Conflict Management Skills

Gregorio Billikopf

DOWNLOAD FREE MEDIATION AND CONFLICT

MANAGEMENT BOOK IN PDF FORMAT, OVER 300 PAGES,
by Gregorio Billikopf, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, 2008.

Beth just got turned down by Carlos, the mechanic. She had asked
Carlos to plan on working a couple of overtime hours this coming
Thursday and Friday evenings. Beth's nose was a bit bent out of
joint. She wondered if Carlos did not yield to her because she was
too kind when she asked. Or, because she was a woman. Or,
because Carlos was envious that she got the supervisory position for
which both had competed. Carlos was uncomfortable with the
interaction, too.

If Carlos had no clue that Beth was upset, would this scene still
constitute interpersonal conflict? Perhaps. The seeds of conflict are
planted when disharmony is felt within any one of the participants.
Next time Beth approaches Carlos she may change her approach.
She may be more abrupt, leading Carlos to wonder if Beth got up on
the wrong side of the bed. Carlos may then, in turn, react negatively
to Beth, thus escalating the conflict. Individuals sometimes
encounter stress and negative emotion out of an interaction—
whether or not they ever confront each other about their feelings.

Wherever choices exist there is potential for disagreement. Such

differences, when handled properly, can result in richer, more
effective, creative solutions and interaction. But alas, it is difficult to
consistently turn differences into opportunities. When disagreement
is poorly dealt with, the outcome can be contention. Contention
creates a sense of psychological distance between people, such as
feelings of dislike, bitter antagonism, competition, alienation, and
disregard.

Whether dealing with family members or hired personnel, sooner or

later challenges will arise. It is unlikely that we find ourselves at a
loss of words when dealing with family members. Communication
patterns with those closest to us are not always positive, however,
often falling into a predictable and ineffective exchange.

With hired personnel and strangers, we may often try and put forth
our best behavior. Out of concern for how we are perceived, we may
err in saying too little when things go wrong. We may suffer for a
long time before bringing issues up. This is especially so during
what could be called a "courting period." Instead of saying things
directly, we often try to hint.

But the honeymoon is likely to end sooner or later. At some point

this "courting behavior" often gets pushed aside out of necessity.
We may find it easier to sweep problems under the psychological
rug until the mound of dirt is so large we cannot help but trip over it.
Sometime after that transition is made, it may become all too easy to
start telling the employee or co-worker exactly what has to be done
differently. An isolated episode such as the one between Beth and
Carlos may or may not affect their future working relationship.

Persons differ in their sensitivity to comments or actions of others,

as well as their ability to deal with the stress created by a conflict
situation. While it is important that we are sensitive to how we
affect others, there is much virtue in not taking offense easily
ourselves. Or by finding constructive outlets to dissipate stressful
feelings (e.g., exercise, music, reading, an act of service to another,
or even a good night's sleep). It does little good, however, to appear
unaffected while steam builds up within and eventually explodes.

When disagreements emerge it is easy to hear without listening.

People involved in conflict often enlist others to support their
perspective and thus avoid trying to work matters out directly with
the affected person.

Our self-esteem is more fragile than most of us would like to admit

(see Chapter 6, Sidebar 3). Unresolved conflict often threaten
whatever self-esteem we may possess. By finding someone who
agrees with us, we falsely elevate that self-esteem. But we only
build on sand. Our self-esteem will be constructed over a firmer
foundation when we learn to deal effectively with the conflict. In
Spanish there are two related words, self-esteem is called
autoestima, while false self-esteem is called amor propio (literally,
"self-love").

It takes more skill, effort and commitment--and, at least in the short

run, more stress--to face the challenge together with the other
person involved in the dispute. Certainly it seems as if it would be
easier to fight, withdraw, or give in. Yet in the long run, working
through difficulties together will help us live a less stressful and
more fulfilling life.

Fighting it out. A man sat in his train compartment looking out into
the serene Russian countryside. Two women entered to join him.
One held a lap dog. The women looked at this man with contempt,
for he was smoking. In desperation, one of the women got up, lifted
up the window, took the cigar off the man’s lips, and threw it out.
The man sat there for a while, and then proceeded to re-open the
window, grab the woman’s dog from off her lap, and throw it out
the window. No, this is not a story from today’s Russian newspaper,
instead it is from Fyodor Dostoevsky’s 19th century novel, The
Idiot. The number and seriousness of workplace violence cases in
agriculture seems to be on the rise, and farm employers can respond
with effective policies and increased education.

Yielding. While most can readily see the negative consequences and
ugliness of escalating contention, we often do not consider how
unproductive and harmful withdrawing or giving in can be.
Naturally, there are occasions when doing so is not only wise, but
honorable (as there are times to stand firm). If a person feels
obligated to continually give in and let another have his way, such
yielding individual may stop caring and withdraw psychologically
from the situation.

Avoidance. When we engage in avoidance, it only weakens already

fragile relationships. These "others" (e.g., sympathetic co-workers)
usually tend to agree with us. They do so not just because they are
our friends, but mostly because they see the conflict and possible
solutions from our perspective. After all, they heard the story from
us. Once a person has the support of a friend, she may feel justified
in her behavior and not try to put as much energy into solving the
conflict.

One particularly damaging form of conflict avoidance is to send

someone else to deliver a message or confront another on our
behalf. At best, the individual not spoken to directly will be hurt that
such a tactic was taken. At worst, the go-between person cherishes
the power trip involved, allowing himself to become a sort of arbiter
in the conflict.

We often are too quick to assume that a disagreement has no

possible mutually acceptable solution. Talking about disagreements
may result in opportunities to strengthen relationships and improve
productivity. Obviously, talking problems through is not so easy.
Confronting an issue may require (1) exposing oneself to ridicule or
rejection, (2) recognizing we may have contributed to the problem,
and (3) willingness to change.

We can reduce stress, resolve challenges and increase productivity

through effective dialogue. Such a conversation entails as much
listening as talking. While effective two-way exchanges will happen
naturally some of the time, for the most part they need to be
carefully planned. There may be some pain--or at least moving us
out of our comfort zones--involved in discussing challenging issues,
but the rewards are satisfaction and improved long-term
relationships.

When faced with challenges, we tend to review possible alternatives

and come up with the best solution given the data at hand.
Unwanted options are discarded. While some decisions may take
careful consideration, analysis, and even agony, we solve others
almost instinctively. Our best solution becomes our position or
stance in the matter. Our needs, concerns and fears all play a part in
coming up with such a position. Misunderstanding and dissent can
grow their ugly heads when our solution is not the same as those of
others.

Several foes often combine to create contention:

 Our first enemy is the natural need to want to explain our

side first. After all, we reason, if they understand our
perspective, they will come to the same conclusions we did.
 Our second enemy is our ineffectiveness as listeners.
Listening is much more than being quiet so we can have our
turn. It involves a real effort to understand another person's
perspective.
 Our third enemy is fear. Fear that we will not get our way.
Fear of losing something we cherish. Fear we will be made
to look foolish or lose face. Fear of the truth ... that we may
be wrong.
 Our fourth enemy is the assumption that one of us has to lose
if the other is going to win: that such differences can only be
solved competitively.

The good news is that there are simple and effective tools to spin
positive solutions and strengthen relationships out of disagreements.
But let not the simplicity of the concepts obscure the challenge of
carrying them out consistently. Certainly life gives us plenty of
opportunities to practice and attempt to improve. However, the foes
outlined above take effort to overcome.

Tools for Improved Communication

Two principles have contributed greatly to the productive handling

of disagreements. The first, "Seek first to understand, then to be
understood," was introduced by Steven Covey, in Seven Habits of
Highly Effective People.1 If we encourage others to explain their
side first, they will be more apt to listen to ours.

For instance, I sometimes need to interview farm personnel about

their feelings on various subjects. One day I came across a farm
owner who was less than enthusiastic about my project.

It was clear from his words and tone that I would not be
interviewing anyone on his farm, so I switched my focus to
listening. The farmer shared concerns on a number of troublesome
issues and we parted amiably. When I was on my way to my vehicle
the farmer yelled, "Go ahead!"

"Go ahead and what?" I turned around and inquired. To my surprise

he responded, "Go ahead and interview my workers." The Covey
principle was at work.

The second principle, introduced by Roger Fisher and William Ury

in their seminal work, Getting to Yes,2 is that people in disagreement
should focus on their needs rather than on their positions. By
concentrating on positions, we tend to underscore our
disagreements. When we concentrate on needs, we find we have
more in common than what we had assumed. Ury and Fisher
suggest we attempt to satisfy the sum of both their needs and our
needs.
When the light goes on we realize that it is not a zero sum game
(where one person has to lose for the other to win). Nor is it
necessary to solve disagreements with a lame compromise. Instead,
often both parties can be winners. Individuals can learn how to keep
communication lines open and solve challenges when things go
wrong. Learning to disagree amicably and work through problems is
perhaps one of the most important interpersonal skills we can
develop.

Putting it all together

If we come right out and tell someone, "I disagree," we are apt to
alienate that person. Successful negotiators are more likely to label
their intentions, such as a desire to ask a difficult question or
provide a suggestion, and are less prone to label disagreement.3
Problems are likely, however, to increase if we put all our needs
aside to focus on another person’s perspective. The other party may
think we have no needs and be quite taken back when we introduce
them all of a sudden, almost as an afterthought.

In order to avoid such unproductive shock, I like the idea of briefly

saying something along these lines. "I see that we look at this issue
from different perspectives. While I want to share my needs and
views with you later, let me first focus on your thoughts, needs, and
observations." At this point, we can now put our needs aside,
attempt to truly listen, and say: "So, help me understand what your
concerns are regarding ...."

That is the easy part. The difficulty comes in fulfilling such a

resolution to really listen to resist the tendency to interrupt with
objections no matter how unfounded some of the comments may be.
Instead of telling someone that we understand (just so they can
finish and give us a turn to present our perspective), we can be much
more effective by revealing exactly what it is that we understand.
All along we must resist, as we listen, the temptation to bring up our
viewpoints and concerns. In trying to comprehend, we may need to
put our understanding in terms of a question, or a tentative
statement. This way we show true awareness.

We may have to refine our statement until the other stakeholder

approves it as a correct understanding of his position or need. It is
necessary not only to understand, but for the other person to feel
understood. Only now can we begin to explain our perspective and
expect to be fully listened to. Once we have laid out our concerns,
we can focus on a creative solution. If we have had no history with
someone, or a negative one, we need to use more caution when
disagreeing. The potential for a disagreement to be side-railed into
contention is always there. It helps if we have made goodwill
deposits over time.

Involving a Third Party

Sometimes differences in organizational level, personality or self-

esteem among the participants in a disagreement require the
participation of a third party. For instance, one supervisor had
resorted to bullying and implied threats to get his way. "I would
have gladly tried to find a way to help my supervisor achieve his
goals," the subordinate explained through her tears. "But now I am
so sensitized, I am afraid of talking to him."

Telling employees to work out their troubles on their own, grow up,
or shake hands and get along may work occasionally, but most of
the time the conflict will only be sent underground to resurface later
in more destructive ways.

A better approach is to allow employees to meet with a third party,

or mediator (which, in some cases, may be a manager or the farm
owner), to assist them in their own resolution of the conflict.

All things being equal, an outside mediator has a greater chance of

succeeding. An insider may be part of the problem, may be
perceived as favoring one of the stakeholders, and the stakeholders
may be hesitant to share confidential information with an insider.

If the insider is a supervisor, the mediator role becomes more

difficult, as supervisors tend to become overly directive, taking
more of an arbiter's role and forcing a decision upon the parties.

The conflict management process is more apt to succeed if

stakeholders have respect for the mediator's integrity, impartiality,
and ability. Respect for the mediator is important, so stakeholders
will be on their best behavior, an important element in successful
negotiation. Although not always the case, over-familiarity with an
inside mediator may negate this "best behavior" effect.

An outside mediator should treat issues with confidentiality.

Exceptions are such instances as where illegal activities have taken
place (e.g., sexual harassment).

All parties should be informed of exceptions to the confidentiality

rule ahead of time. Any sharing of information based on the
exceptions needs to be done on a need-to-know basis to minimize
giving out information that could hurt one or both of the parties.
Employees may be less hesitant to speak out when assured of
confidentiality. Sometimes conflicts involve personal issues.

A much more sensitive situation involves the role of the mediator

when stakeholders are not able to come to a negotiated resolution.
Researchers have found that, in some instances, mediation works
best when the third party is able to change roles, and in the event
that mediation fails, become an arbiter. On the plus side,
stakeholders may put their best foot forward and try hard to resolve
issues. Unfortunately, while some mediators may be able to play
both roles without manipulating the situation, the road is left wide
open for abuse of power. Furthermore, individuals may feel coerced
and not trust a mediator when what is said in confidence now may
be taken against them later.

Mediation

Mediation helps stakeholders discuss issues, repair past injuries, and

develop the tools needed to face disagreements effectively.
Mediators may help participants glimpse at their blind spots,
broaden their perspectives, and even muddle through the problem-
solving process. Yet, successful mediators remember that the
challenges are owned by the stakeholders and do not attempt to
short-circuit the process by solving challenges for them.

Mediators facilitate the process by:

 Understanding each participant’s perspective through a pre-

caucus.
 Increasing and evaluating participant interest in solving the
challenge through mediation.
 Setting ground rules for improved communication.
 Coaching participants through the joint session.
 Equalizing power (e.g., between persons in different
organizational levels).
 Helping participants plan for future interaction.

Understanding each participant’s perspective through a pre-caucus

The pre-caucus is a separate meeting between the mediator and each

stakeholder before the stakeholders are brought together in a joint
session. During the pre-caucus the mediator will briefly explain the
issue of confidentiality and the mechanics of the mediation process
so stakeholders will not be surprised or have a sense of being lost.

The mediator also should offer stakeholders the opportunity for

regular caucusing (a meeting away from the other stakeholder) any
time they feel a need for it. It is important that stakeholder control is
emphasized throughout the process. Participants should not agree on
something just for the sake of agreement. If there are yet unmet
needs, these should be brought up. Sometimes, a few changes in a
potential solution can make the difference between an agreement
that will fail or succeed.

While there are hundreds of factors that can affect the successful
resolution of a conflict, the pre-caucus is one of the pillars of
conflict management.4

Although any talking between the mediator and one of the

stakeholders alone can be perceived as suspect and potentially
influence the neutrality of the mediator, such fears assume a
mediator-directive approach where the third party wields much
power and often acts as a quasi-arbitrator. When the mediation
process is understood--from the beginning--as one where each of the
stakeholders retains control over the outcome, less importance is
given to mediator neutrality.

The pre-caucus provides each stakeholder an opportunity to be

heard and understood. One of the reasons why conflict situations are
so challenging, is the natural tendency of stakeholders to each want
to express their respective perspectives first which to some degree
takes place in the pre-caucus. The more deep-seated and emotional
the conflict, the greater this need.

At a dairy operation, I had just been introduced to one of the

stakeholders by the farm owner. As soon as the farmer left us alone
to begin our pre-caucus, the stakeholder broke into tears. A similar
situation took place at a row crop farm enterprise where one of the
farm managers began to cry, ostensibly because of other issues
pressing heavily upon him. Had these men come immediately into a
joint meeting with their respective contenders, their feelings of
vulnerability might just as easily have turned into anger and
defensiveness.

One manager told me that the pre-caucus would be very short with a
milker who was not a man of many words. The milker spoke for
almost two hours. By the time we finished, he felt understood and
had gained confidence, and by the time we were into the middle of
the joint session with the other stakeholder, this same employee was
even laughing when it was appropriate. I have found that these
"silent types" will often open up during a pre-caucus.

When a stakeholder feels understood, an enormous emotional

burden is lifted; stress and defensiveness are reduced. This makes
people more confident and receptive to listen to the other party.

Separating the people from the conflict. Winslade and Monk in

Narrative Mediation argue that while people are theoretically free in
terms of what they say in a conversation, most often stakeholders
feel their responses are influenced by the remarks of the other. They
often see themselves entrapped within the conflict cycle.

Winslade and Monk ask individuals how they might have felt forced
by the conflict to do or say things that they wish they had not. Or,
how the conflict has affected them negatively in other ways. By
placing the blame on the conflict itself, the mediator allows the
stakeholders to save face and slowly distance themselves from the
conflict-saturated story. Such a situation can help stakeholders
detach themselves from the conflict long enough to see that each has
a choice as to whether he wants to continue feeding the conflict. The
authors further suggest that if the mediator listens with an ethic of
curiosity, unexpected benefits are likely to arise. Instead of merely
listening to confirm hunches and reconcile facts, the third party
realizes that stakeholders often bring to mediation an olive branch
along with their anger and despair. Thus, stakeholders often hold the
very keys to the reconstruction of broken relationships and to the
solving of challenges. But the mediator has to have enough
confidence in people and in the process to allow these issues to
surface and to be on the lookout for them so they do not go
unnoticed.5

During the pre-caucus, the mediator notes as many issues as

possible from each stakeholder (they often overlap considerably)
and later introduces them in a systematic fashion for the
stakeholders to discuss in the joint session. The more issues raised,
the greater the opportunity for discussion and the less likelihood that
important issues will be left out.

Increasing and evaluating participant interest in solving challenge

through mediation

There seems to be a pattern in deep-seated organizational

interpersonal conflict: each stakeholder is overly distracted with the
stress of the conflict, has difficulty sleeping at night, and is
generally thinking of quitting. Sometimes individuals may be in
denial about the negative effect that contention has in their lives.
One manager claimed that he just got angry and exploded, but that
his anger did not last long. He explained that he did not hold
grudges, that by the next day he had put aside any bad feelings for
the other person. During a mediation session this same manger
admitted that a recent confrontation with the other stakeholder had
made him so angry it left him sick for a couple of days. Part of the
role of the mediator in meeting individually with each stakeholder is
to help individuals visualize a life without that stress.

In the process of meeting with the stakeholders, the mediator can

make a more informed determination as to whether to proceed with
mediation or recommend arbitration or another approach. As
effective as mediation can be, under certain circumstances more
harm than good can result from bringing parties together. The
purpose of mediation is not to simply provide a safe place for
stakeholders to exchange insults!

Transformative opportunities. In The Promise of Mediation, Bush

and Folger suggest that mediators watch for and recognize
transformative opportunities in terms of recognition that can be
offered between participants. Such recognition may involve
compliments or showing understanding, empathy, or other forms of
mutual validation.6 A fruit grower, almost as an aside, had
something positive to say about the other party, "One thing I really
value about the farm manager is that he shows pride in his work--
something I really admired in my father." The grower reacted
negatively to the idea of sharing this with the farm manager, yet
decided to do so his own during the joint session.

Looking for the positive. While a number of issues can affect the
likely success of a joint mediation session, perhaps none is as telling
as asking each stakeholder what they value in the other contender.
This question should be asked after the participant has had a
chance to vent, and the mediator has shown understanding for the
challenges from the stakeholder's perspective.

There is a human tendency not to find anything of value in a person

with whom there has been deep-seated contention. After a person
feels understood by the mediator, there is a greater likelihood that
the stakeholder will see a little light of good in his contender.

Without this tiny light of hope, without this little olive branch, there
is no point in proceeding. If there is nothing of significance that one
person can value about the other, more harm than good can come
out of the mediation. And it is not enough to say that the other
person "is always on time," "drives a nice pick up," "is attractive,"
or "does not smell."

Sometimes one of the stakeholders will be more noble than the

other, a little more prone to see good in the other. On one occasion,
I had already met with such an individual in a pre-caucus and asked
the second stakeholder, during his pre-caucus, for the positive
characteristics of the first. When the answer was “none,” I shared
the positive things that were said about him by the first employee
and asked again. Because stakeholders want to seem reasonable,
especially after hearing something positive about themselves, I was
surprised by a second refusal by the more reticent stakeholder to
find anything of value about the other.

“Well, if there is nothing positive you can say about the other
employee, there is no purpose in attempting a conflict management
session together,” I explained. I suggested a short break. When we
returned, the taciturn stakeholder had prepared a long list of positive
attributes about the other employee.

Repairing past injuries. Occasionally, it helps to role play to

identify potential pitfalls ahead of time. For instance, at one farm
operation, a manager's angry outbursts were well known. Martin,
the manager, had minimized the seriousness of his problem. A co-
mediator role-played the other party in the contention. "Martin," she
began. "When you get angry at me, shout at me and use profanity, I
feel very badly."

"Well, I am so sorry I have used bad language with you and been
angry at you," Martin began nicely. "But ...." And then Martin
began to excuse himself and to place conditions on controlling his
anger. At this moment I had to interrupt. An apology with a comma
or a but is not a true apology, but merely a statement of justification,
I explained. In total frustration Martin turned to me and said, "Look,
everyone has their style. Some people deal with disagreement this
way or that. I am an expert in intimidation. If I can't use
intimidation, what can I do so I don't get run over? Am I supposed
to just sit here and tell him how nice he is and not bring up any of
the areas of disagreement?"
When mediators have done their homework during the pre-caucus,
the joint session can be very positive. This case involving Martin
was one of the most difficult I had ever dealt with, yet once the joint
session began, both managers did most of the talking. They were
extremely cordial, attentive, and amicable, showing understanding
for each other. Although the problems were not solved from one day
to the next, a year later there had been much positive progress.

Setting ground rules for improved communication

Individuals attempt to cultivate an identity or projection of who they

are. For instance, a person may see herself as an intellectual, another
may see himself as an outdoors person, a cowboy, or an artist. Such
identity labels are just a small part of a much deeper and complex
set of traits that any individual would value.

An important part of mindful interpersonal communication is the

mutual validation of such identities, through a process of identity
negotiation. People tend to build bonds with those who seem
supportive of the identity they attempt to project.7 Such mutual
validation is one of the keys to effective interpersonal relations.
Lack of validation normally plays a vital role in interpersonal
conflict, as well. Some of the most hurtful things another individual
can say to us, are an attack on our self image or valued identity.

People do not just project identities of who they are, but also the
personal qualities of who they wish to become. When a person's
weaknesses are exposed, he may reason that it is not worth trying to
pretend anymore. Because those who are closest to us are more
likely to have seen our weaknesses, we may first stop pretending
with family, close friends, and people at work. This attitude also
plays an important part in interpersonal conflict.

One of the important roles of a mediator is to help stakeholders who

have crossed the line and stopped pretending, to re-cross back, and
thus get a second chance at a relationship. If we have decided to
thus change our behavior, it helps to clearly state our intentions
ahead of time, so that our new and corrected behavior is not
misunderstood.

Coaching and modeling effective interaction styles is an ongoing

task for the mediator. The objective is for stakeholders to increase
their understanding of effective interpersonal relations. Before
conflicting parties meet, it helps to set ground rules that will help
parties avoid hurtful comments, and even increase positive
validating ones. Ground rules will help the conflict from escalating
and save time once mediation is under way. It is not the role of the
mediator to simply allow the contenders to exchange cynical
remarks, insults, name calling, and threats in a psychologically safer
environment. Nor should the mediator allow contenders to drag her
into the controversy. Instead, the mediator may have to remind
employees to direct their comments to (and keep visual contact
with) the other person involved in the disagreement.

Overly vague or broad statements such as, "You are inconsiderate,"

or, "You are overbearing," do little to facilitate mutual
understanding. Specific issues, or events, and what motivated each
to act in certain ways, may be more useful. In the pre-caucus, ask
the stakeholder using such sweeping statements for examples of
times when the other individual acted in inconsiderate, overbearing,
untrustworthy or selfish ways. These behaviors can later be
discussed in the joint session.

Name-calling can have a very negative effect. For instance, a

Mexican dairy employee called another employee a racist. That is a
pretty big word, with very strong connotations. The other
stakeholder, a Portuguese milker, was very hurt by the use of such a
word. The mediator stopped the conversation to make sure all were
defining the word in the same way. "Are you saying that this milker
treats you different because you are Mexican and he is Portuguese?"
After the term was well explained and a few more questions asked,
the Mexican milker ended up apologizing, and the Portuguese
employee had the opportunity to tell a story that illustrated he was
not racist. It is not the role of the mediator to reject such as
accusation without allowing stakeholders to speak what is in their
mind.

Beside name-calling, the use of other labels can increase contention.

Calling someone by a label, even when the person identifies with
such (e.g., a person's nationality), can be offensive depending on the
tone and context. A more subtle use of labeling, one that can have
the same negative effect, is describing our own perspective as
belonging to a desirable label (e.g., a particularly cherished
philosophy, principle or belief), while assigning that of another to an
undesirable one.

Stakeholders also look for ways to enlist even theoretical others into
supporting their views. They may attempt to inflate the importance
of their opinions with such statements as, "everyone else agrees with
me when I say that ...." Or, attribute a higher source of authority to
their words: "According to such and such (an author, or respected
person)..." A stakeholder may wish to discount the opinion of others
by speaking of their experience: "In my twenty years of
experience ..." Once again, the tone and context of the conversation
may make some of these statements appropriate in one circumstance
and not in another. People may resort to dysfunctional tactics when
the force of their argument does not stand on its own merits.

Along with labeling, threats--both direct and veiled--can reduce a

stakeholder's negotiating power. When these intimidation tactics are
bluffs, then the loss of negotiation power is further magnified.

The mediator may also coach employees into owning up to their

feelings by using "I" statements.8 "I feel upset when you change my
radio station while I am milking," is preferable to "You make me
angry when ...."

Only one person should speak at a time, while the other makes
every possible effort to understand what is being said. One
defensive tactic is to change the topic. While sometimes two topics
are so closely related that they cannot be separated, generally new
topics can be placed on a "list of other matters" to be brought up
later.

Workers involved in highly charged conflict situations frequently

try to ridicule their contenders by distorting or exaggerating what
has been said. I call this distorted mirroring. For instance, an
employee may inaccurately mirror a comment, such as: "So you are
telling me that you never want me to... ," or, "I get it, you think you
are the only one who ...," "You used to be [something positive] but
now [negative statement]," "It seems that you are always ... these
days."

Participants may sometimes seek shelter from a true give-and-take

with such statements as, "That's just the way I am,"9 or, "Can't you
take a joke?" While a mediator cannot force someone out of his
shell, he may help participants understand the detracting effects
these statements may have. The earlier the mediator disallows
distortions or manipulative tactics, the sooner employees will realize
that this is not a verbal battle.

A mediator may also need to coach employees on how to formulate

questions and comments. Participants need to talk without putting
each other on the defensive or coming across as accusatory.
Especially when under the stress of a conflict, people will be quite
sensitive to intended and non-intended statements of double
meaning. A critical role for the mediator may be to ask for
clarification or coach stakeholders in properly reflecting statements.
 Coaching participants through the joint session.

The time has come to bring both stakeholders together into a joint
session. A mechanical aspect to mediation that is extremely
powerful is the seating arrangement. Have the two parties sit facing
each other such that they are in a position to have good eye contact,
yet making sure there is enough space between them so their
personal space is not violated. This arrangement underscores the
message that they are there to talk to each other. Because people
who are in conflict often discount the other person, having to
exchange eye contact can be powerful medicine toward
reconciliation. A table may be appropriate in some circumstances.

The mediator sits far enough away that stakeholders would have to
turn their heads if they wished to make eye contact with him. It is
not easy for the stakeholders to check if they have "scored a point,"
or to enlist the mediator to their side. If the stakeholders make such
an attempt, the mediator reminds them that the person they need to
convince is the other party.

The seating arrangement described above is such a powerful tool,

that I have seen people apologize to each other, be more
considerate, call each other by name, and use many positive
behaviors even when the complete mediation approach outlined in
this chapter was not used. The seating arrangement is a second
mediation pillar.

The mediator can also encourage participants to call each other by

name. This can be a difficult thing at first. People who have been
contending tend to discount the other person and instead the person
"he," "she," "the boss," or something other than the person's name.
Addressing someone by name acknowledges and validates the other
person's humanness.

Successfully dealing with any issue under contention (e.g., the

offering and accepting of an apology, or having participants agree
on how they will deal with a future challenge) can be very
energizing and give the participants the confidence they need to face
the next difficulty that comes up.

It is good to talk about the past. A discussion of past behaviors is

essential to analyze patterns of conflict and help participants find
constructive ways of handling future disagreements. Without
understanding the past, it is hard to prepare for the future. At some
point, however, the focus of discussion turns to that of future
behaviors, rather than past injuries. The sooner the participants can
focus on the future, the greater the chances of successful
resolution.10

One of the roles of the mediator is to encourage participants to be

more specific in their agreements, to help question potential
landmines, and to encourage stakeholders to recapitulate what
seems to have been agreed upon. When dealing with more difficult
challenges, part of the role of the mediator is to keep the parties
from becoming discouraged by showing them how far they have
progressed.

Stakeholders can be taught to utilize the concepts introduced earlier,

in terms of participant positions versus needs. Recall the case of
Beth and Carlos at the beginning of the chapter, where each of their
stances appeared incompatible with that of the other (i.e., whether
Carlos should yield to the prescribed overtime request).

Mediators help dissipate contentious feelings by teaching

stakeholders how to find creative ways to achieve the sum11 of the
needs (theirs and the opposing ones). By going past an obvious
stance and looking into needs, we may find that (1) Beth wanted the
tomato harvester repairs completed before harvest--which is
scheduled to begin early next week, while (2) Carlos wanted to be
home to celebrate his daughter's quinceañera (coming of age party)
Friday evening.

Once the manager and mechanic understand each other's needs, they
can agree on a solution—perhaps the mechanic can work the
overtime on Wednesday and Thursday. This case may seem simple
and the solution obvious—except, perhaps, to Beth and Carlos
before they explored each other's needs. The approach works well
for more complex issues, too.

Separating position from needs, in such a way that parties attempt to

understand each others needs is another mediation pillar.

Mediators should not be in too big of a hurry to move participants

from their position statement and explanation of their fears and
needs, to problem resolution. It is vital to first truly understand the
nature of the challenges that seem to divide individuals. Allowing
stakeholders to hold an initial position allows each to feel
understood and to retain a sense of control and ownership over the
process. A great tool is to have stakeholders explain, to the best of
their ability, the position of the other.

Stakeholders tend to discount each other by refusing to even

acknowledge that the other has a position. For instance, a cook was
asked to recognize that the field foreman needed meals to arrive on
time to the crews. Yet the cook could not focus away from the fact
that there were meals being wasted each day.

“You see, its his fault because …”

“We are not talking about faults at this time, we just want you to
state the perspective of the field foreman,” the mediator interrupted.

“Well, you see, he thinks that he can get away with ….”

The cook had to be stopped over a dozen times, because it was so

difficult for him to even state (and thus validate) the other’s
position. Once he stopped evading the process and gave the position
of the field foreman, and the field foreman did the same for the
cook, they quickly came to a solution that benefited everyone and
saved the grower money. A missing step here, one that may have
helped smooth the transition between an internal focus and stating
the other stakeholder's position, would have been to first encourage
the stakeholders to ask fact finding and non-judgmental questions of
each other.12 An agreement was made that the field foreman would
radio the cook with an exact meal count for the day. Because the
cook had an exact count, he had fewer meals to cook and thus could
produce them faster. A structured way to clarify positions and needs
for a two-person negotiation is outlined in Sidebar 13-2.

Sidebar 13-2. Position vs. needs13 in conflict management

Position A Position B

 Need A-1  Need B-1

 Need B-2
 Need A-2  Need B-3

1. Participants divide a paper, chalkboard, or wipe board into four

sections (as shown above).
2. Participants seek to understand and record each other’s position
(i.e., stance).
3. Participants are free to restate, modify, or further clarify their
position at any time.
4. Participants now seek to understand and record each other’s
needs. Taking the time to ask effective questions of each other
(see Chapter 12) is an important part of reaching such
understanding.
 5. Participants brainstorm ways of fulfilling all the needs (in some
cases solutions may not be obvious at once and stakeholders may
want to sleep on it). For brainstorming to be effective, possible
solutions should not be evaluated at the time, and even outlandish
and extreme possible solutions should be entertained. Only later,
are these solutions examined for the positive and negative factors
that they contribute.
6. Participants should resist solutions where they no longer have to
interact with each other. To avoid each other takes little creativity
and is seldom the best solution. Instead, participants need to seek
creative, synergetic solutions.
7. Tentative co-authored agreements are evaluated and refined in
light of potentially difficult obstacles that such solutions may yet
need to endure.
8. Agreements—including a possible co-authored new position—
are recorded.
9. Participants consent to evaluate results at pre-determined time
periods.

10. Fine tune agreements as needed and work on other challenges

together.
Stakeholders should not come to the table ready to expose or impose their solution. In
negotiation it is critical for stakeholders to first focus on defining and understanding
the nature of the challenge. It is often when stakeholders are not able to move past
their positions or stances that negotiations break down. Also, stakeholders want to feel
that they have some control over the decision-making process. This is hard to do when
decisions are made by others before the problems are fully explored (Chapter 17).

Each stakeholder needs to be vigilant that a solution will meet the other person's
needs, as well as their own. Stakeholders need to remember, that for the most part, the
only good solutions are those that will work for all the individuals involved.

Furthermore, sometimes people will yield to another as a test. These individuals want
to see if the other stakeholder has the minimum amount of care for anyone other than
himself. As a tactic, setting a trap to see if someone will get caught, is hardly a good
idea, of course. The more emotion involved, the less likely that the other stakeholder
will step back. Another manipulative approach is for a stakeholder to "give in" just to
be able to hold it against the other later on.

Negotiation will not be satisfactory when a person is more intent in:

 punishing another rather than coming to an agreement or modifying future

behavior
 winning rather than solving the challenge

Sometimes negotiation is attempted but people’s basic needs are incompatible. This
may be especially so when no distinction can be made between a person’s need and
her position.

When negotiation has failed—for whatever reasons—a clear need for resolving the
dispute through arbitration may develop. Bush and Folger suggest, however, that if a
door is left open for continued conversation, and if individual empowerment and
mutual recognition have taken place, then mediation was not a failure. Much more of a
failure, they argue, is for a mediator to be so focused on having stakeholders come to
an agreement that the agreement is forced, reducing the chances that it will be long
lasting.14

Equalizing power

Participants may bring different amounts of power into a situation. As long as both are
interested in negotiating a solution, power is essentially equalized. The effective
mediator helps parties listen and communicate with each other. You may also need to
draw out an employee who is having difficulty expressing himself.

A stance from either party indicating a lack of interest (1) in talking about the
problem, or (2) in the other person’s needs, would indicate unwillingness to be
involved in the negotiation process. Mediators can suggest that the joint session take
place in a location that is neutral and private--without telephone or any other sort of
interruptions.
Helping participants plan for future interaction

It is easier for employees to improve communication when aided by a competent

mediator. Part of the responsibility of the mediator is to help employees anticipate
some of the challenges they will face in the future. One difficulty is to take the time to
listen and communicate. Principal among the needed skills, is for sensitive listening. It
is difficult to always be on the alert for such sensitive listening and interaction as has
been discussed throughout this and the last chapter.

It sometimes takes years for employees to get into a pattern of negative interaction. It
is unlikely that one session will cure this no matter how outstanding the mediator or
the participants involved. One or more follow-up sessions with the mediator may help
participants refine skills and evaluate progress made.

Arbitration

The supervisor as an arbiter may do everything a mediator does but, at the end, will
make a judgment that the employees are expected to follow. It may be clear from the
outset that employees expect the supervisor to take the role of an arbiter. Or, it may
become increasingly evident as mediation is taking place, that an arbiter will be
needed. The supervisor needs to clearly communicate his role. If the role changes,
workers need understand that, too.

Because it is normally preferable for all parties involved to have a conflict solved at
the mediation rather than arbitration stage, it helps for a supervisor to be slow in taking
on the role of an arbiter, especially when these two individuals will have to continue
to work together. During the process of listening to the various perspectives, and
before making a decision, an arbiter may wish to offer employees the opportunity to
work out their own problem, or to work out difficulties through mediation.

At times, a judge and a judgment are needed. Supervisors who have to arbitrate should
avoid trying to make both parties happy with the decision. Most of the time it is simply
not possible. It may be an admirable goal for mediation, but not for arbitration.
Instead, the arbitrator is required to be impartial (there is no room for favoritism) and
fair (even if this seems one sided).

The well-loved story of wise Solomon of old is an early example of arbitration: Two
harlots had given birth. Some time after that, one of the women, while she was
sleeping, rolled over her child and suffocated him. When she woke up that night and
found the dead infant, she traded him for that of the other. When the second woman
woke up, she found the dead child by her. But when morning came, she could clearly
behold that this was not her child. Each woman claimed to be the true mother of the
baby that was still alive, and took their conflict before King Solomon. The king simply
asked for a sword, and then ordered: "Divide the living child in two, and give half to
the one, and half to the other." While the false mother thought this was a fine idea, the
true mother asked the king to save the child--even if this meant giving the infant to the
other woman. Solomon thus determined who the real mother was, and returned the
child to her.15 Unfortunately, Solomon’s pretended initial solution to the contending
mothers (to divide the baby in half) would often be carried out by supervisors in their
modern day arbitrator role. In their effort to try and please both workers, they create a
compromise that is often unfair, and frequently unworkable.

It takes little skill, and even less strength of character, to arbitrate in this manner.
Instead, a supervisor who arbitrates with fairness is more apt to be respected by
employees in the long run. After difficulties are worked out, employees often find that
their relationships have been strengthened.

Summary

Wherever there are choices to be made, differences may provide challenges or

opportunities. One difficulty is the possibility that differences will result in increased
contention. Supervisors may have to act as mediators and arbitrators from time to time.
The advantage of mediation is maintaining responsibility for problem solving and
conflict resolution at the level of those who own the challenge. Selecting an outside
mediator often makes sense.

Several roles taken on by the mediator include understanding each participant’s

perspective; setting ground rules for improved communication; coaching participants
on effective interaction styles; equalizing power; and helping participants plan for
future interaction.

When the supervisor acts in the role of an arbitrator, it is more important to make a fair
judgment than to try to please all workers involved.

Chapter 13 References

1. Covey, S. (1989). Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
2. Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement
Without Giving In (2nd ed.). Penguin Books, and Deetz, S. A., & Stevenson, S. L.
(1986). Managing Interpersonal Communication. New York: Harper & Row
Publishers.
3. Rackham, N. (1999). The Behavior of Successful Negotiators (3rd ed.) (p. 348).
Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, and Cases. Edited by Lewicki, Saunders & Minton.
Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
4. Billikopf, G. E. Contributions of Caucusing and Pre-Caucusing to Mediation (in
press). Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal.
5. Winslade, J., & Monk, G. (2000). Narrative Mediation: A New Approach to
Conflict Resolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
6. Bush, R. A., Baruch & Folger, J. P. (1994). The Promise of Mediation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
7. Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating Across Cultures. New York: The
Guilford Press.
8. Deetz, S. A., & Stevenson, S. L. (1986). Managing Interpersonal
Communication. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
9. Walton, R. E. (1987). Managing Conflict: Interpersonal Dialogue and Third-
Party Roles (2nd ed.) (p. 108). Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
10. Robert, M. (1982). Managing Conflict From the Inside Out (pp. 119-128).
University Associates. Excellent suggestions are also provided on how to manage
conflict among groups.
11. Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement
Without Giving In (2nd ed.). Penguin Books, and Deetz, S. A., & Stevenson, S. L.
(1986) Managing Interpersonal Communication. New York: Harper & Row
Publishers.
12. Bodine, N. (2001, July). Founder and member of Board of Directors of The
Workplace Institute (now Center for Collaborative Solutions) personal
communication.
13. No distinction is intended between the concept of need and that of interest. In
chapter 17, where we further discuss some of these issues, the terms are used
interchangeably.
14. Bush, R. A., Baruch & Folger, J. P. (1994). The Promise of Mediation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
15. 1Kings 3:16-28.

Library of Congress Control Number 2001092378

© 2001 by The Regents of the University of California

Agricultural Issues Center

All rights reserved.

Printing this electronic Web page is permitted for personal, educational or non-
commercial use (such that people are not charged for the materials) as long as the
author and the University of California are credited, and the page is printed in its
entirety. We do not charge for reprints, but appreciate knowing how you are making
use of this paper. Please send us a message through the E-mail link at the top of this
page. The latest version of this chapter is available as a PDF file with photos, at no
cost, and can be accessed by using the corresponding link at the top of the page. This
is a public service of the University of California.

Dealing with Conflict

Conflict occurs when individuals or groups are not obtaining what they need or want
 and are seeking their own self-interest. Sometimes the individual is not aware of the
need and unconsciously starts to act out. Other times, the individual is very aware of
what he or she wants and actively works at achieving the goal.

About conflict:

 Conflict is inevitable;
 Conflict develops because we are dealing with people's lives, jobs, children,
pride, self-concept, ego and sense of mission or purpose;
 Early indicators of conflict can be recognized;
 There are strategies for resolution that are available and DO work;
 Although inevitable, conflict can be minimized, diverted and/or resolved.

Beginnings of conflict:

 Poor communication
 Seeking power
 Dissatisfaction with management style
 Weak leadership
 Lack of openness
 Change in leadership

Conflict indicators:

 Body language
 Disagreements, regardless of issue
 Withholding bad news
 Surprises
 Strong public statements
 Airing disagreements through media
 Conflicts in value system
 Desire for power
 Increasing lack of respect
 Open disagreement
 Lack of candor on budget problems or other sensitive issues
 Lack of clear goals
  No discussion of progress, failure relative to goals, failure to evaluate the
superintendent fairly, thoroughly or at all.

Conflict is destructive when it:

 Takes attention away from other important activities

 Undermines morale or self-concept
 Polarizes people and groups, reducing cooperation
 Increases or sharpens difference
 Leads to irresponsible and harmful behavior, such as fighting, name-calling

Conflict is constructive when it:

 Results in clarification of important problems and issues

 Results in solutions to problems
 Involves people in resolving issues important to them
 Causes authentic communication
 Helps release emotion, anxiety, and stress
 Builds cooperation among people through learning more about each other;
 joining in resolving the conflict
 Helps individuals develop understanding and skills

Techniques for avoiding and/or resolving (board-superintendent) conflict:

 Meet conflict head on

 Set goals
 Plan for and communicate frequently
 Be honest about concerns
 Agree to disagree - understand healthy disagreement would build better
decisions
 Get individual ego out of management style
 Let your team create - people will support what they help create
 Discuss differences in values openly
 Continually stress the importance of following policy
 Communicate honestly - avoid playing "gotcha" type games
 Provide more data and information than is needed
  Develop a sound management system

Causes of board-superintendent conflict:

How does a school board cause conflict with a superintendent?

 Trying to be administrators; overstepping authority

 Making promises as board members individually
 Involving themselves in labor relations or budgetary minutia
 Not doing their "homework" and failing to prepare for meetings
 Not following procedures for handling complaints
 Not keeping executive session information confidential
 Failing to act on sensitive issues
 Failing to be open and honest with the superintendent
 Making decisions based on preconceived notions
 Not supporting the superintendent - lack of loyalty
 Springing surprises at meetings
 Having hidden agendas

How does a superintendent cause conflict with a school board?

 Not treating board members alike

 Not informing the board members of public concerns
 Not providing adequate financial data or adequate information
 Using poor public management practices
 Making public statements before informing the board
 Failing to be open and honest with the board
 Not providing alternatives in an objective manner
 Not adjusting to the new reality of an involved board
 Not support the board - lack of loyalty
 Springing surprises at meetings
 Having hidden agendas

Elements of a strong board-superintendent partnerships

 Full disclosure
  Frequent two-way communication
 Careful planning
 Informal interaction
 Periodic evaluation
 Mutual support

Courageous decision controversies:

The controversies usually involve:

 Changes in the way "we've always done things"

 Notions of fundamental values
 Determined, articulate advocates for every side
 Inability to compromise
 Rampant rumors
 Threats of retaliation at the polls at the next bond, levy or school
 Board election

Resolving Conflict

Searching for the causes of conflict is essential to be successful in resolving the

conflict. Nine possible causes of conflict include:

 Conflict with self

 Needs or wants are not being met
 Values are being tested
 Perceptions are being questioned
 Assumptions are being made
 Knowledge is minimal
 Expectations are too high/too low
 Personality, race, or gender differences are present

Reaching Consensus through Collaboration

Groups often collaborate closely in order to reach consensus or agreement. The ability to use
collaboration requires the recognition of and respect for everyone's ideas, opinions, and
suggestions. Consensus requires that each participant must agree on the point being discussed
before it becomes a part of the decision. Not every point will meet with everyone's complete
approval. Unanimity is not the goal. The goal is to have individuals accept a point of view based
on logic. When individuals can understand and accept the logic of a differing point of view, you
must assume you have reached consensus.

Follow these guidelines for reaching consensus:

 Avoid arguing over individual ranking or position. Present a position as logically as

possible.
 Avoid "win-lose" statements. Discard the notion that someone must win.
 Avoid changing of minds only in order to avoid conflict and to achieve harmony.
 Avoid majority voting, averaging, bargaining, or coin flipping. These do not lead to
consensus. Treat differences of opinion as indicative of incomplete sharing of relevant
information, keep asking questions.
 Keep the attitude that holding different views is both natural and healthy to a group.

 View initial agreement as suspect. Explore the reasons underlying apparent agreement
and make sure that members have willingly agreed.

In this Module:
Governance and Professional Leadership
Leadership and Teams
Management Development Responsibilities

In the Toolkit:
Toolkit Home Page Why Change? Why Technology?
Planning Policy Curriculum and Assessment
Community Involvement Facility Planning Funding
Prof'l and Ldrship
Development

What's Your Conflict Management Style

Instructions: Listed below are 15 statements. Each strategy provides a possible

strategy for dealing with a conflict.
Give each a numerical value (i.e., 1=Always, 2=Very often, 3=Sometimes, 4= Not
very often, 5= Rarely, if ever.)
Don't answer as you think you should, answer as you actually behave.

____ a. I argue my case with peers, colleagues and coworkers to demonstrate the
merits of the position I take.

____ b. I try to reach compromises through negotiation.

____ c. I attempt to meet the expectation of others.

____ d. I seek to investigate issues with others in order to find solutions that are
mutually acceptable.

____ e. I am firm in resolve when it comes to defending my side of the issue.

____ f. I try to avoid being singled out, keeping conflict with others to myself.
____ g. I uphold my solutions to problems.

____ h. I compromise in order to reach solutions.

____ i. I trade important information with others so that problems can be solved
together.

____ j. I avoid discussing my differences with others.

____ k. I try to accommodate the wishes of my peers and colleagues.

____ l. I seek to bring everyone's concerns out into the open in order to resolve
disputes in the best possible way.

____ m. I put forward middles positions in efforts to break deadlocks.

____ n. I accept the recommendations of colleagues, peers, and coworkers.

____ o. I avoid hard feelings by keeping my disagreements with others to myself.

Scoring: The 15 statements you just read are listed below under five categories. Each
category contains the letters of three statements. Record the number you placed next
to each statement. Calculate the total under each category.

Style Total
Competing/Forcing
a. _____ e._____ g. _____ ______
Shark
Collaborating Owl d. _____ i. _____ l. _____ ______
Avoiding Turtle f. _____ j. _____ o. _____ ______
Accommodating Teddy
c._____ k. _____ n. _____ ______
Bear
Compromising Fox b. _____ h. _____ m. _____ ______

Results: My dominant style is _________________________________ ( Your

LOWEST score)

and my back-up style is_______________________________ (Your second Lowest

score)

Conflict Management Styles

The Competing Shark

 Sharks use a forcing or competing conflict management style

 sharks are highly goal-oriented
 Relationships take on a lower priority
 Sharks do not hesitate to use aggressive behaviour to resolve conflicts
 Sharks can be autocratic, authoritative, and uncooperative; threatening and
intimidating
 Sharks have a need to win; therefore others must lose, creating win-lose
situations
 Advantage: If the shark's decision is correct, a better decision without
compromise can result
 Disadvantage: May breed hostility and resentment toward the person using it
 Appropriate times to use a Shark style
o when conflict involves personal differences that are difficult to change
o when fostering intimate or supportive relationships is not critical
o when others are likely to take advantage of noncompetitive behaviour
o when conflict resolution is urgent; when decision is vital in crisis
o when unpopular decisions need to be implemented

The Avoiding Turtle

  Turtles adopt an avoiding or withdrawing conflict management style
 Turtles would rather hide and ignore conflict than resolve it; this leads them
uncooperative and unassertive
 Turtles tend to give up personal goals and display passive behaviour creating
lose-lose situations
 Advantage: may help to maintain relationships that would be hurt by conflict
resolution
 Disadvantage: Conflicts remain unresolved, overuse of the style leads to
others walking over them
 Appropriate times to use a Turtle Style:
o when the stakes are not high or issue is trivial
o when confrontation will hurt a working relationship
o when there is little chance of satisfying your wants
o when disruption outweighs benefit of conflict resolution
o when gathering information is more important than an immediate
decision
o when others can more effectively resolve the conflict
o when time constraints demand a delay\

The Accommodating Teddy Bear

 Teddy bears use a smoothing or accommodating conflict management style

with emphasis on human relationships
 Teddy bears ignore their own goals and resolve conflict by giving into others;
unassertive and cooperative creating a win-lose (bear is loser) situation
 Advantage: Accommodating maintains relationships
 Disadvantage: Giving in may not be productive, bear may be taken advantage
of
 Appropriate times to use a Teddy Bear Style
o when maintaining the relationship outweighs other considerations
o when suggestions/changes are not important to the accommodator
o when minimizing losses in situations where outmatched or losing
o when time is limited or when harmony and stability are valued
The Compromising Fox

 Foxes use a compromising conflict management style; concern is for goals and
relationships
 Foxes are willing to sacrifice some of their goals while persuading others to
give up part of theirs
 Compromise is assertive and cooperative-result is either win-lose or lose-lose
 Advantage: relationships are maintained and conflicts are removed
 Disadvantage: compromise may create less than ideal outcome and game
playing can result
 Appropriate times to use a Fox Style
o when important/complex issues leave no clear or simple solutions
o when all conflicting people are equal in power and have strong
interests in different solutions
o when their are no time restraints

The Collaborating Owl

 Owls use a collaborating or problem confronting conflict management style

valuing their goals and relationships
 Owls view conflicts as problems to be solved finding solutions agreeable to all
sides (win-win)
 Advantage: both sides get what they want and negative feelings eliminated
 Disadvantage: takes a great deal of time and effort
 Appropriate times to use an Owl Style
o when maintaining relationships is important
o when time is not a concern
o when peer conflict is involved
o when trying to gain commitment through consensus building
o when learning and trying to merge differing perspectives

Source: Mastering Human Relations, 3rd Ed. by A. Falikowski 2002 Pearson

Education http://www.pearsoned.ca
 BACK To Human Relations

BACK to Organizational Behaviour

PLEASE NOTE:

Information on this site is authorized for use only by the students of this
course.Students have permission to copy any of the content. For copyright
information of the linked sites please see the respective authors.

copyright 2002Karen E.Hamilton