving common
diagnostic understanding of the triggering events, tactics, and consequences
of their conflict and how they tend to proliferate symptomatic issues; for
discovering or inventing control possibilities and/or possible resolutions.

There are several other secondary but extremely important conse-

quences of the well-managed confrontation: when participants candidly ex-
press and accurately represent themselves to each other, they increase the
authenticity of their mutual relationship and individually experience a
sense of enhanced personal integrity. The very fact of having invested per-
sonal energy in a relationship usually increases their respective commit-
ments to improve the relationship, provided there is at least some small basis

84
 85

for encouragement. Even vhen therv is no emotional reconciliation, if the

parties are able to explicitly or implicitly arrive at better coping tech-
niques, they tend to feel more control over their interpersonal environment
and less controlled by it. The idea that organizations are more effective
if they "confront and problem-solve conflicts" in contrast with "smoothing"
or "forcing" them is supported by persuasive reasoning,—'plenty of anecdotal
evidence,— and some systematic research. _5/

Interpersonal confrontations involve risks for participants be-

cause they require that a person be candid about his feelings as well as his
opinions. Openness about one's feelings in itself often violates organiza-
tional norms prescribing rationality uid proscribing emotionality.—' Moreover,
additional risks are incurred by owning up to the personal needs, concerns,
doubts as well as antagonistic feelings often integrally involved in an or-
ganizational conflict. For example, if one doesn't resolve the relationship
issue, one's statements may serve to add further cause for the other's
antagonisms. Moreover, one may feel even more vulnerable because of what
the other knows about him. Thus, the task of conflict management includes
maximizing the productivity of a confrontation and minimizing the risks
involved.

Ensuring Mutual Motivation

Unless both parties have incentives for resolving or controlling

the interpersonal conflict, the prospects for a confrontation are poor. Without
adequate incentive on both sides, there will be no give-and-take, neither
in the sense of emotional interchange nor substantive bargaining or problem-
solving. If one attempts to engage another to resolve a conflict and dis-
covers that the latter has more to gain by continuing the conflict, he may
experience net losses from the venture. Or, if the initiating party discovers
that the second was not aware of the conflict or was aware but indifferent,
this can sometimes result in embarrassment and frustration. If the pre-
liminary task for the initiating party turns out to be one of generating some
incentive for the second to respond the situation should be so defined as

.Vw. Schmidt and R. Tannenbaum, "Management of Differences," Harvard Business

Review, November-December, 1960, 38, pp. 107-115.

A^R.R. Blake, H.A. Shepard and J.S. Mouton, Intergroup Conflict in Organizations,
Ann Arbor: Foundation for Research on Human Behavior, 1964.

Jj/P.R. Lawrence and J.W. Lorsch, Organization and Environment: Managing

Differentiation and Integration, Boston: Division of Research, Graduate
School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1967.

a.'C. Argyris, Interpersonal Competence and Organizational Effectiveness.

Homewood, Illinois: The Irwin Dorsey Press, 1962.
 86

early as possible. In any event, the third party's role will only become
maximally relevant if and when mutual incentive develops.

Where he has an opportunity, the third party can make an explicit

effort to learn each party's motivation to resolve or better control the
conflict, as well as the time frame within which each party views the ad-
verse consequences of the conflict, prior to a confrontation initiative on
either parties' part.

If the third party learns of some important dissimilarities in

motivation not otherwise apparent to one or both parties, such information
can influence the choice to delay or avoid a confrontation. Knowledge about
asymmetry in motivation may also influence the level of energy the more
highly motivated party decides to invest, the way he paces himself, and his
expectations about outcomes.

Let us review the motivational forces in our three case studies.

1. In the Bill-Lloyd case, Lloyd was the prime mover on renegotiating'

the terms of the intergroup relationship; but Bill had a compelling need to
clarify and improve their interpersonal relationship. Lloyd's adversive
behavior had established a bargaining point from which he could accede to
more accommodating behavior if he were more satisfied with other terms of
the relationship. Thus, the important condition had developed that both
were being inconvenienced by the other and both were aware of this inter-
dependence. In this case, the third party played no role in either estab-
lishing or certifying the mutual incentive to resolve their conflict. Bill
had Informed him of his incentives and the fact that Lloyd had readily
accepted Bill's invitation to a meeting to work on their differences indi-
cated Lloyd had reciprocal interest.

2. Again, in the Fred-Charles case, both parties were troubled by the

psychic costs of the conflict and the way their relationship interferred with
their work. In this case, the consultant had this knowledge in advance of
the confrontation meeting. Both parties had independently sought the involve-
ment of the consultant. Moreover, in addition to their own personal motives
to confront, they received encouragement from other members of the staff
to work on their relationship. Finally, the general manager added his own
pressure on them to get together on the disagreement surfaced during the
staff meeting. The above conditions--in motivational terms--were all quite
favorable for a confrontation. Only Charles' greater organizational in-
security made him somewhat more cautious in the confrontation.

3. The Mack-Sy case contained the most unfavorable motivational

conditions initially, a condition not appreciated by the consultant prior
to the confrontation. Sy had a relatively higher immediate interest. On
 87

the one hand, Sy's dependence on Mack was both short run and intermediate
run. First, he needed Mack's technical help in present tasks where Mack
had experience or knowledge. Second, he wanted very much to be able to
establish a working relationship with Mack because he needed to demonstrate
to his superiors (as well as to himself) that he was interpersonally compe-
tent: if he couldn't demonstrate this type of competence, his promotion
would be in doubt. On the other hand. Mack's dependence on Sy was primarily
long-term and conditional on Sy's promotion. Therefore, if Mack helped Sy
look good, he improved Sy's chances of being promoted and becoming his boss.
If he didn't help Sy and Sy was still promoted, he could never work for Sy.
In fact, Sy would be able to stop his career in the company. These consid-
erations increased Mack's incentive to both try to maintain contacts with
high power people in Detroit and begin to look for another job outside of
the company. Mack was not without some current motivation to resolve the
conflict; recall his statement to Dave that he would have to confirm a
particular person whom he didn't name at the time. He did, however, have
relatively less immediate motivation. The principals and Dave only became
fully aware of the asymmetry during the confrontation when the consultant
asked Mack whether he felt dependent upon Sy, and the answer was "no."
However, Mack's incentives for more resolution were heightened by the con-
flict once it had been surfaced--he began to fear that continued conflict
with Sy might be a major liability to his own career, whether or not Sy
became his boss.

Achieving Balance in Situational Power

Power parity in a confrontation situation is most conducive to

success. Perceptions of power inequal^Y undermine trust, inhibit dialogue,
and decrease the likelihood of a constructive outcome from an attempted con-
frontation. Inequality tends to undermine trust on both ends of the imbal-
anced relationship, directly affecting both the person with the perceived
power inferiority and the one with perceived superiority. Experimental
studies indicate that the psychological mechanism operating on the two
parties are different however.

How does it look from the point of view of the lesser power?
Perhaps the most basic reason why another's power advantages undermine
one's trust toward him is a general appreciation of the tendency for power
to be used by those who possess It.2/ Studies by Mulder 8/

L'[Link], "The Influence of Some Types of Power Relationships and Game

Strategies Upon the Development of Interpersonal Trust," Journal of Abnormal
Social Psychology, 61, 2, 1960. A. Zander, A. L. Cohen, and E. Stotland,
Role Relations in the Mental Health Professions, Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan, Institute for Sjcial Research, 1957.

Ufa. Mulder R. van Dijk, T. Stelivagen, J. Verhagen, S. Soutendijh and J.

Zwezerijmen, "Illegitimacy of Power and Positivity of Attitudes Toward
the Power Person," '.uman Relations. November, 1965.

I
 88

further support for and insight into the proposition that the greater the
unfavorable power differential, the less positive the attitude of the
weaker person toward the more powerful one. In this study three conditions
of asymmetrical reward and punishment power were manipulated and the low
power party's attitudes measured. The attitudes included both liking toward
the high power party and tendency to perceive similarities between himself
and that party. The finding: the greater the power differential the more
negative the attitudes.

Why does a perceived power advantage undermine the stronger

party's trust toward the weaker? A high power party tends to underestimate
the low power party's positive intent. The existence of a power advantage
makes a person more likely to interpret cooperate behavior by the other as
compliant rather than volitional. The result is that the other's cooperative
behavior has less positive effect on the first party's liking and estimate
of intent. This tendency derives from the peculiarities of causual attri-
bution. Having high power increases one's tendency to assign a locus of
cause to himself. Without a power superiority, he can assign the locus of
cause internally to the other. An experiment by Thibaut and Riecken (1955)
studied subjects' reactions to their own successful influence attempts.
Under one condition, the influence target was a person perceived to have
higher power and status than the subjects. Under the other condition he
was perceived to have lower power and status. The results were consistent
with the proposition stated above: subjects who received cooperative re-
sponses from a low power person showed less increase in their liking for
him than those who received cooperative responses from high power. Inter-
polating these experimental results, we assume that cooperation from an
equal will produce more positive liking than will cooperation by a person
who has power inferiority.

Power imbalances not only undermine trust, they can inhibit both
the weaker and to a lesser extent the stronger party, such that they do not
advance their respective views in a clear and forceful manner. The stronger
party often tends to feel, "Why should I have to elaborate my views?"
Conversely, the weaker party can rationalize, "What's the use?" The conse-
quence of this reticence is apparent when one further considers that a per-
son usually is more ready to modify his views on an issue only after he is
satisfied he has presented and supported his own unique views.

Situational power in the confrontation can be affected by various

factors. Mutual dependence discussed in the preceding section is one factor
which tends to ensure that both parties will feel they have power in the
situation. The more symmetrical the perceived interdependence, the more
equality of power. Other variables that can contribute to perceptions of
advantage or disadvantage in a confrontation situation include organiza-
tional status, power and security, personal skills in conflict encounters,
and the presence or absence of allies.
 89

Therefore, the third party can attempt to avoid an overall im-

balance, e.g., by offsetting skill disadvantages via certain ground rules,
by active interventions which ensure equal air time to less assertive
participants, by helping a person who feels "one down" to make his point,
by including others who will provide relative more support to the partici-
pant with less organizational power, etc. Let us review our case studies
in terms of the situational power of the principals.

1. Regarding the Bill-Lloyd case, we have already confirmed that they

both had adequate incentives to work on their conflict. Moreover, their
situational power was in overall balance, with differentials in conflict
skill and perceived sources of support offsetting each other. To elaborate,
Lloyd's aggressiveness, his somewhat greater taste for conflict, and his
relatively greater ability to directly stress the other person in encounters
were offset by the fact that Bill derived relatively more reassurance than
Lloyd from the presence of the third party.

2. Of the situational factors affecting perceived power in the Mack-

Sy case, some favored Mack, some favored Sy. Our analysis of motivation
to resolve the conflict indicated Sy had an asymmetrically higher immediate
motivation, a factor subtracting from his sense of potency and increasing his
frustration. However, Sy had the initiative during their first meeting.
There are several other specific reasons why Mack might have felt "one-down"
in his encounter with Sy. First, Sy was the number two man on the staff, and
the director relied upon him as his sounding board. Second, Sy and his
sutbordinate (who were also friends) had joined together to confront Mack
in a recent staff meeting. Third, Dave had a longer term consulting con-
tact with Sy than with Mack. Fourth, the personnel manager did not have
strong rapport with either Mack or Sy, but had had more contact with Sy. He
was so new that he had not had the opportunity to Indicate any attitude or
abilities that could be of help to Mack in a confrontation like this. More-
over, the other staff member present in the Thursday staff meeting was also
too new to appear to Mack to be a positive factor in the situation. Given
this analysis, it was fortunate that Sy's subordinate was not also present
for this Thursday confrontation.

When they met during the consultant's second visit, they met without
any other staff members present. Recent phone conversations and face-to-face
interchanges between Mack and Dave contributed to the development of a close
relationship between them. Thus, there was an improvement in the balance of
situational power for this meeting in which reconciliation occurred.

3. The Fred-Charles case contained symmetries on each of several

dimensions relevant to situation power. Their respective motivation to re-
solve the conflict were of comparable magnitude. Both were skilled in
engaging and holding their own in conflictful interchanges (albeit not
necessarily in the techniques of conflict resolution). The third party was
probably perceived as equally distant or close to both. Only the chief
engineer was present for part of their confrontation; and he was chosen for
 90

his balanced positive relations with the two principals. Charles' relative
organizational Insecurity was one enduring unbalancing factor. On the
other hand, Charles made several unsuccessful ploys designed to draw In
the third party as an ally.

Synchronizing Confrontation Efforts

If Initiatives and readiness to confront are not synchronized, the

conflict can become more difficult to resolve. In practice, two persons who
would like to reach a better understanding of their apparent differences fre-
quently do experience difficulty synchronizing their efforts to confront each
other. One may choose a time and a place not suitable to the other, who then
tries to avoid the open confrontation, which Is taken as further rejection
or an Indication that the other prefers to play out the conflict by Indirect
means, etc. If the second party then later tries to confront in a different
situation, the first in the meantime may have resolved to handle the differ-
ences by avoidance or indirect means and the second party is now offended,
further aggrieved and more resistant to an open confrontation. Thus, the
Initiatives to confront by one principal must be synchronized with the other's
readiness for the dialogue, in order to avoid an abortive confrontation.

Pimilarly, positive overtures are likely to contribute more to

conflict r lolution when they are synchronized with the other's readiness to
correctly interpret the overtures and reciprocate them. Positive overtures
which are not reciprocated often Increase the initiator's level of frustra-
tion and discouragement; he feels betrayed and subsequently it becomes harder
for him to hear a positive overture from the other or to make one himself.

At least two kinds of psychological tendencies underlie the dynamics

described here. The first is reciprocation: a person tends to reject someone
who has appeared to reject him. The second is reinforcement: a person's
tendency to make overtures decreases if his efforts do not receive positive
responses. A third basic factor is Involved: one's acts can usually be
given more than one interpretation. A confrontation effort motivated by a
sincere interest to clarify the Issues so that they can be resolved may be
seen simply as an attack. Or a conciliatory move can be interpreted as a
sign of weakness, rather than as a positive overture from a position of
strength.

A review of the three cases will enable us to appreciate the im-

portance of synchronization in practice, and to analyze the opportunities for
third parties to be of assistance.

1. In the Bill-Lloyd case both parties were prepared for the confronta-
tion when it occurred. Bill having communicated to Lloyd his reason for
asking to meet. The third party's very presence and limited availability
helped synchronize their time perspectives for the confrontation.
 91

2, Similarly, in the Fred-Charles case, the consultant synchronized

at various levels. The staff neeting discussion of how he should use his
time, allowed the parties to express in subtle ways any reluctance about
confronting either of them might have felt. This case, of the three studied
here, contained decision-making processes which were most open to influence
and which involved the most shared initiative between the two principals.
The third party also synchronized moves during the confrontation. For
example, he discouraged Charles from expressing high optimism about the
prospects of any early resolution (a kind of positive overture from him)
when Fred would quickly counter with a pessimistic prediction (which Charles
then experienced as a rejection.)

3. The Mack-Sy case provides an example of inadequate synchroniza-

tion which we shall review in detail. Sy's relatively higher readiness was
signalled by several early clues which the third party should have attended
to. The interpersonal conflict had been first surfaced by Sy when he placed
"the role of the controller" on the agenda. Also, Sy had named Mack in his pre-
liminary interview with Dave, whereas Mack only referred to a conflict of
some urgency. Following this pattern, it was Sy who invited Mack to the
cocktail session and who initiated the confrontation both at cocktails and
at the staff meeting.

Mack was less ready. His dependence on Sy was not as immediate as

vice versa, he may have perceived a power disadvantage in the confrontation
setting, and he may have felt some guilt and vulnerability for having with-
drawn his assistance from the X-Mill project.

Despite the asymmetry in readiness, the principals did meet. The

overall decision to meet and work on the Mack-Sy conflict was an outcome of
a series of choices in which the third party played a significant role. Let
us review those choice points.

First, Dave counseled Mack that there was an optimum time lag after
a person returns from a sensitivity training experience and undertakes heavy
interpersonal work in an organizational context. If Mack accepted the notion,
he would have been encouraged not to postpone too long his confrontation with
Sy. In this early interview with Mack, however, Dave neither checked whether
the idea made sense to Mack, nor determined who Mack felt he "had to confront."
Dave didn't gain this information because of time limitations and because
he didn't want to press Mack to identify his antagonist. Dave's stance was
not particularly inappropriate at that time because he hadn't yet met with
Sy nor entertained the idea of a confrontation. However, in view of later
developments, it would have been valuable if Dave had taken more special
note of Mack's failure to name the other person involved, asking himself
and perhaps Mack: Did the omission reflect a lack in Mack's trust or con-
fidence regarding Dave or uncertainty in his perceptions of the consultant's
 92

role? Confrontating Mack with this question would have been potentially
embarrassing; however, in view of the fact that Dave and Mack were discussing
Mack's recent experiences in which interpersonal openness was normal, the
risks were probably minimal.

Second, Dave chose to mention to Sy the posoibility of a meeting

of the three of them during his current visit. Sy immediately bought the
idea and provided the initiative for following through. Dave was ambivalent,
and asked himself several questions before agreeing to the meeting. For
example, he asked "Is Mack ready?" In point of fact. Mack had not indicated
that he was ready for a confrontation with Sy. Dave relied upon inferences:
Mack was currently wrestling with interpersonal issues; Mack had said he was
determined to confront one member of the staff, who Dave now assumed to be Sy.
(And later this was confirmed.) The second question was more critical to
Dave's decision to proceed: "Are Sy and Mack going to confront anyway?"
Dave heard them both express resolve to confront the other. Dave believed
the prospects of a constructive outcome were higher with a third party like
himself present. He also quickly decided that he could assume his personal
responsibility for the meeting and the risks entailed; and that he had the
energy to work that evening.

Third, Dave did not question or delay Sy's act to invite Mack,
although he felt uneasy about it at the time. Sy's action had the advantages
of being spontaneous, directly expressing his interest in getting together,
and increasing his commitment. A disadvantage of Sy's quick move was that
he and Dave didn't have an opportunity to discuss what should be communicated to
Mack about their expectations so that Mack's decision to Join them would take
these expectations into account. In inviting Mack to meet with himself and
Dave, Sy apparently went no further than asking him to join them for drinks
after work. Dave was uncomfortable with leaving it at this, but was more un-
comfortable with the awkwardness of any existing alternative for contacting
Mack before they met at the club. As a result neither Dave nor Sy ensured
that Mack was aware of the agenda for the session. This denied him informa-
tion which might have influenced his choice to accept the invitation as well
as provide him an opportunity to prepare himself mentally and emotionally.
Dave only fully appreciated the degree of importance of this omission later
in reviewing the entire episode.

Fourth, after they had been together for a brief period, the con-
sultant indicated that his plans included the possibility of exploring and
working on interpersonal relationships. Ordinarily that kind of suggestion
to a group is not very coercive. It could be addressed or ignored. But
in this case, three out of four already had this activity in mind. Clearly
Mack had less choice than Sy in whether a confrontation would take place.

Dave's alternative at the outset of the meeting was to first share

with Mack what had occurred in the afternoon and how it had been decided to
meet; and then allow Mack to react to the general idea of working on his
relationship with Sy as well as indicate whether this was the time and place.
 93

To sunanarize the above discussion, the many decisions involved in

arranging the first meeting and defining its purpose both reflected and con-
tributed to the asymmetrical pattern of Sy's high readiness and Mack's low
readiness for the confrontation. Ideally, the decision process would have
had just the opposite effect - decreasing the asymmetry. This asymmetry
during Dave's first visit undoubtedly limited the progress which could be
made in the meetings and may have enhanced Mack's sense of the risks in-
volved and to his feelings that the confrontation had been rigged. For
Sy's part, the resulting lack of engagement by Mack served to increase
his frustration.

In the period between Dave's visits, the asymmetry was reversed.

Sy became less available than Mack for further work on their relationship,
Sy was busy during this period, but other factors were probably involved.
Apparently, Sy's confidence in his own ability to confront Mack in a one-on-
one setting and talk through differences was lower than Dave had assumed.
A comment Sy made at the end of Dave's first visit reflected this idea, but
it did not fully register with Dave until he was reviewing the entire episode.
In any event, when Sy declined to respond to Mack's bids to engage in dialogue,
the latter felt rejected and discouraged.

Finally, in preparation for the reconciliation meeting during his

second visit, the consultant ascertained that both principals were not only
motivated to work on their relationship, but also ensured that the timing
was right before he proposed the meeting to either one. The likelihood of a
productive meeting was enhanced accordingly. During that meeting the third
party also intervened at the level of dialogue to ensure that Sy responded
verbally to Mack after the latter had made a self-disclosure and had begun to
feel anxious about the meaning of Sy's silence.

Pacing the Integration^and Differentiation Phases of the Dialogue

At least two phases to an effective conflict dialogue can be identi-

fied--a differentiation phase and an integration phase. The basic idea of
the differentiation phase is that usually it takes some extended period of
time for parties in conflict each to describe the issues that divide them,
and in particular to ventilate his feelings about the other. This differen-
tiation phase requires not only that a person be allowed to state his views,
but also that he be given some indication his views are understood by the
other principal.

An effective confrontation will involve an integration phase,

where the parties appreciate their similarities, acknowledge their common
goals, own up to positive aspects of their ambivalences, express warmth
and signal respect to each other, and/or engage in other positive actions
to control or resolve their interpersonal conflict.
 94

A conflict resolution episode does not necessari ly include just

one differentiation and one integration phase. It may be comprised of a
series of these two phases, but the potential for integrat ion at any point
in time is no greater than the adequacy of the differentia tion already achieved,
Dialogues are likely to abort or their solutions to be uns table, to the ex-
tent that the parties try to short circuit the differentia tion phase. In
our opinion the principle referred to here has been dramat ically illustrated
in race relations where the antagonism between the races w ill require that
blacks further differentiate themselves from whites (polit ically, culturally,
physically) and establish respect for their differences be fore major inte-
grative work will be viable. We have observed similar pat terns in inter-
personal relationships.

Incidentally, one requirement this imposes on the third party is

that he be comfortable with both (a) a high level of sustained differentiation
and the hostility and the assertions of opposing goals that characterize the
differentiation phase; and (b) the warmth and closeness often expressed as a
part of the integration phase.

These two phases can be identified in all three cases. One case--
Bill-Lloyd--illustrates the use of a third party for only one phase. The
session in which Dave participated accomplished the differentiation. The
only really integrative acts were to express confidence in their ability to
continue the dialogue in general and to agree to a joint meeting of their
groups in particular. The substance of the integrative phase was continued
later. The Mack-Sy case illustrates a differentiation phase involving two
Intensive sessions and one low key session in which the conflict atmosphere
had de-escalated (but no substantive or real emotional interpersonal work
accomplished between Mack and Sy). The interpersonally integrative session
occurred many weeks later. The Fred-Charles case perhaps best illustrates
our view of these phases and also suggests some of the aspects of the dia-
logue format which correlate with these phases and can be influenced by the
third party.

The first phase of the Fred-Charles conflict occurred at the office

and was confined to three persons. It involved clarification of divisive
issues, identification of personal differences, a there-and-then orientation
(reviewing past events), and escalation of ego-bruising behaviors.

The second phase--at the restaurant and in an enlarged group--

involved emphasis on common goals, identification of personal similarities
between the principals, and a here-and-now orientation.

Stated in more general terms, the components of this sequence

in the Fred-Charles case were: (a) divisive, differentiating agenda fol-
lowed by integrating topics; (b) task issues followed by personal reactions;
(c) there-and-then discussions giving way to more attention to the here-and-
now process; (d) simple social groupings gradually complicated by adding
other persons (the preconfrontation phone interviews were followed by the
 95

three-person group which was then enlarged to Include another person;)

(e) work setting followed by mire informal setting.

Pr moting Norms and Adding Reassurance and Skills

That Favor Openness

Interpersonal confrontations frequently founder because the

principals do not feel that they can be open with each other about their
private opinions, perceptions, and feelings which comprise the essential
data for understanding their current conflict and for finding a way to
initiate a benevolent cycle. Three factors significantly contribute to
creating openness in the dialogue of a particular confrontation: relevant
norms of the social system, the emotional reassurance available to the
participants, and the "process skills" available for facilitating dialogue.
M
ormative Support for Openness

In all three cases there vere many factors supporting openness

in interpersonal relationships. All six principals previously had partici-
pated in a sensitivity training workshop which emphasized the value of
openness about feeling« and confrontation of interpersonal differences. In
the Bill-Lloyd case these norms had become a part of the working process of
the larger DSP group. Lloyd was aware that Bill and George (Lloyd's prede-
cessor in the liason role) had an open relationship. In both the Mack-Sy
and Fred-Charles situations, their superiors and colleagues had also parti-
cipated in this type of training experience and typically expressed support
for the values of openness; nevertheless, these managers experienced con-
siderable difficulty in transferring and applying the techniques of openness
and confrontation to their organizational relationships. In all three cases,
undoubtedly the presence of a third party consultant associated with sensi-
tivity training further strengthened the normative support for openness as
well as helped structure the setting for dialogue. Where the potential
participants of a confrontat on previously have not had an experience com-
parable to sensitivity training, individual sessions between the third party
and the principals can provide the latter with the individual practice and
training in confronting, openness, expression of feelings, feedback, process
analysis, etc.

Reassurance and Acceptance Available

One of the reasons for not confronting an issue is that exposing

an underlying issue in a conflict means owning up to resentments, rejections,
and other feelings that the person himself doesn't like to admit. Many
of us have been brought up to regard these feelings as "petty" and "silly"
and as "being too sensitive." Also, as was stated in Chapter V, one may
know or believe that these feelings result from insecurities (about his
competence or his acceptance or membership) that he is unwilling to ack-
nowledge either to himself or to someone else.
 %

A third party consultant who is assumed to be nonevaluative of

these feelings and who can provide acceptance and emotional support is
reassuring to the participant to a confrontation. He can assume that
there is a greater likelihood that someone present will accept his feelings.

Process Skills Available

In all three cases, the third party consultant was perceived by

the parties as decreasing the risk of an abortive confrontation.. By being
identified as a "sensitivity trainer," he was assumed to possess substantial
skills at facilitating such processes; therefore, the parties perceived less
risk that the confrontation would bog down, get repetitive, and result in
more frustration and perhaps bitterness. The third party may have slightly
Increased the potential pay off from these confrontations in the sense that
participants believed that he could assist them in learning something of
general value about their behavior in such situations. (Chapter VII explores
actual techniques which constitute process skill. Here we are interested in
the reassurance for the participants, if they can assume that such skills
are available.)

Enhancing the Reliability of Communicative Signs

The confrontation will make no headway unless the principals each

can understand what the other is saying. Even under conditions where the
message sender is striving to be open about his intentions, opinions, feelings,
and reactions to the other various factors can limit the reliability with
which the messages encoded by himself are decoded by the receiver.

A person responds to only some fraction of the information sent

to him. Persons utilize and interpret the available information in ways which
tend to confirm, rather than di^confirm their existing views.9/ Two processes
can contribute to this bias: selective perception and predisposed evaluation.
Selective perception is the idea that a person perceives and utilizes infor-
mation about which he has little ambivalence, avoiding information that
challenges attitudes which are not firmly heId.10/Fred isposed evaluation re-
fers to the tendency to evaluate negatively, to discount, to refute infor-
mation which one cannot avoid and which disagrees with his existing attitudes .-LL^

Ji'R. Blake and J.S. Mouton, "Comprehension of Own and Outgroup Positions
Under Intergroup Competition," Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1961, 5.

±9.'L, Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Disson ance. New York: Harper and Row
Publishers, Incorporated, 1957.

A.S. Luchins, "Influence of Experience

—'A.S. Exj on Reactions to Subsequent Conflicting
Information," Journal of Social Psychology, 1960, 51, pp. 367-385.
 97

If a party is assumed to have done or said something he did not

actually du, or if a party is perceived as pursuing objectives he is not
in fact seeking, a third party can perform a communication function in-
creasing the validity of mutual perceptions. By skillful intervention, a
person may better understand his own position, especially his own doubts;
and a person may better understand the other's position, especially the
limited character of the other's demands and the integrity of the other's
motive.

There are several benefits to having accurate perceptions replace

misperceptions which prompted or which fed a conflict. The person who achieves
a more accurate perception can adjust to the reality. In addition, there is
a possible psychological effect for the person who becomes better understood.
When one finds that despite efforts to explain himself, he is not understood,
he tends to feel frustrated with the situation, anger toward those who do not
understand him, and defensive about his views. These feelings contribute to
the conflict. If and when he finally discovers he is more correctly perceived:
he becomes more relaxed; he feels somewhat more accepted just by virtue of
being understood; he is more likely to critically review his own position and
to modify it in ways which are responsive to the other person's views.

A third party can contribute to the general reliability of the

communicative acts by translating and articulating for the parties, by pro-
cedural devices, by developing a common language for the dialogue. In addi-
tion, as we have already explored, synchronization contributes to the accuracy
of the interpretation of signs.

In each of the three cases, Dave frequently would summarize what

he had heard one person say, and then check to see whether the person was
satisfied with his statement. This appeared to have had several effects in
the dialogues studied here. First, it demc strated and reassured each person
that he had adequately stated his position; or it provided an opportunity for
him to make any corrections which he felt necessary. Second, when the con-
sultant was restating one person's views, the other person had another oppor-
tunity to listen for and understand the first's concerns and preferences.
Understanding is promoted by the fact that the person is less likely to dis-
tort messages from a neutral than from an adversary; and oy any special ability
which the consultant has to crystallize the adversary's views. Third, in
restating a person's views, the consultant endeavored to characterize a
party's position in a way which made it understandable and justifiable. This
can have the effect of reducing any guilt a person may fael associated with
his own views and increase the other person's understanding and perhaps
acceptance of the view.

As a procedure occasionally applied to the two participants, Dave

would ask a person to repeat what he had just heard the other person say
before he allowed the former to respond. A related procedure which is
sometimes used with great success, but was not employed in these three cases,
is "role reversal" where each person is asked to take the role of the other,
 98

to articulate and defend the other's position. Thus, the same dialogue
between the principals Is continued for a period of time with each playing
the role of the other. Still another device sometimes used for similar
purposes is a tape recording of the dialogue which can be replayed by the
participants in order to achieve greater understanding of what each was
trying to say.

In each of our three case studies, both principals understood

the technical terms either used and they shared important dialogue termin-
ology, which they had learned in the sensitivity training workshops they
had attended. Therefore, Dave only had to add to and help refine the
dialogue vocabulary. For example, principals used and understood the
meaning of "feedback," the diatincticn between one's "feelings" and one's
"thoughts," and between "basf.c lasuos" and "symptomatic issues." Beyond
that, the pairs of principals needeJ to develop a language for signalling
priorities, i.e., the relative importance one person attached to the
various grievances one had with the other; and for making important dis-
tinctions, for example, to differentiate between the other's acts which
challenge one's self-concept versus those acts which make one's task work
more difficult. It is not clear just how much language development actually
occurred in the cases, or whether the third party played an instrumental
role in this development.

Maintaining a Productive Level of Tension

The third party can influence the levsl of stress in the inter-
personal system, which in turn affects the productivity of the dialogue.
There is persuasive experimental evidence to support the theory of Schroder,
Driver and Streufertl2£hich postulates that an individual's capacity for
complex thinking is altered in a curvilinear fashion as stress increases;
and that therefore, the individual's maximum ability to integrate and to
utilize information occur at some moderate stress level. The more specific
effects of very high stress include consideration of fewer alternatives,
rigidity, and repttitionjÜTeduction in the dimensionality of thinking, i.e.,
resulting in simpler perceptual systems, and reduction in the number of goals
salient for the individual.14/ High stress also Increases tendencies to
perceive threat and use power.

U^.H. Schroder, M.J. Driver, and S. Streufert, Information Processing Systems

in Individuals and Groups, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966.

Ü'C. C. Osgood, An Alternative to War or Surrender, Urbana: University of

Illinois Press, 1962.

A^/r.W. Milburn, "The Concept of Deterrence: Some Logical and Psychological

Considerations," Journal of Social Issues, 1961, 17, pp. 3-11.
 99

Observations of third party consultation supports the relevance

of the curvilinear model to Interpersonal conflict, just as the concept is
Incorporated in some theories of psychotherapyiA' (See Figure VI-1). The
idea is that there is an optimum level of tension for an interpersonal
confrontation: (a) if the threat level is low, there is no sense of urgency
no necessity to look for alternative ways of behaving, and no incentive for
a person to make conciliatory overtures. (b) At a higher threat level, say
moderate level, the person searches for and integrates more information,
he considers more alternatives and he experiences a higher sense of urgency
in changing the situation. (c) At a very high level of threat the person's
ability to process information and perceive alternatives decreases. This
can produce rigidity of positions and polarization of adversaries.

Not only is level of threat important but the direction of change

in the level of threat will combine with other factors to affect the pro-
ductivity of dialogue at any point in time. For example, a brief period of
high threat followed by a reduction of threat often leaves an after-image
of the necessity for improvement and yet also currently provides a climate
which allows for efficient information processing and exchange and behavioral
change.

If the stress level is an important variable in the interpersonal

system, what factors influence stress? The concept of decontrolling the
conflict is useful here. One way that conflict can be decontrolled and the
tension level increased is merely by increasing the parties exposure to
each other. Increasing exposure can involve bringing them face-to-face, re-
ducing the number of other persons present, limiting their avenues of escape
from each other, etc. A second way that tension can be increased are acts
which sharpen the conflict issues between them, for example, shifting the
focus of dialogue from a symptomatic to a basic issue or citing the conse-
quences of a failure to agree. A third means for increasing tension is pro-
moting the exchange of interpersonal reactions to each other. In emotional
conflict, mutual recognition of their respective negative feelings is an
instrumental step toward resolving the conflict but adverse feedback contains
threat to one's self-esteem, and in turn is stressful.

The threat-stress-tension level can be purposefully reduced by

control of the same factors above. These represent only a few illustrative
factors which both influence the tension level and can in turn be influenced
by the third party. The stress inducing interventions can contribute to
reaching an optimal level of stress in the system but they can also cause a
super-optimal level.

How did this function of tension management enter into the third
party role in our illustrative cases?

15/C.R. Rogers, "A Theory of Therapy, Personality and Interpersonal Relationships,

as Developed in the Client-Centered Framework," in Sigmund Koch, editor.
Psychology: A Study of a Science, Volume 3, pp. 184-256.

M*
 Figure VI - 1

Relati-nshlp of Tension to Productivity In an

Interpersonal Confrontation

Optimal level of tension

Individuals'
Capacities
to
Accurately
Send and
Receive and
to Integrate
Information
Relevant to
Conflict
Resolution

LO HI
Tension level

100
 101

Throughout the Bill-Lloyd and Fred-Charles confrontations, Dave's

Interventions took into account the level of threat, stress or tension.
Encouraging them to share their negative perceptions and feelings certainly
provided for tempcrarily increased tension. He also used or encouraged
humor to reduce the general level of tension or to make a specific piece
of uncomfortable information more acceptable.

In the Mack-Sy case the tension level tended to be quite high

from the start. The conflict was intensely felt. An especially sharp
increase in the threat level for Mack probably occurred when he learned
the purpose of the first meeting and then when his failure to join the
is'ue brought additional pressure from all parties present.

Dave had two alternative strategies for encouraging Mack to join

the issues: (a) add pressure on Mack to force him into the arena; or (b)
provide support for him so that he would feel secure enough to venture out.
Upon reflection after the episode, Dave concluded that he probably should
have provided Mack with more active support; and that he should have tried
harder to see the situation as Mack was seeing it. The point is that even
before Dave added his own pressure. Mack probably was above rather than
below the optimum tension level for productive dialogue.

ilhe case also presents material bearing on the longer run effect
of a temporary period of high stress. Sy's outburst at staff meeting both
reflected the very high level of stress he felt and produced a high level
of stress in others in the staff group. The stress level was undoubtedly
superoptimal in terms of immediate utilization of the data produced by the
confrontation. Yet the third party did not attempt to terminate the con-
frontation nor to tactically de-escalate it significantly. There were
several factors supporting this choice, one of which was the assumption that
the intense encounter and the after-images it created would lead to pro-
ductive work subsequently. It did prove to be the climax which set the
stage for the eventual improvements in the relationship.

The task of "tension management" after the intense confrontation

changed somewhat in character. Tension needed to be reduced so that the
parties could reflect u )on and integrate the mornings experience. Tension
reduction would be served if the principals - Mack and Sy - could gain at
least indirect reassurance that other staff members did not disapprove of
them as a result of the conflict; and if the other staff members could
reassure themselves that the two adversaries were still intact after the
morning confrontation. The fact that the staff group was together and spent
a prolonged lunch in rest and recuperation served these particular tension
management needs.
 102

Sumnary

If well handled, the direct confrontation between participants

can result in resolution or better control of the conflict. The third
party can facilitate a productive confrontation by assessing and managing
the following ingredients in the interaction setting: motivation, situa-
tional power, timing, pacing, tension level, communicative signs, and the
group norms, process skills and support relevant to openness.
 CHAPTER VII - THIRD PARTY INTERVENTIONS AND TACTICAL CHOICES

Having explored In Chapter VI the broad atrategic Ingredients

conducive to productive confrontation, the analyala now focusaa on (a) pre-
liminary Interviewing, (b) the specific tactical choices Involved In
structuring the setting for s confrontation meeting, (c) the active Inter-
ventions which facilitate the dialogue of the confrontation and (d) the
planning for further dialogue after the aeetlng.

Prellalnary Interviewing

Preliminary one-on-one discussions between the potential third

party and the conflict participants sre usually valuable, and arc soae-
tlnes essential. In the Fred-Charles caae, the phone conversations with
each person well In advance of the confrontation aeetlng provided Dave
with essential Information relative to their reapectlvc basic aotlvatlons
and readiness to work on the conflict, the Issues between than, the pres-
sures operating on thea, and their personal styles. In the Mack-Sy case,
Dave had soae relevant Information but not as auch ss he should have had,
a point we have developed elsewhere. In the Bill-Lloyd case, Dave had only
a brief and semi-private Interchange with Lloyd; the chat was used Co get
acquainted but not to dlacuss Lloyd's view of the conflict. While the
confrontation worked out well, one could argue the desirability of more
preliminary work. We will return to this point again In Chapter VIII in
discussing the third party's role relatlonahlps with the principals.

The one-on-one discussions present the third party with an op-

portunity to develop the norms and skills favorable to openness and con-
frontation and becomes a particularly important atep where one or both
of the principals Involved have not had prior exposure to an experience
along the lines of sensitivity training. The third party reported on
here has developed the concepts snd techniques of such Interviews such that
thsy sre really temporary soclsl systems with particular learning and
developmental goals. The consultant has found that by treating seriously
the learning possibilities of the one-on-one systsa, by providing both a
substsntlsl amount of challenge to and aupport for the client, by furnishing
the client with an appropriate amount of feedback relevant to their Im-
mediate work and interactions, snd by appropriate self-disclosures re-
garding hla own aablvalences and uncertainties In the situation, the con-
sultant can provide the client with an experience that substantially helps
prepsre hla for the confrontation he is contemplating. Through this pre-
liminary session or sessions, the client often quickly snd successfully
experiences more openness than he would have expected, and develops some
grester confidence thst openness csn be msnsged In wsys thst will Increase
his potency rsther than his vulnerability.

In the next chapter, we will note the additional value of these

interviews to the principals as well ss the third psrty In judging whether
the third party might be helpful.

103
 104

Structuring the Context for the Confrontation

Certain physical and social factors which provide the context

for the confrontation can be Influenced by the third party, In particular
the neutrality of the territory, the formality versus Informality of the
setting, whether the encounter is tine-bounded or open-ended, and the composi-
tion of the group in which the dialogue occurs.

Neutrality of the Turf

The site for the confrontation affects the balance of sltuatlonal

power. The condition of neutrality was literally met In the Mack-Sy case
where the dialogue was initiated at the club, resumed at the staff meeting
in the conference room, recapitulated at the club, and resumed at lunch
during the consultant's second visit. As a contrast, the Bill-Lloyd
confrontation occurred in Bill's large office. Nevertheless, the office
was also frequently used for meetings even during Bill's absence and,
therefore, was relatively neutral territory. The same point applies to
the personnel manager's office where Fred and Charles held their Initial
confrontation of differences. In both cases, comfortable chairs were
used and neither home team sat at his desk (which would have created a
significant asymnetry). If it Is desirable to offset a power advantage
of one party, one might do this by deliberately favoring the other in the
selection of the confrontation site.

For—lity of the Setting

The degree of formality of the setting should match the agenda,

that is, type of interpersonal work that needs to be accomplished. To
illustrate, the Fred-Charles dialogue began in the office and then
shifted to a much more casual setting—first a cocktail lounge and then
a dining room. Although opposing considerations can undoubtedly be ad-
vanced, the following rationale supports the diversity and the sequence
utilised in his case. In the office setting there is a greater sense
of urgency to get on with whatever one is doing. This is helpful to
identifying many of the conflicting views and feelings in a short period
of time. By shifting to the restaurant and by adding one round of drinks,
the interaction could become somewhat more relaxed, allowing for a mix-
ture of social banter and direct work on the relationship. This sort of
mixture often facilitates the more integrative and educative type of work
which must follow the identification and clarification of the Issues.

Another especially significant site choice—in temp of the for-

mality consideration—was the director's decision to go to the club for
lunch following the intensive confrontation between Mack and Sy. The
relaxing atmosphere was most conducive to rest, recuperation and individual
integration of the morning's experience.

Tlmeboundedness of the Encounter

The cases Illustrate both Inappropriate and appropriate time

boundaries. For example, the amount of time available for the first
meeting over cocktails turned out to be Inadequate. The ending of the
 105

meeting was not natural. The group could have used more time. It was
especially unfortunate that Mack was the only one who was available
to go on inasmuch as it was he who had not prepared for the nature of
the meeting in the first place. In retrospect, the course of the
episode might have been quite different if Dave had been prepared to
cancel his other meetings, and urged Sy to reconsider leaving at that
point. In any event, Dave could have productively spent more time with
Mack, especially given Mack's comment in the car that the session was
cut short.

Ambiguity about the time available for the dialogue and inter-
ruptions to the dialogue have potential effects which can be illustrated
by reference to the Bill-Lloyd case. While there was no known time boun-
daries on the [Link], neither was there any understanding that a major
part of the day could be devoted to the dialogue if that appeared to
be desirable. Also, the dialogue was interrupted several times by Bill's
secretary who was passing incoming phone calls on to him. The third party
could have suggested that these phone calls could be deferred to avoid
interruption.

Open-endedness is especially important in the case of integrative

and reconciliation work. Thus, in the Mack-Sy case, it was Just as impor-
tant for the luncheon at the club to be open-ended as it was to be informal
in order for members individually and the group as a whole to assimilate
and integrate the preceding events. Similarly, the reconciliation luncheon
meeting between Mack and Sy was long and not time-bound—a fact essential
to the work which was accomplished.

Another implication of the time perspective of the participants

is its synchronizing effect. If both parties have a similar view of the
time available for their interpersonal work, they are more likely to
reciprocate each other's moves. For example, a person who assumes a
relatively short time boundary is more likely to make a premature con-
ciliatory overture—a bid to shift to the integrative phase before the
other person has completed his differentiation initiatives.

Composition of the Meeting

The principals can work on their relationship by meeting

alone, meeting with a third party, meeting with more than one third party,
or meeting in the context of a larger group. Each person added has many
potential effects: he may add relevant perceptions and insights; he
may be per:eived as a source of support; he may increase the feelings of
risk of one or both principals if he is not trusted or if he is reen as
having power over one or both of their respective careers; he may become
identified as a third party for future work of the principals; and so on.

Several of these considerations are illustrated by the Fred-

Charles case. At the outset the meeting involved the two principals and
the third party, but later the group was enlarged to include the chief
engineer. The consultant preferred initially to work strictly with the
 106

pair tr surface the Issues in that smaller group. Recall that the earlier
conflict incident related to the fifth step grievance had occurred in
the presence of several other persons. From their own reports the audience
had had an effect on both principals. Fred had felt embarrassed—ap-
parently for over-exposing himself and for losing his objectivity. The
effect of the audience on Charles had been very different. The presence
of his boss and the chief engineer had added to his incentive to be con-
fronting. It had provided him with a "fringe benefit," namely the oppor-
tunity to prove that he was not always reserved and that he was willing
to take risks. The consultant did not want Fred's participation in the
dialogue—at least initially—to be inhibited or strictly objective;
rather he wanted each to feel free to express his feelings—his subjective
views. Similarly, the consultant did not want Charles to be stimulated
to be aggressive in order to impress another member of the staff. There-
fore, it would have been a mistake to have included additional persons in
this first phase.

The addition of the chief engineer in the second phase had a

variety of potential effects. It added back one more element of the larger
organizational reality, within which the two must ultimately work effectively.
It had the potential of providing another source of emotional support
and another source of perceptions of and reactions to the principals—
data from which they might derive insight. There is always the risk that
a fourth person also might inhibit one or both principals and/or compli-
cate the system with another set of personal needs; however, in this
case, because of the chief engineer's relationship to the parties and
his direct Interest in helping them, his entry into the continuation of
the dialogue after work held more promise of gain than risks of disrupting
the process.

Moreover, once the consultant had some base-line understanding

of how Fred and Charles interacted without other members of the organi-
tion present, he could better detect the effects of others on Fred's and
Charles' interaction patterns. If the consultant had had an opportunity
to continue to work with Fred and Charles during the weeks following the
confrontation, it would have been advisable to work with them in a group
comprised of still more staff members.

In contrast with the above, the groupings in which Mack and Sy

worked on their relationship were ot always so appropriately composed.
First, Dave chose to include the personnel manager as a fourth person in
the first meeting of the principals. His primary purpose was co help
build an internal third party role for this person, but he did not consult
the principals. As it turned out, there were neither any short-run or
long-run advantages to including the personnel manager; his presence might
have been an inhibiting factor.

The second encounter between Mack and Sy occurred in the staff

group in the presence of their superior and their organizational peers.
This composition probably increased the perceived risks more than it
added either to the potential for relevant data or for support. While
Dave could not have actively prevented Sy's outburst, he could have inter-
rupted the interchange immediately after Sy's explanatory comments and
 107

suggested that the matter be pursued later In a smaller group. However,

this Intervention (which Dave did not even consider at the time) would
have reduced the spontaneity of the Interchange; it would have made every-
one—principals and other staff members alike—more rather than less anxious;
moreover, for better or for worse, the matter was now a group as well as
an Interpersonal problem.

An important composition decision was made when the staff meeting

broke for lunch after the intensive morning session. Dave actively sought
to keep the group Intact in order to allow members to provide each other
with reassurances and to gradually reduce the general level of anxiety
of members of the staff. In addition, as it turned out, it was useful
to have all members of the staff present during the discussion initiated
by Mack about Dave's role.

During his second visit, Dave appropriately limited the meeting

to Mack and Sy. He didn't know what would happen. He only sensed there
was the potential for constructive work. Dave later concluded that if another
person had been present. Mack would not have been as willing to make the
same self-disclosures, which provided both the symbolic overture and the
Information that were the bases for reconciliation.

The fact that Sy and Mack did not work on their relationship
during the period between Dave's two visits suggests that in this case the
two principals themselves needed a third party for them to work productively.
This would be especially true in cases where the principals' interpersonal
styles are a source or confounding factor in the conflict.

Interventions that Facilitate the Dialogue Process

At various points in these three cases the third party played

an active role in influencing both the content and the nature of the
process of the dialogue: he refereed the interaction process, initiated
agenda, restated issues and views, elicited reactions, and offered his
own observations. These third-party interventions are illustrated by
analysis of the Fred-Charles case. The third party also diagnosed the
conflict, prescribed discussion method, diagnosed conditions causing
poor dialogue and made other counseling Interventions before, during and
after the confrontation meetings. The Mack-Sy case will be analyzed to
illustrate these Interventions.

Refereeing the Interaction Process

The third party can play an active role in regulating certain

aspects of the process. For example, on several occasions in the Fred-
Charles case, he terminated a discussion which had either become repeti-
tive or had become counterproductive. On ther occasions in the same
episode, he played an active role in providing for equal time, and for
shorter, more frequent interchanges. Rather than let a person go on at
some length and introduce several ideas, he would try to allow the other
to respond immediately to a point already made by the first person.
 108

The third party may chose to make limited use of rewards and
punishment in refereeing the process. Although not always as a result of
explicit choices, Dave sometimes [Link] principals' behavior. As an
example of a reward, Charles was pro ably reinforced when Dave and Fred
(at Dave's Inducement) differentiated Charles' "genuine regret" from his
"false humility". During another Interchange, Dave glowered at Charles
presumably to punish him for trying to use Dave's suggestion to his
own advantage and put Fred down.

Initiating Agenda

The third party can play an active role influencing the agenda,
that is, the foci of the principals' discussions. As an Illustration,
he focused the first Interchange between Fred and Charles on trie task
disagreement which had been identified in the staff meeting. One advan-
tage of starting on this topic was that it was a type of discussion
familiar to the participants and therefore provided a conflict Interchange
which did not require the third party to play an active role until he
better understood how they related to each other. Also, Dave was confi-
dent that the discussion would reflect some general relationship problems,
which it did. This and a second "agenda" item were clearly determined by
the third party. Each was systematically pursued at some length.

Third-party initiative In explicitly setting agenda is usually

most required early in the meeting. Therefore, later in the Fred-Charles
meeting as the dialogue developed its own momentum, the focus of discus-
sion shifted more rapidly and was influenced by all participants. The
consultant's interjections—that is, his observations, reactions, and
requests for other's reactions—became more frequent and continued to
sharply influence the focus of discussion, but often only to make a par-
ticular point.

A qualification to the pattern of declining third-party ini-

tiative in setting agenda occurs when the differentiation phase has run
its course, and integrative agenda are appropriate. The third party
can often synchronize this transition by again being active, explicitly
stating appropriate agenda.

Restating the Issue and the Principals' Views

One of the most frequent third-party intervention in interper-

sonal conflict is an attempt to summarize each party's views—concerns or
preferences—as he had heard them. Dave frequently did this, and then
checked to see whether the person was satisfied with his statement. This
was noted in the previous chapter where the intervention was shown to
help improve the reliability of communication. In addition, we can note
here that these restatements sometimes were an effective way of terminating
a discussion, particularly in the Fred-Charles case. Their summary quality
not only gave closure to a particular discussion, but when the discussion
had become a debate, it reduced the Importance of Issues of "face", such
as which of the principals would have the last word.

v>.
 109

Sometimes the third party's restatement constituted a redefini-

tion of the Issue In a more general form. For example, the question of
whether management should make a tentative scheduling decision before or
after Charles had contacted Corporate Personnel was translated Into their
differing jurlsdlctlonal concepts. To have reached agreement on the
specific decision, which happened to be of little practical import, would
not have constituted progress in resolving the more underlying conflict.

Eliciting Reactions and Offering Observations

Another very common third-party intervention is to encourage an

Interpersonal communication process sometimes referred to as "feedback."
For example, early in the process between Fred anc Charles, the two
principals exchanged the perceptions they had developed of the ether.
Their behavior toward each other had been and continued to be ^.jverned
in part by their respective perceptions of the other. Therefore, sharing
these descriptions gave each a better understanding of how he was per-
ceived by and reacted to by the other. In addition to asking the prin-
cipals to share initial inventory of perceptions, Dave encouraged the
three of them to try to identify and understand the patterns in their
current interactions and to share their at-the-tnoment perceptions of
the other and emotional reactions to the other.

The account of the Fred-Charles confrontation included Instances

where a person received "feedback" that may have yielded him new Insight.
For example, Fred appeared to gain Insight into his tendency to be
"fightsy", to "lecture", and to by-pass or exclude Charles. Also, Charles
gained a new appreciation of his own tendency to use cross-examination
techniques and to "pile on" when an adversary is being confronted by
another person. The timing of such bits of "feedback" as these is impor-
tant. Ideally, they are given when they relate to some recent behavior
and can also be heard by the principal involved.

Diagnosing the Conflict

The third party can implicitly focus the group's attention on

diagnosis. The Mack-Sy case Illustrates various types of interventions
that generate or test diagnostic hunches.

First, during his session with Sy, Dave encouraged Sy to

sharpen his own insights regarding his feelings toward Mack. Dave's task
was to question and listen. Dave then tried to get Sy to identify what
irritants he himself brought to the relationship. To sharpen the issue
Dave described for Sy his own positive reaction to Mack. Dave invited
Sy to try to state his hunches about his most central concern with Mack.

Second, during the staff meeting encounter, Dave spelled out

two alternative views of Mack's behavior: either as attempts to prove
the mismatch between himself and his controller Job, or as attempts to
minimize the mismatch. If Mack were viewed as proving the mismatch,
presumably this would be a self-defeating pattern in terms of Mack's
career. Therefore, Dave believed Mack ought to know what impressions he
was creating, and to have an opportunity to re-evaluate his own current
 110

behavior. Sy confirmed that he did see Mack as trying Co prove the mis-
match. Others might have been Invited to offer their perceptions but
only at the risk of creating too much pressure on Mack. Instead, Dave
invited Mack to consider the possibility that his behavior pointed to
that conclusion even though he didn't consciously have that Intention.

Third, during the rest and recuperation session, Dave offered

his own assessment that Sy would not use this conflict confrontation
against Mack in the future, an assessment at variance with what Mack
feared. It is not clear whether Mack was persuaded at the time. Never-
theless, Mack's self-disclosures in the reconclliaclon session suggest that
he eventually developed confidence in Sy's Integrity and self-discipline—
before he had developed any personal rapport with him.

Other aspects of the Mack-Sy conflict were not but perhaps should
have been explicitly diagnosed by the principals and third party. For
example, they might have tried to achieve understanding of what events
in the staff meeting had triggered Sy. As Chapter V emphasized, if the
persons involved understand the triggering events, they can develop some
relatively operational means for controlling the conflict in the future.

Another aspect of all three cases which could have been diagnosed
were the pressures and uncertainties which existed in the work environ-
ment and added to the current tension among the members. The third party
might have tested how various persons assessed these factors and whether
it was impinging on members differently. Clearly, Mack's sense of the
real possibility of organization failure in his case may have been
sharpened by the recent setbacks of two members of the staff. The up-
or-out character of his current organz ational position made realistic
his interest in the looking for alternate jobs.

Prescribing Discussion Methods

The third party can prescribe discussion techniques that assist

the parties in joining the issues and engaging each other more directly.

For example, during the first encounter at cocktails in the

Mack-Sy case, Dave asked Mack to show the relationship between his own
problems which he had just elaborated, on the one hand, and his feelings
about Sy, on the other. Such a request regarding relevance often gives
the person himself a new insight into the issues as well as giving the
other person a way of responding. In this case. Mack declined at least
in part because he was not ready to confront Sy.

Dave made a related type of intervention with Sy. Sy had jusf

asked Mack to suggest the bases of his, Sy's, negative feelings. The third
party noted that this was not a productive way to join the issue and urged
Sy himself to provide the historical data of the events, incidents, etc.,
on which his feelings were based. Sy's subsequent statements became more
helpful in clarifying his feelings, the patterns of Mack's behavior which
contributed to these feelings and Sy's resultant reactions.
 Ill

In the discussion which followed, Dave allowed Che principals

co surface many of the points of friction, without working them, hoping
there be a dominant theme, and also wanting to see where the pair was
headed. An alternative would have been to work any one issue more
thoroughly—for example, try to get the principals to identify the prac-
tical differences Involved.

Diagnosing Conditions Causing Poor Dialogue

Often the reason for poor dialogue cannot be remedied by prescribing

dialogue techniques. The third party must help identify more basic at-
titudes or other reality factors that are limiting the prospects for pro-
ductive dialogue. The Mack-Sy case provides Illustrations.

In the first encounter, Dave Identified and stressed the dif-

ficulty Inherent in Mack's statement, "that is how I am." Mack communi-
cated the attitude that there is no room for negotiation—either compromise
or integrative problem solving. It later occurred to Dave that he might
have gone further and said to Mack, "Yes, that is how you feel right
now as things stand. What condition would have to change, Including those
under Sy's control, that would allow you to feel differently?"

Throughout the first two encounters, Dave had gained a growing

Impression that the major difficulty in achieving any progress on the re-
lationship was the Imbalance between Sy's initiative to get the Issues
out and Macic's reluctance to either join the issues or to show Interest
in improving the relationship. By identifying Sy's admitted dependence
on Mack and Mack's denial of dependence on Sy, he underscored this as a
road block, and subtly Indicated that it might be wise to back off until
Mack communicated direct dependence on Sy and thereby defined the situa-
tion more symmetrically.

Another attitude of Mack's limited the prospect of fruitful

dialogue, namely, his concern about the future personal risks for him,
especially if Sy became his boss. Dave missed an opportunity to work
with Mack on this issue early in the first meeting. Had Mack been en-
couraged to elaborate when he mentioned his concern about working for Sy,
this not only would have achieved more symmetrical initiative in the
dialogue, and further engaged the principals, but might have given Mack
a chance to discuss the risks he believed he was taking right then in
discussing the problem.

Other Counseling Interventions

Although many of the same interventions have been analyzed

in terms of the specific functions they perform, we note here several
different types of counsel that can be offered the principals: advise
about the appropriate timing for interpersonal confrontation: suggesting
vnat ml^ht be realistic expectations about the progress which can be
achieved in the relationship; urging colleagues of the principals to
contribute in ways that are available to them.

A more direct form of counsel is Illustrated by Dave's response

to Mack's desire for some techniques that might better enable to change
 112

the pattern of his relations with others. He gave specific counsel,

drawing upon past experience with other persons with whom he had worked
in the past. In contrast, he failed to counsel Sy In this way, despite
the fact that Sy also expressed some feeling of Inadequacy In working on
Interpersonal Issues. Dave had seen Sy as having handled himself ade-
quately and also he was pressed for time; therefore, he didn't explore
these feelings of Sy's. Given the fact that Sy subsequently avoided en-
counters with Mack during the period between Dave's visits, Dave missed
an Important cue here.

Planning for Future Dialogue

Generally the dialogue experience Itself will Increase the

pair's capacity to continue to pursue Its conflict constructively, es-
pecially If the principals develop some rapport and are reinforced by
their efforts at openness. However, there are steps a third party can
take to Improve the effect^venss of continuing work when he won't be
around. The case studies contained Instances where the consultant failed
to take advantage of all of the opportunities Identified In subsequent
analysis.

First, the general organization climate—apart from the Immedi-

ate conflict—is Important. Several elements of the climate of the or-
ganizations studied are relevant. For example, in the Mack-Sy case there
was an explicit norm that the staff would be open about Its conflicts
and there was a legitimacy to analyzing their own group process. The
director's own behavior pattern reinforced these two tendencies in his sub-
ordinates. Finally, his interest in management development Increased
a manager's tendency to confront in a conflict because even If the
relationship didn't Improve, the experience could be educational. In
that sense, there was less chance for complete "failure".

The influence between organizational climate and these inter-

personal confrontations was two-way. For example, by Identifying, em-
phasizing, and conceptualizing lateral relations in the Mack-Sy case,
the consultant increased the salience of this dimension of that organiza-
tion. As noted above, the director had provided a general climate in
which there was encouragement for managers to explicitly appraise rela-
tionships and work toward their imp ovement, but he almost exclusively
attended to vertical relations between himself and subordinates. Dave's
responsiveness to difficulties experienced In lateral relations comple-
mented the director's orientation. The work with Sy and Mack provided
both a rough model and also an impetus for other staff members to work
on their lateral relationships.

Second, the practice with constructive dialogue techniques

during their meetings with the consultant should have increased the prin-
cipals' ability to use them on their own, especially if these techniques
or principles were made explicit and stated in operational terms. It
is possible for a third party to stimulate productive dialogue content and
also manage the interaction in a way which provides greater understanding
about the conflict in question but does not ensure that the principals
 113

themselves learn what the ingredients were which made the dialogue construc-
tive. For example, in the Fred-Charles case the consultant merely termi-
nated and derived some essential points from a discussion which had de-
generated into an exchange of personal attacks. He missed an opportunity
to lead the three of them into a discussion of the destructiveness of that
type of interchange and a diagnosis of how it got started and was peiretuated.
Such a group diagnosis might have resulted in the development of methods
by which the principals could avoid ego-bruising interchanges in the future.
The consultant did endeavor to achieve this kind of insight into one
aspect of the process when he asked the principals to consider how they
could in the future better avoid the rejection that develops when one
(especially Charles) makes a positive overture that the other does not
feel like reciprocating.

Third, the consultant can attempt to build another third party

into the process—one who will be more readily available to the principals
than is the outside consultant. Involving the chief engineer in the Fred-
Charles case met this future-oriented need as well as constituted an
asset for the immediate confrontation. Dave urged the two principals to
view him this way. In the case of Mack and Sy the personnel manager was
purposely involved, but he did not have a sustained interest in this kind
of role, and consequently didn't perform this function.

Fourth, it would have been helpful if Dave had been available

to these three pairs over the next few weeks following the confrontation.
This is especially relevant for the Mack-Sy case, considering Sy's Inhibi-
tion about working alone with Mack on their relationship. On the other
hand, it may have been best for Mack to shift his attention to his rela-
tionship with the director—even if that meant "putting on ice" his con-
flictful relationship with Sy.

Fifth, the third party can ensure that the principals have a
specific time and/or purpose planned for getti'.ig together again. In the
Bill-Lloyd case, an explicit decision was made by the parties to take some
action steps; the third party received periodic reports and nothing more
seemed to be required. In the Mack-Sy case no such specific plan emerged
from the first meeting at cocktails. If another meeting had been planned,
Sy might have felt more choice between confronting Mack in the staff group
in the morning or in the other session planned for later. Also, the
principals had not agreed upon any plan for meeting again at the time the
consultant departed with the result that Mack's initiations were not
reciprocated and no meetings occurred between the consultant's visits.
Similarly, in the Fred-Charles case the consultant did not ensure that
the principals had made explicit plans to follow up on their confrontation
meeting.

Summary

In this chapter, we have analyzed and arrayed the many tactical

Interventions which perform the third party functions set forth in the
previous chapter.
 114

Various aspects of the setting for a confrontation are both

relevant to strategic Ingredients of a confrontation and amenabl«. to In-
fluence by the third party, Including the neutrality of the territory,
the formality versus the Informality of the setting, the time boundaries
of the meeting, and the composition of the group in which the dialogue
occurs.

Innumetable possibilities exist for tactical interventions into

the on-going process. They fall into the following categories: refereeing
the Interaction process, suggesting agenda, clarifying participants'
messages, eliciting and offering Interpersonal feedback, diagnosing the
conflict Issues, diagnosing difficulties In the dialogue process, prescribing
discussion method and counseling.

Planning and preparation for further dialogue after the meeting

will be facilitated If the third party actually attemots to teach the parties
about the functions and techniques which have already facilitated or could
potentially facilitate their dialogue. Ideally, either he or someone
else whom he has already built Into the process will be available for
future third party work with the pair If necessary. Very Important is for
the third party to ensure that the principals have agreed in relatively
specific terms to meet again to continue their work.
 CHAPTER VIII - THIRD PARTY A1TRIBUTES

What attributes of the third party and of his relations with

the principals influence his ability to perform the strategic functions
and implement the tactical interventions described above? What problems
are frequently encountered in establishing and maintaining the appropriate
third party role? This chapter analyzes the case studies for the insight
they yield into the above questions. Inasmuch as all three cases involve
an outside consultant in the third party role, the chapter will extend
the analysis to an examination of the potentiality for organizational
peers, superiors and staff personnel in performing useful third party
functions.

Establishing and Maintaining Appropriate Role

Establishing Professional Expertise and Personal Qualities

The professional and personal qualities attributed to the

third party which give the principals confidence in entering a confronta-
tion and facilitate confrontation processes include (a) diagnostic skill,
(b) behavioral skills in breaking impasses and interrupting repetitive
interchange, (c) attitudes of acceptance and (d) a persona) capacity
to provide emotional support and reassurance.

In the introduction to this report we described how the third

party consultant was viewed by all three pairs of principals. His profes-
sional identity with sensitivity training and the principals' prior ex-
perience with that type of training combined to make it relatively easier
for the consultant to be seen as a person who could facilitate an inter-
personal confrontation. Beyond that he had in fact demonstrated some
consulting skill in other projects within each of these companies, pro-
jects which themselves did not necessarily require the same level of
trust and confidence that one must invest in a consultant in seeking
his assistance as a third party to an intensive interpersonal conflict.

As a result, in the cases studied here the third party had to

engage in very little "face-work" of other preliminary activities in
establishing his role and his competence and in communicating the attitudes
which support a successful confrontation. In other situations, this
effort to establish the appropriate role identity and personal attributes
may be a significant part of the third party's total job in assisting two
parties in conflict.

Where the potential third party has not had any prior role re-
lationships with the principals to conflict, one-on-one discussions between
the third person and each principal are used as a basis for judging the
likelihood that the third person could make a positive contribution in a
confrontation.

115
 lib

Establishing Appropriate Power and [Link]

The perceived power of the third party and his general know-
ledge of the principals, issues, and background factors are Important
attributes.

It Is an advantage for the third party to have little or no

power over the futures of the principals. This type of third party power
Increases the participants' sense of risk In confronting Issues candidly
and/or Is likely to Induce them to behave In ways which are assumed to
elicit the approval of the third party. For example, the mere presence
of Charles' and Fred's boss (even though he was not trying to perform
third party functions) helped shape their Interaction with each other in
an encounter prior to their confrontation session.

In the three cases studied, the third party was an outside con-
sultant with no formal power over the payoffs or careers of the partici-
pants. However, In each case he had a close relationship with the princi-
pals' superior. Therefore, despite the consultant's efforts to preserve
a non-evaluative stance toward organizational members and to preserve
the confidentiality of all of his separate relationships, it seems reason-
able to believe that participants perceived at least slight potential ad-
vantage In presenting their preferred image to the consultant.

In one of the three cases this Issue was sharpened for the
consultant when he later discovered that Charles' termination was linked
In the minds of some organisational members with the confrontation between
Charles and Fred In which he was Involved as a third party.

Another type of power Is an asset to the third party, namely,

control over aspects of the process. The advantage of control of certain
factors Is obvious from our discussion of the Importance of setting,
composition of group, agenda, phasing, etc. Of course, the perceived
expertise of the third party usually is accompanied by a willingness to
accept his direction In these areas, but it Is often helpful to him to
have effective control over these dimensions of the situation even before
he has fully established himself with the particular principals in conflict.

At least moderate knowledge of the principals, issues, and

background factors usually is an advantage. It not only enhances the
third party's credibility with the principals but also Increases the like-
lihood that his Interventions will be on target.

The prior knowledge reduces the amount cf time which the princi-
pals spend talking to the third party rather than each other (which ad-
mittedly is not always an advantage). One factor arguing against a
third party being highly knowledgeable about the issues and persons in-
volved Is that it Is harder for the principals to believe he does not
have his own views about either the Issues or persons—views which dis-
qualify him as a disinterested party.
 117

Establishing Neutrality

Differences In the third party's relationships to the two

principals can Influence his effectiveness. Three different types of
third party symmetry are Important: Is he neutral with respect to out-
come? Is he equally close to or distant from the parties In a soclo-
metrlc sense? Does he avoid ground rules for handling differences which
would Inadvertently operate to the advantage of one and the disadvantage
of the other? Symmetry Is usually helpful, but not always necessary.
Actually In some cases, asymmetrical third party roles or Interventions
are more effective (e.g., when they offset a basic power or skill asymmetry
between the parties themselves). The discussion here calls attention to
the importance of this role attribute and analyzes this dimension of each
of the three episodes.

First, it is usually important for a third party consultant

to be neutral regarding the substantive positions of the parties and the
outcome. This could have become an issue in the Bill-Lloyd case because
of Dave's prior association with an issue in the conflict; Dave had
participated in the team-building session that created the open, fluid
pattern of group functioning which Bill wanted to preserve and Lloyd
said he wanted to change. However, in fact, as the confrontation un-
folded, Dave felt as sympathetic to Lloyd as to Bill. For example, it
seemed perfectly appropriate to Dave that Bill agree to reconsider the
operating pattern of the group taking into account Lloyd's preferences.
Also, Lloyd's demands at the intergroup level seemed to him to be legiti-
mate and deserving of response.

Maintaining neutrality regarding the substantive issues often

requires that the third party detect and deflect bids by one principal
to Include him in a coalition against the other principal. This is il-
lustrated in the case where Dave had to be alert to avoid having his own
confronting behavior toward Fred used by Charles as if Dave and Charles
were allies. At one point Dave explicitly dissociated himself from
Charles.

Second, it is usually best for the third party to be comparably

related to the principals in a personal sense. Only the Fred-Charles
case illustrates this ideal. The consultant's short-term relationships
with both persons were friendly, but professional. Dave had information
about the parties and also some assurance of the esteem with which he
was held and the type of consultant role identity they attributed to him.
Both Fred and Charles had mentioned the possibility of gaining Dave's
active third party assistance during his next visit. Reciprocally, Dave
had demonstrated his interest in and concern for each of them during
long phone conversations in which the principals had each ventilated
feelings and tried to gain new perspective on their conflict. Therefore,
there was no general problem in achieving a neutral identity and relatively
satisfactory role relationships with the principals.

The third party was asymmetrically close to Bill at the outset

of the latter's confrontation with Lloyd. Dave's considerable prior con-
sulting relationship with Bill made it impossible for him in a short
 118

period of time to become similarly related to Lloyd—In terms of warmth,

personal respect, trust, and general familiarity. Nevertheless, Dave
probably should have sought a way to spend more time with Lloyd before
the confrontation In order to reduce this type of asymmetry. As It
happened, this Initial asymmetry did not Interfere with the consultant's
effectiveness. Why? Apparently because Lloyd attached more Importance
to Dave's professional Identity that his personal relations with the prin-
cipals. Some time after the confrontation, Lloyd said,

Yes, I recognized that Dave was closer to Bill and

the group, but I didn't assume he was therefore biased.
This gets Into professionalism. I [Link] Dave, In
his professional role, has his own built-in gyros keeping
him neutral. Sure he confronted me about some of my
behavior and made me uncomfortable, but he couldn't be a
dish rag and still be effective, either.

There was moderate asymmetry In his personal relations with Mack

and Sy Initially, Dave being somewhat closer to Sy. Dave had an open and
high mutual trust relationship with Sy throughout the entire period of
this episode. Also, in his initial encounters with Mack, Dave had responded
favorably to Mack's intensity and his desire to learn more about himself.
He assumed that Mack felt closer to him as a result of sharing the emo-
tionally significant lab experience and receiving Dave's own sympathetic,
confirming responses. However, Dave had spent relatively little time with
Mack prior to the beginning of this episode, building up less mutual
confidence. Also, Mack's choice not to identify the person toward whom
he felt intense conflict could have been a signal of the qualified nature
of his relationship with Dave. Nevertheless, it is doubtful that this
asymmetry in prior contact was responsible for Mack's ambivalent feelings
toward Dave and the confrontation feelings which became apparent later.

This brings us to a consideration of the third type of sym-

metry which did figure importantly in the Mack-Sy case, namely, whether
the consultant's methods in general and tactical Interventions in particu-
lar tend to favor either one of the principals.

The Bill-Lloyd case illustrates how the third party's approach

can be differentially favored by the principals. The norms of openness,
acceptance, emotional support, analysis of group process, etc., which
the consultant passively (by his Identity and presence) and actively (by
his interventions) brought to the confrontation were those Bill favored.
Considering Lloyd's relative concern about excessive "grouplness" In the
larger task group and also Dave's earlier hunch that Lloyd might tend to
resist dealing with the more emotional aspects of Issues, one might have
expected him to either resent or resist the consultant's methodology.
As it turned out he participated fully, utilizing the process to get his
own views and concerns out in a forceful way. Moreover, the process was
general enough to allow him to utilize bargaining behavior—e.g., to
hint at contingent Actions if the two of them could not reach agreement.
Inasmuch as the consultant's own methodological model also Incorporated
 119

that form of interpersonal conflict resolution, he made no attempt to

sanction Lloyd for those departures from a conciliatory problem-solving
approach. Thus, the potential disadvantage to Lloyd did not materialize.

The tactical asymmetries which occurred in the Nack-Sy case

did have adverse consequences for the confrontation. Dave' actions prior
to the confrontation allowed Sy to participate in Che decision whether
to meet with Mack to work on their relationship, but did not even ensure
that Mack was informed of the purpose of the meeting at cocktails. Clearly,
for reasons we have analyzed in detail in earlier chapters, this placed
Mack it a disadvantage and led to his feelings that the confrontation had
been "rigged". In addition, the nature of Dave's interventions may have
seemed one-sided to Mack. Because Dave was trying to get the parties
engaged in a direct dialogue and because Sy was currently more ready than
Mack to confront their differences, this resulted in Dave putting more
pressure on Mack than Sy.

If basic trust of third party is high,there is less cost to him

giving asymmetrical support to one party's ideas, perceptions, feelings,
and actions. He is less likely to be seen by either party as having nega-
tive intentions toward the party which the consultant gives less support
or actively opposes. In fact, where the consultant has much better rela-
tionship with one party he is better able to confront forcefully that party
and introduce content threatening to that party. He also is better able
to make interventions that interrupt, Interfere with that person's present
approach, or place restrictive ground rules on that person (like "keep
quiet and listen" or "would you try to state what you heard him say").

Improving a Deteriorated Relationship

Improving a deteriorated relationship between the third party

and a principal requires a conscious effort on the former's part. The
Mack-Sy case provides some insight into the processes involved.

It was only after the second confrontation meeting that Dave

learned about Mack's perceptions that the first meeting had been "rigged"
and how Mack's feelings of trust toward Dave had suffered accordingly.
It is unclear just when Mack had developed those feelings toward Dave,
but Dave's effectiveness with Mack would have been limited from that point
on. It now becomes clear that Dave had missed an important and timely
opportunity to actively encourage Mack to raise such an issue when Mack
drove Dave back to the motel after cocktails.

The circumstances under which Mack finally did state his feelings
about Dave are significant. Mack's comments followed Dave's expression
of his own irritation with another person, the personnel manager. By
expressing personal negative feelings he became more available as a target
for other persons' irritation, rather than wholly protected by his profes-
sional role.

Mack's perceptions and feelings were of immediate concern to

Dave. Dave wanted to be understood: if he had not maintained Mack's
confidence, it was through an omission In judgment, not some lack of
identification with Mack. Dave's efforts to repair his relationship with
 120

Hack Included the following: (a) Dave explained the steps involved in
the decision and objected to the label or interpretation "rigged"; (b) he
humorously claimed his good intentions, by saying that he had been operating
under the assumption that he was seen as wearing a "white hat"; (c) he
directly reflected the importance of the issue to him, by emphasizing how
crucial trust is to his role in group: (d) he stressed and recounted
his positive feelings for Mack, which he related to Sy the day before;
(e) later in touching base with Mack before departing, Dave expressed
the positive feelings and concern he had for Mack by indicating that he
liked Mack, that the two of them were similar, and that he was available
if Mack needed him.

Dave felt more positive toward Mack than the latter seemed to
sense. At the same time, he appreciated that he had not acted as clearly
on Mack's views, preferences, concerns as much as he had on Sy's in ar-
ranging for the two of them to work on their relationship. Mack's feelings
toward Dave as expressed at the club were ambivalent. His negative feelings
toward Dave were partly tied in with his feelings of vulnerability to Sy.
He believed he could be hurt by what had happened between himself and Sy.
He also had some positive feelings—that the experience had present or
potential learning value for him. As he said, he had wanted more candid
reaction to him from his group at the sensitivity training laboratory he
had attended.

Evidently, after Mack's expression of his feelings to Dave and

the dialogue that ensued with Dave, his feelings toward Dave improved. For
example, he expressed a desire to work further with Dave. The phone con-
versations he initiated with Dave also reflected growing trust and confi-
dence. Finally, the visit during which the reconciliation occurred con-
firmed that they had developed a close trusting relationship.

Internal Consultants. Organizational Peers and Superiors as Third

Parties

That concerned members of an organization experienced frustra-

tion in having to rely upon external consultants for skilled third parties
and that there is a need for organizations to devise ways to make such
resources available in the right place and right time in the right role
la argued as follows by Richard Barrett, director. Management Systems
Staff, Bureau of the Budget, in his published comments on the Bill and
Lloyd case:

... ccess in this case resulted from the longitudinal

nature of the organizational development effort. I hear
a great deal of talk about the importance of "follow
up" but, like "research", I don't see it happening very
often. This case, I think, is a fine illustration of the
kinds of pay-off that can be achieved by having a compe-
tent "third party" available at the right time. Too often,
it seems to me, we lose ballgames in the late innings
simply because we do not have the right man in the right
spot at the right time. It is clear in this instance
that the confrontation between Bill and Lloyd would not
have taken place if Dave had not (a) been present in the
;

121

immediate work environment at the time the two men were

experiencing difficulties, and (b) already established
some degree of rapport with the two Individuals Involved.
The fact that this Is one of two or three Instances when
this happy set of circumstances occurred during the course
of the organizational development effort described In the
case poses a considerable problem for others engaged In
organizational development activities. That It did not
happen more often In our situation is explained principally
by our almost complete dependence on outside consultants
to perform third party roles. Of necessity, the work of
these Individuals was sporadic and tended to be focused
on predetermined tasks and projects. Their availability
for on-the-job third party consultation was therefore ac-
cidental. One solution to this problem might have been to
give the consultants more free time to rove through the
organization looking for "hang-upti" and to encourage their
attendance In staff meetings and other group meetings. A
second possibility Is, of course, the development of Internal
resources. While we had some success with this approach, we
found It difficult to create an Image of employees as true
third parties.—

An outside consultant may be In the best over-all position to

operate effectively as a third party. Nevertheless, organizational members
potentially can play important third party roles. Figure VIII - 1 depicts
the several types of organizational role relationships considered here.

On the basis of our discussion earlier in this chapter, we

propose five role attributes for identifying potential third parties from
within an organization and for judging the potential effectiveness of
persons who would be third parties:

1. high professional expertise regarding social processes;

2. low power over fate of principals;
3. high control over confrontation setting and processes;
4. moderate knowledge about the principals. Issues, and back-
ground factors;
3. neutrality or balance with respect to substantive out-
come, personal relationships, and conflict resolution
methodology.

There is a growing practice for large organizations to provide

organizational consulting as a service supplied by the personnel depart-
ment or some separate staff unit. How well do Internal organizational
consultants usually match these requisite role attributes? They frequently
are seen as possessing sufficient professional expertise although not as
much as is attributed to the outside consultant. This expertise edge
given to the external consultant may be offset by the advantage of the
Internal consultant's more continuous availability. Internals are more
likely than the outside consultants to be seen as having an optimum amount
of background knowledge. They usually can get sufficient control over

16/ R. Barrett, "Comments on the Preceding Article", Journal of Applied

Behavioral Science, Volume 4, No. 3, pp. 346-3A7. "
 Figure VIII - 1

Role Relationships Between Third Parties and Principals

P
^

Organizational Organizational Internal External

Superior Peer Organizational Organizational
Consultant Consultant

O THIRD PARTY
# PRINCIPALS

122
 123

the setting and process. However, the Internals encounter moderately aore
difficulty than externals in demonstrating low pOBr over the future of the
principals and in achieving perceived neutrality.

Organizational peers who have an interest in, but no formal

responsibility for, performing third party functions are at a greater
disadvantage than internal consultants. Typically, it is more difficult
for them to establish the requisite professional expertise and neutrality
and to gain sufficient control over the setting and process. Moreovei,
often they are perceived as having super-optimal knowledge about the
principals, issues and background factor.

Organizational superiors are operating under the greatest

handicap, even if they are perceived to have high professional expertise
and do have high control over process. They tend to have high power, super-
optimal knowledge, and it is difficult for them to establish neutrality.

The above are general tendencies—one would expect to find

considerable variation among persons within each class of organizational
roles as well as among outside consultants.

Being Oneself

We have attempted to develop a general, third party theory and to

outline generally applicable third party pra.'icas If anything, we have
been too successful in being objective in describing Dave's tactics, his
functions, and his more obvious role attributes. It must be acknowledged
that the acceptance of Dave as a third party and the impact of his third
party interventions were conditioned by his personal attributes and pat-
terns, such as the following: he manifested a predilection for confronta-
tion in his own encounters with others; he had a high energy level which
sometimes had the effect of energizing the process; his changeable moods
from extreme patience to impatience and abruptness were sometimes consis-
tent and sometimes inconsistent with the needs of the situation; he »ad
a high need to achieve an analytical understanding of what was happening
that was combined with a tendency to be emotionally moved with concern
and empathy for a person struggling to experience himself, to articulate
his feelings, and to engage another; he occasionally was anxious about
whether the confrontation would help or hurt the relationship, and whether
or not his interventions would facilitate the confrontation; and so on.

While it is not important for tne general theory or general

practice to incorporate these aspects of Dave's personal style or the way
he comes across to others, these factors probably would have to be taken
into account if one were to more fully understand what happened in these
three or any other specific cases. Moreover, it is important for the
general theory and practice to know that such personal attributes and
styles do condition the role and the interventions of the person; his
personal attributes must fit what he is trying to do a third party or
in any other sociotherapist role. Perhaps the most significant point to
make here is that at least in the case of Dave, his approach was not to
try to suppress his own self or to subordinate it to some ideal professional

J
 .

124

role to any great extant, but rather to act on his own feelings an'
Intuition, knowing full well that he would express something about him-
self as well as perform essential functions, and just assume that his
batting average would continue to be good.

r, • ■

' fl '•. ! 1 ' , ', ' , ,

...;■> >'•./•. ■ r i , • • I ,■'»,.. '. ( ' i

I >h / ' ' I •!. i » ' ^ 1 ; 1 ■

' I ■..• • i,. ,, . ■ •: ■

■ • 'f ' i !. «i:: ( ,i ■•■-,,,■. k

i , ! . i ■

■..i. -
> i - . • ■ ,II '< ' ■ T. » : ■ ■!

K t • ■ ' .oi- ,, > i •, ■' x I

\ "li'. . .: > . > .' 1.1 •. . • |

i , ' i.l ;M t ••.i' ■ > r • ,'.

t ■

,../•( • tr. . • i if

i. ■ ■ -. '

■• It K-.f.
 CHAPTER IX - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This book Is Intended to Increase our understanding of Interpersonal

conflict, to contribute to a theory of third party Interventions, to Improve
the practice of organizational consultation, and to stlaulate client systeas
to consider how they might utilize third parties, especially in connection
with other organizational development activities.

We have presented three case histories of Interpersonal conflict

and the Interventions of a third party consultant. These case histories
provided some of the empirical basis for constructing a middle range theory
of a form of soclotherapy. The chain of reasoning employed In developing
the subject matter runs along the following lines: First, we proposed
a diagnostic model which Identified several aspects of a conflict cycle
that make conflict subject to controls—controls which may be utilized with
or without the parties' directly confronting each other. Second, we
postulated the potential gains and risks that accompany the use of
direct confrontations. Then, taking cognizance of this mixed potential from
direct confrontAtlcns, we hypothesized factors that enhance the likelihood
of successful confrontations. These factors were used to define the strategic
function of third parties, which also gave meaning to our subsequent
treatment of the tactical Interventions of third parties. In the chaptet
on third party role attributes, we extended the Inference process the next
step. Given the tactics he must execute, and the functions he must perform,
we concluded which role attributes facilitate the work of the third party.

Aspects of Interpersonal Conflict and Their Implications

Chapter V presented our diagnostic model of Interpersonal conflict

episodes Involving four basic elements—issues, triggering events, conflict
or conflict resolving acts of the principals, and their consequences. The
model incorporates the ideas that Interpersonal conflicts are cyclical—they
follow cycles of manifestation and latency—and that they are dynamic—they
change from one cycle to the next.

Malevolent cycling was shown to result from the tendency for

issues to proliferate: First, a person in a confllctful relationship will
often introduce new Issues for various tactical reasons. Second, a person's
acts pursuant to the current issues in contention often Inadvertently produce
new antagonisms. Third, one's way of coping with the consequences of conflict
may actually exacerbate, rather than minimize the conflict. (For example, a
person may choose to withdraw or avoid encounters out of fear or in order
to conserve emotional energy. If the second person is dependant on the
first or tries to confront their conflict, the first's coping strategy of
avoidance will turn out to create additional Issues for the second.)

Examined again in light of a subsequent chapter treating the

direct confrontation, the risk of malevolent cycling also can be seen as
deriving from several conditions which affect the tendency for conflict
resolution moves to be non-reciprocal: asymmetrical motivation and
situational power, poor synchronization, overall Imbalance In the

125
 126

differentiation and integration activities or poor sequencing of them,

inadequate support for openness, inadequate dialogue language, and sub-
optimal or super-optimal tension. More on these general factors later.

Let us return to a review of Chapter V where we proposed that a

general operational objective of conflict management was to Interrupt self-
maintaining and malevolent cycles, achieve a de-escalation of the conflict,
and initiate a benevolent cycling of the conflict. In particular, the
chapter explores ho* each of several elements of a conflict episode presents
one or more "handles" for controlling conflict.

If one understands the types of events which are capable of

triggering a new conflict cycle in a particular Interpersonal relationship,
one may be able to choose the right time and place for the conflict to occur;
and temporarily or permanently control the conflict and its costs.

If one can Impose constraints on the wav a conflict manifests

Itself, e.g., by outlawing especially destructive or provocative tactics,
one may be able to protect the social system from the more disruptive
consequences of the conflict and eliminate the sources of escalation,
maybe even achieve some de-escalation.

If one or both principals can develop better methods for coping

with the affective consequences of Interpersonal conflict, they can function
better individually and as a pair even without resolving the Issues in
dispute. Coping techniques 1»elude ventilating one's feelings to and
obtaining support from friend i as well as enlarging one's general toleranca
for conflict.

These several control strategies have limitations and involve

additional risks. Control strategies that work through completely avoiding
or significantly constraining the form of the manifest conflict may drive
the conflict underground where it becomes less direct but more destructive
and more difficult to manage; and/or result in an accumulation of unexpressed
feelings that will make the manifest conflict—when it does occur—more
intense. A further difficulty with preventing the ignition of conflict
via raising the barriers to expression of conflict is that such barriers
tend to prevent potentially constructive confrontations as well ae other
tactical interchanges.

Confrontations and Strategic Third Party Functions

As we just noted, it is possible to handle a conflict merely by

the two participants pursuing their own respective strategies of avoidance,
constraint and coping. Therefore, the direct confrontation between parti-
cipants must be treated as an optional step in an overall conflict manage-
ment strategy. We regard it as a potentially useful stage toward the
resolution or better control of an interpersonal conflict.

If all goes well, confrontations not only allow for the exchange
of essential information, but also increase the authenticity of the relationship
 — r

127

and rh« ersonal integrity experienced in the relationship. If they are tot
well managed, confrontations can further polarize the individuals, increase
the costs of the conflict, or discourage then from furthei efforts to resolve
the conflict. One task of conflict management is to maximize the potential
gains from a confrontation and to minimize the risks for the participants.
The productivity of the confrontation hinges upon many factors with respect
to which third party intervention can perform key functions. We propose
that the following are strategic.

1. By his position, the third party often can assess whether

the motivation to reduce the conflict is mutual. If there is no sufficient
immediate desire on both sides to ensure a give-and-take, the third party
can move to avoid or delay the direct confrontation. If there is some
positive Interest on both sides, but one person has asymmetrically high
motivation, the third party can help the person with the greater motiva-
tion moderate the level of energy which he invests in the process,
pace himself and structure his expectations about outcomes accordingly.
Thus, the third party works to achieve more symmetry in the motivational
forces which are activated in the confrontation.

2. An imbalance in sltuational power will affect the course of

the confrontation by undermining trust and/or inhibiting dialogue between
the participants. The third party can at temp: to achieve as much balance
as possible, for example, offsetting an organizational power advantage of
one by involving more allies for the other. The third party can regulate
the interaction process in a way that favors a person with lesser verbal
or fighting skills. Thus, again we propose the third party attempts to achieve
symmetry—this time in terms of the sltuational power of the two principals.

3. The third party can ensure that the one's Initiative to

confront is synchronized with the other's readiness for the dialogue, in
order to avoid abortive confrontations. Poorly synchronized confrontations
risk heightened feelings of rejection and are marked by a high frequency
of misinterpreted acts, for example, a conciliatory gesture is interpreted
as a sign of weakness or the expression of negative affect by one is seen
by the other as an attempt to perpetuate the conflict rather than as a
gesture of trust and an effort to "get it off my chest." To continue the
theme of the importance of symmetry, we can conceive of the synchronizing
function as a way of achieving symmetrical definitions of the situation
by the two parties in conflict.

4. A related function is to ensure either that the differentiation

phase of the dialogue is worked out fully before moving on to the integratlve
phase, or at least, that a sufficient amount of differentiation has occurred
to provide a basis for the amount of integration contemplated for the time
being. The underlying principle governing the third party's actions is that
given a conflictful history of the relationship, the potential for genuine
integration at any point in time during the confrontation is no greater
than the adequacy of the differentiation already achieved.

5. The third party can assess the extent to which various factors
contribute to openness in a confrontation: in particular, these factors are
 128

organizational norms pertalninR to expression of differences, emotional

reassurance available to participants, and the skills available for facilitating
the dialogue. Depending upon his professional identity as well as his active
interventions, the third party may be able to affect the norms of the
group and be seen as a potential source of emotional support and process
facilitation.

6. The third party can contribute to the reliability of the

interpersonal communications: by translating or restating the messages
until the sender and receiver agree on the meaning; by procedural devices
which require one to demonstrate that h* understands what the other has said;
and by contiibuting to the development of a common languag . with respect
to substantive issues, emotional issues, and the dialogue process Itself.

7. The third party can attempt to achieve an optimum level ot

tension in the interpersonal system, sometimes raising the tension level
in order to create a sense of urgency and to increase the amount and
saliency of the information exchanged; and at other times relaxing a super-
optimal level of threat which had begun to produce rigidity in individual
thought processes and high distortion in the interpersonal communications
processes.

We propose that with regard to the above seven ingredients in

an interaction setting,none are sufficient and all are necessary in some
significant measure for successful confrontations, that is to say,
where positive outcomes exceed the costs and any negative outcomes.
Moreover, we hypothesise that each of these ingredients is a variable
influencing the amount of resolution or improvement in the control of
the conflict. If formalized, these hypotheses would take the following
illustrative form:

Asuuming all other ingredients are present in moderate and

adequate amounts, the more symmetrical is the situational
power of the principals, the more successful will be the
confrontation.

The formalization of these hypotheses, which seems unnecessary

for the purposes of this book, would merely make more explicit our theory
of third party interventions. By "theory" of third party interventions,
we have in mind both its descriptive and normative applications. As a
'descriptive theory" we mean that it postulates relationships between on
the one hand certain properties of a temporary social system: structure
(e.g., situational power), process (e.g., synchronization), tools (language),
and affect (tension level), and on the other hand, certain subsequent
states of the more permanent social system, in particular the level of
conflict in the continuing two person relationship. As a "normative theory",
we mean that it provides a rationale for third party decisions.

Third Party Interventions - The Tactical Opportunities

If the preceding discussion of functions provides a theory, the

discuasion of tactics below describes the practice of third party interventions.
 129

The tiro discussions necessarily overlap because It Is difficult

to analyze a function without Illustrating the behaviors which perform the
function. Similarly, one can't merely list tactical behaviors without some
reference to their usefulness. Nevertheless, both functions and tactics
need to have their turn at being In the foreground of our analysis of the
third party role.

The simplest and most passiv ' hird party intervention is to be

present and available in the confrontai >u. Depending, of course, on his
particular personal and role attributes, the mere oresence of a third party
in the situation can perform a synchronization function. In addition, his
presence can Influence the group norms governing openness, can reassure
the participants who see him as a source of nonevaluatlve acceptance and
emotional support if needed and can decrease the perceived risks of failure
because he is presumed to possess skills that can facilitate dialogue. The
latter three effects serve to Increase the participants' willingness to be
open in confronting each other.

The more active third party interventions can be organized under

four headings: preliminary Interviewing; structuring the context fur the
confrontation: interviewing in the on-going process; assisting follow-up
activities.

First, preliminary interviews between the third party and the

principals are used to assess motivation, obtain other relevant information,
promote principals' familiarity and experience with the processes of
openness and confrontation, establish appropriate third p. -ty role relation-
ships, and provide all concerned with a better basis for deciding whether
to proceed toward a confronting dialogue.

Second, the third party can influence the physical and social
context for the confrontation. By choosing a neutral site, one can preserve
symmetry in the situational power of participants. By choosing the degree
of formality of the setting deliberately, the third party can Influence
the amount of emphasis on task disagreements versus emotional antagonisms,
and the degree of urgency versus relaxedness in the interaction. By arranging
for a relatively open-ended time period similarly perceived by both principals
and by protecting the confrontation from interruption, the third party can
increase the likelihood that the move J of the principals will be recipro-
cated in the same session and that some natural pacing of differentiation
and integration activities will develop. By determining the composition
of the confrontation meeting, the third party can control many factors.
Persons added have various potential effects: increasing the relevant
perceptions and Insights; increasing the available support for one or both
principals; increasing the perceived risk for one or both parties; Increasing
the salience of the larger organizational reality in which the two must
ultimately work.

Third, the third party can intervene in ways that directly and
immediately affect the on-going dialogue process. Depending upon its
context and the particular target for which it is used, each of the tactical
 130

Interventions listed below may perform any of the f Lratcgic functions proposed
in Chapter VI. The third party may referee the interaction process in any
of a number of respects, terminating a repetitive discussion, providing for
equal air time for participants, rewarding constructive and punishing
destructive behaviors, etc. He nay initiate agenda, that is, provide foci
for the principals' discussions. He may clarify the participants' views
by restating, summarizing and translating each party's views—both explicit
and implicit meanings—as he has heard them. He may encourage an inter-
personal feedback process, asking each principal to exchange the perceptions
of the other which they have developed over time, and to share immediate
reactions to each other as they occur during the here-and-now process. He,
too, may participate in that process as a givrr and receiver of feedback,
as appropriate. He may share his own diagnosis or encourage a collaborative
effort to develop diagnostic insights. Hi may prescribe discussion
techniques that assist the parties in joiiing issues and engaging each
other more directly, for example, asking « party to provide the historical
data of the events on which his feelings toward the other were based. He
may diagnose conditions causing poor dialogue, where discussion techniques
can't remedy the difficulty, e.g., where indifference or fear is operating
to circumscribe the participation of one par* ,». The third party may
counsel the participants, e.g., on coping techniques.

Fourth, the third party can assist the principals to plan and
prepare for further dialogue after the confrontation meeting. By teaching
them what ingredients make a dialogue productive and by identifying for
them in operational form the techniques and principles that were jsed
effectively in their own immediate experience, the third party can increase
the ability of the principals to continue the dialogue on their own. By
either being available himself or building a substitute third party into
the process, he can provide for continuing third party participation, if
that is desirable. By ensuring that the principals agree upon a specific
time and/or purpose for getting together again,, the third party increases
the likelihood that the conflict resolution effort will go forward.

Third Party Attributes

We conclude that the following five role attributes are generally

optimum for third party work described in this book and, therefore, can be
used for identifying third parties: (1) high professional expertise regarding
•ocial processes; (2) low power over fate of principals; (3) high control
over confrontation setting and processes; (4) moderate knowledge about the
principals, issues and background factors; (5) neutrality or balance with
reapect to substantive outcome, personal relationships, and conflict resolu-
tion methodology.

1. The relevance of high professional expertise is obvious in

the types of diagnosis, behavioral interventions, and emotional support
•nd reassurance required of the third party.

2. The disadvantage of high power over the fate of the principals

derives from the tendency of power to inhibit candid interchanges and
induce approval-seeking behavior by participants.
 131

3. The advantage of high control ove.. process Is that It allows

the third party to take advantages of the tactical opportunities presented
by such factors as physical setting, time boundaries, picing, composition of
group, agenda, etc.

4. At least moderate knowledge about cbf> principals, issues and

background is usually an advartage because it enhances the third party's
credibility with principals and increases the likelihood that his inter-
ventions will be on target.

5. Basic third party neutrality wl:h respect to the substantive

issues, the personal relationships with the principals, and the conflict
resolution methodology facilitates the development of principals' trust
toward him.

Although the cases and analysis in the book focus on the inter-
ventions of a third partv who is a consultant to the organization, the
implications of the study are broader. Other persons in the organization
can play third party roles and make many of the interventions analyzed
here. The more they possess the role attributes recommended here, the
more third party functions thev can perform and the more tactical opportunities
they can exploit.
 t'
l"— -»Unclassified
Security CUtiification
DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA • R&D
O—wHfr €l»»»lllcaiicn et »III», botty ol abstract and Indaimy annotarion mu«t <>• vt'trmd **ian tht orarall tmport ia claaaifud)
t OMIGINATINC ACTivi'y fCorporafa aufbor; 2a RtPonr tfCuRiTr c v. *« i' ' u » T ION
Unclassified
The President and Fellows of Harvard College,
Canbiidge, Mass. 02138 2 t> SROUP
N/A
3 «e^OUT TITLE

INTERPERSONAL PEACEMAKING: CONFRONTAiyONS AND THIRD PARTY INTERVENTIONS

4 DESCftlPTlvC NOTES (Trp» ol npori und Incluilv dar«;

Scientific Interim
S AUTHORf5; CLaar nam» (ir»t nama, Inltiml)

Richard E. Walton

• RKPORT DATE 7# TOTAL

L NO OP P*5E» 7 0 NO OPJUM

15 December 1968
139 iT
• •. CONTRACT On 6RANT NO la omaiNATOR't REPORT NüMICRC^J

FA4620-69-C-0040
6. PRojtcT NO. 9722 Special Technical ueport #1

« 61101D $b OTHIN RCPORT HOTS; (Any otfiaf numbara ffiaf mar *• aaai^tad
i/i/a raporlj

681313
10. A VAIL AilLITY/LIMITATION NOTICES
^AFOSR 69-Q457TR
1. This document has been approved ior public release and sale; its
distribution is unlimited.

II $UF ANY NOTES 12 SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVITY

TECH, OTHER Air Force Office of Scifjntific Research

14Ü0 Wilson Boulevard (SRLB)
\
-At1 agton, Virginia 22209
13 ABSTRACT
This book length report presents a theory and practice of constructive
third party interventions into two party conflict. The empirical basis of the
report are three case histories of interpersonal conflict in organizations and
third party consultation, but the principles derived are more generally applicable.
A diagnostic model distinguishes among several aspects of conflict
cycles, namely, the issues, triggering events, tactical exchanges, and conflict
consequences. Each is an alternate focus for third party control efforts. (U)
Whether confrontations between conflict principals will lead to
resolution or better control rather than greater conflict, depends upon the pre-
sence of certain conditions, in the confrontation setting, namely, mutual motiva-
tion Co better manage the conflict, relative parity in situational power, synchro-
nization of principals' negative and positive moves, sources of social support *
and process expertise, group norms favoring openness, adequate dialogue language
and optimal tension level. (U)
The analysis illustrates how third parties can favorably influence
these conditions, particularly if the third party has the following optimum role
attributes: igh professional expertise regarding social processes; low power
over fate -»f principals; high control over confrontation setting and processes;
moderate knowledge about the principals, issues and background factors; neutrality
or balance with respect to substantive outcome, personal relationships, and conflict
resolution methodology. (U)

DD FORM
• JAN 14 1473 Unclassified
Security Classification
 Unclassified
Security Classification
'« LINK B LINK C
KEY WORDS
OL E WT HOLE WT ROLC WT

Interpersonal Conflict
Conflict Control
Conflict Resolution
Third Party Functions
Organizational Conflict

INSTRUCTIONS
1. ORIGINATING ACTIVITY: Enter the name and address imposed by security classification, using standard statements
of the contractor, subcontractor, grantee. Department of De- such as:
fense activity or other organization (corporate author) issuing (1) "Qualified requesters may Main copies of this
the report. report from DDC"
2a. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: Enter the over- (2) "Foreign announcement and dissemination of this
all security classification of the report. Indicate whether report by DDC is not authorized"
"Restricted Data" is included Marking is to be in accord-
ance with appropriate security regulations. (3) "U. S. Government agencies may obtain copies of
this report directly from DDC. Other qualified DDC
2b. CROUP: Automatic downgrading is specified in DoD Di- users shall request through
rective 5200.10 and Armed Forces Industrial Manual. Enter
the group number. Also, when applicable, show that optional
markings have been used for Group 3 and Group 4 as author- (4) "0. S. military agencies may obtain copies of this
ized. report directly from DDC Other qualified users
3. REPORT TITLE: Enter the complete report title in all shall request through
capital letters. Titles in all cases should be unclassifierf-
If a meaningful title cannot be selected without classifica-
tion, show title classification in all capitals in parenthesis (5) "All distribution of this report is controlled Qual-
immediately following the title. ified DDC users shall request through
4. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES: if appropriate, enter the type of
report, e.g., interim, progress, summary, annual, or final. If the report has been furnished tc the Office of Technical
Give the inclusive dates when a specific reporting period is Services, Department of Commerce, for sale to the public, indi-
covered. cate this fact and enter the price, if known.
5. AUTHOR(S): Enter the name's) of authors) as shown on 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES: Use for additional explana-
or in the report. Entei last name, first name, middle initial. tory notes.
If mhtary. sliow rank »ni branch of service. The name of
the principal - 'ihur is an absolute minimum requirement. 12. SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVITY: Ei r the name of
the departmental project office or laboratory sponsoring (pay-
6. REPORT DAT!^ Enter the date of the report as day, ing tor) the research and development. Include address.
month, year, or month, year. If more than one date appears
on the report, use date of publication. 13 ABSTRACT: Enter an abstract giving a brief and factual
summary of the document indicative of the report, even though
7a. TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES: The total page count it may also appear elsewhere in the body of the technical re-
should follow normal pagination procedures, i.e., enter the port. If additional space is required, a continuation sheet shall
number of pages containing inlormatioa be attached. *
7b. NUMBER OF REFERENCES: Enter the total number of It is highly desirable that the abstract of classified reports
references cited in the report. be unclassified Each paragraph of the abstract shall end with
8«. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER: If appropriate, enter an indication of the military security ( lassifuation^f the in-
the applicable number of the contract or grant under which formation in the paragraph, represented as (TS), (ShRC). or (V)
the report was written. There is no limitation en the length of the abstract. How-
8ft, 8L, & 8d. PROJECT NUMBER: Knler the appropriate ever, the suggested length is from 150 to 225 words.
military department identification, sui h as project number,
subproject number, system numbers, [Link] number, etc. 14 KEY WORDS: Key words an- technically meaningful terms
or short phrases ih.u iharaclenze a report and may be used as
9a. ORIGINATORS REPORT NUMHF».(S): Enter the offi- index entries for [Link] the report. Key words must be
cial report number by which the dorumrnt will be identified selected so that no security classifu ation is required. Identi-
and controlled by the originating activity. This number must fiers, such as equipment model designation, trade name, military
be unique to this report. project code name, geographic location, may be used as key
9fc. OTHER REPORT NUMBER{S): If the report has been words but Will be followed by an indication of technical con-
assigned any other report numbers (either by the originator text. The aäsignmenl of links, rules, and weights is optional
or by the sponsor), also enter this number(s).
10. AVAILABILITY/LIMITATION NOTICES: Enter any lim-
itations on further dissemination uf the report, .Ahet than those

QP0 8a«.ssi
Unclassified
Security Classification